That's exactly the opposite of what he is saying. When he says 'skill and power', he's talking about two seperate things you need at the same time.

Skill=experience
power=raw, natural talent.

If you don't have both, you can't beat Voldemort. That is obvious when Dumbledore says to Harry that:

Pg. 564 of the Half-blood Prince.

In Dumbledore's fifth year, no matter that it said he could do things with a wand the OWL instructor had never seen, he would never have been able to beat Voldemort as he is now. That means that he would also need experience and practice to beat dark wizards of Voldemort's calibre. That being said, it's obvious that an auror of Moody's experience, even though they've been fighting dark wizard's all their lives, still couldn't beat Voldemort because they don't have the magical skill to do so.

 

It was actually Dumbledore's seventh year. Marchbanks said she was his NEWT examiner. Please check the book. I'd say between Dumbledore and Tom, that Albus was definitely the Prodigy, and that Tom was just extremely talented and determined. I'd be willing to say that Harry is a lot like Dumbledore, though perhaps Dumbledore worked harder than Harry. See my argument on Harry's competence above. When Harry puts his mind to it, he goes BBQSauce powerful, and that doesn't just go away.

That's why I don't think raw magical power exists. There is no denying that Harry is powerful, if lacking skill. Once again, see argument. And if crossing the lake did have to do with the amount of power, than it wouldn't have worked, because no matter how powerful Albus is, if you add Harry then you have a problem. But what would that mean? That Dumbledore's magic is more developed than Harry's, which is undeniable.
Harry was under aged at the time. The magical maturity thing is legitimate, because it's been witnessed that Magic does indeed recognize 17 as a coming of age, otherwise why would the wards on Number 4 drop when he turned 17? So that would stand to argue that Harry's magic wasn't fully developed at the crossing of the lake, which, compared to Dumbledore's both fully developed and incredible aura, would fail to register.

I'd bet money that if they both had crossed that lake after Harry turned 17, then it wouldn't have worked at all. There is no more or less power between Albus and Harry, only development, because Albus was 10 times older than Harry was. Harry, despite having great magical talent, was not a fully developed wizard when crossing the lake, and thus, did not register, especially compared to Albus.

As far as needing skill and power to beat Voldemort, power could just as easily mean ability. Ability and skill are both needed to kill. Harry has the ability, but not the skill to use it, just like Neo was the one, but got whipped by Morpheus before he'd mastered his powers. That's why his magical brilliance comes in flashes like the lake and those steroid impedimentas at the DoM. He doesn't have the confidence and skill to use his talent consistently, which can be developed over time. So it can be said that Harry needs both skill and ability, but power doesn't have to mean more stores of magic or more force behind the spells. Almost any statement of power in the books can be easily replaced by Ability.

 

It was actually Dumbledore's seventh year. Marchbanks said she was his NEWT examiner. Please check the book.

Now, onto the argument. I'd say between Dumbledore and Tom, that Albus was definitely the Prodigy, and that Tom was just extremely talented and determined. I'd be willing to say that Harry is a lot like Dumbledore, though perhaps Dumbledore worked harder than Harry. See my argument on Harry's competence above. When Harry puts his mind to it, he goes BBQSauce powerful, and that doesn't just go away.

That's why I don't think raw magical power exists. There is no denying that Harry is powerful in the way of natural talent, if lacking skill. Once again, see argument. And if crossing the lake did have to do with the amount of power, than it wouldn't have worked, because no matter how powerful Albus is, if you add Harry then you have a problem. But what would that mean? That Dumbledore's magic is more developed than Harry's, which is undeniable.

Harry was under aged at the time. The magical maturity thing is legitimate, because it's been witnessed that Magic does indeed recognize 17 as a coming of age, otherwise why would the wards on Number 4 drop when he turned 17? So that would stand to argue that Harry's magic wasn't fully developed at the crossing of the lake, which, compared to Dumbledore's both fully developed and incredible magic, would fail to register.

I'd bet money that if they both had crossed that lake after Harry turned 17, then it wouldn't have worked at all. There is no more or less power between Albus and Harry, only development, because Albus was 10 times older than Harry was. Harry, despite having great magical talent, was not a fully developed wizard when crossing the lake, and thus, did not register, especially compared to Albus.

As far as needing skill and power to beat Voldemort, power could just as easily mean ability. Ability and skill are both needed to kill. Harry has the ability, but not the skill to use it, just like Neo was the one, but got whipped by Morpheus before he'd mastered his powers. That's why his magical brilliance comes in flashes like the lake and those steroid impedimentas at the DoM. He doesn't have the confidence and skill to use his talent consistently, which can be developed over time. So it can be said that Harry needs both skill and ability, but power doesn't have to mean more stores of magic or more force behind the spells. Almost any statement of power in the books can be easily replaced by Ability. It isn't so much power, as it is development, which you will see in DH.

 

How can their be squibs if their is no level to magical power? They have magic, just like a wizard, but they don't have much of it. If their isn't magical power then their can't be a middle level between muggle and wizard.

 

Squibs and Muggles are almost completely irrelevant in this argument. Neither can use magic, so their Ability would be impossible to gage. Squibs do have magic, but for some reason they can't use it. Muggles are simply devoid of magic at all. That's the middle level, and it has nothing to do with power.

 

It's not like squibs can't use magic at all. In the OotP Mrs. Figg said that her biggest accomplishment was transfiguration of tea bags, so it looks like squibs can use magic, but they don't have enough power to use a more complicated stuff.

 

That is incorrect. What she actually says is this:

Not that it's her greatest achievement: she has never done it.

I see nothing in canon to show that Squibs have any magic at all. Squib is just a name to call Muggles who have magical parents, because Purebloods probably don't want to acknowledge that Muggles could spring from their lines.

In addition to lack of evidence in canon, JKR explicitly states on her site they have no magic:

Found in Extra Stuff >> Miscellaneous >> Squibs

So, your argument from the existence from Squibs is out.

 

I have to get an English version. In Polish it's written exactly as I quoted - I knew that translations can be bad, but it sucks.

But what about the fact that squibs can see dementors, while muggles can't?

If they are muggles, who have magical parents, then they shouldn't see dementors at all, but either JKR don't know what she's talking about and is opposing herself, or that means that they can see magical stuff, because they were exposed to it in their youth (?).

 

Also taken from the same part of JKRs site.

I might as well link the whole thing: http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/extrastuff_view.cfm?id=19

I linked the text-only version, as its easier on the bandwidth.

 

In the courtroom she told that she saw dementors (she described them as big), so either my version is wrong again, or JKR can't decide what happened.

Either way it sucks.

 

She lied in the courtroom about seeing them. Remember how bad her description was? "Big, with cloaks" and she described them as "walking" rather than gliding.

Harry thinks that it sounds as if she has merely seen a picture in a book, and this is probably what had happened. As it says though, she knew it was Dementors because of their effects which she was able to identify and accuratly describe to the Wizengamot.

 

I hadn't thought about, but it's pretty funny - the whole Wizengamot tricked by an old lady with a bunch of cats, who can't do magic.

Strange is that elite of British wizards didn't know that she couldn't see them - Fudge would kick Dumbledore's ass, because his only witness lied, if he knew.

 

She didn't lie she was as nervus as hell.

Dumbledore wouldn't have brought her in if he didn't think she could see them and thus be of use. If squibs couldn't see them it would be rather brave of him to bring her in to lie hoping that no one in the court knew she wasn't able to.

The difference between running and gliding isn't to important in the whole idea that there was Dementors attacking someone.

 

Um...yes, she did lie, because Squibs can't see Dementors. Thus she had to have lied.

 

Why do you say that? I know of no canon that supports that statement.

 

Look up 6 posts.

 

Oh that would be why I didn't know. I get all my canon from the 6 books never look at her site.

 

I think that squibs have magic, just not enough to use or not being able to access it.

The reason for my belief is that as far as I know are squibs not affected by anti-muggle spells while muggles are. That would mean that there is some diffrence between muggles and squibs...

I also think there are diffrent levels of magical power. But it does not have such a big importance. A talented and motivated but weak wizard will always beat a powerful but lazy wizard in a duel.

It has to do with combining your knowledge to get the most out of the power that you do have. It is why both Dumbledore and Voldemort are so respected/feared. They have quite a bit of power but has also spent decades learning to fully harness that power.

 

While I do enjoy both versions, I must say that saying certain wizards are just more powerful than others due to heredity is just a lazy way for an author to make a character powerful without writing all the training parts.

I like to think of it another way - some wizards are inherently better able to use magic, but any wizard that can cast a spell can become powerful with enough work. That is, while Harry may be inherently stronger than Ron, Ron can, with enough training, overcome his natural impediment and exceed Harry in power.

Think of it like muscles. Some people are just stronger than others, but even the weakest person can become incredibly strong with enough effort in the gym.

 

I read a story that I liked... It said that the end of year finals was there for the purpuse of exhausting the students magic to make it stronger and was set at the end of term so the students had the summer to recover...

I can accept that a person can "make" themselves more powerful, before their magical maturity, but after that do they have a fixed amount of power that can not be changed exept thru dark and evil rituals...