Ok, to start this off, I'll just take your last sentences there, and pick those apart.

...Except when Quirrel broke into Gringotts and stole the stone because there wasn't a current place in Hogwarts. Or stole it wherever it currently was, since it's doubtful that anyone would have any chance at stopping him.

Or when Harry-The-Dumbass got captured by some death eater or another, like in the fourth book. Which would likely been a whole lot easier without a very powerful wizard around which Dark Lord and Death eaters alike feared.

Or with any one of his numerous horcruxes, which nobody except Dumbledore, Slughorn, and Voldemort himself knew of.

Honestly, there are so many holes in your arguments that it's difficult to figure out where to begin.

 

Don't you think it is rather suspicious that ten years after Voldemort went incorporeal, he just ran into Quirrell? Or that Quirrell should go to exactly where Voldie was hiding on the very year that Harry came to Hogwarts? I don't for a moment believe that Quirrell's meeting Voldie was accidental, nor his being a teacher at Hogwarts a happenstance.

Well, without Dumbledore, Sirius would not have been thrown in Azkaban itself. It was Dumbledore's evidence to the Ministry that Sirius was the secret keeper that was instrumental in sealing Sirius' fate. More importantly, Dumbledore suggested the Fidelius charm, and without Dumbles, there would have been no Fidelius, or secret keeper. Pettigrew would never have been exposed as a spy and would have gone back to his old life like so many other Death Eaters did after Voldie's fall.

They didn't seem to have done Voldie any good for the twelve odd years he spent in exile. So what if a few trinkets lay around uselessly?

You can spare me the sanctimonious stuff. The question here is not what would have happened without Dumbledore, the question is the morality of Dumbledore's choices. I will go out on a limb and say, no matter the consequences, Dumbledore's choices are utterly despicable, and worthy of a Dark Lord.

 

...It's canon, that's what Rowling wrote.

I'd be interested in hearing your theory though. What, Dumbledore engineered the whole thing?

Well, I don't recall that written anywhere in the books. And I think his "conviction"- if it can be called that- was more likely brought about by his laughing hysterically in the street, moments after Pettigrew "died" screaming that he was the secret keeper.

I also don't recall this as being canon. If so, name the chapter where it says that he suggested it, I'll gladly remove this sentence. By the way, without it, they probably would have died sooner.

These "trinkets" prevented him from ever dying. Since Dumbledore was the only one that was reportedly able to stand up to Voldemort, It is doubtful they would be able to kill him 5-6 more times.

Yes, I'm sure all of the wizards are horrified that Voldemort didn't win. I'm sure Harry was as well.

Hmm, lives of an entire population, or the childhood of one kid. Hard choice there.

(edit: I also don't see you responding to Lucellus's argument.)

 

That doesn't make many of Dumbledore's choices any less contemptible. Actually, I suppose it is mostly a visceral distaste for his propensity to ALWAYS use others to do his dirty work for him. Manipulation is one thing, but the way he always stays above getting his hands dirty while other people are killing and dying is lame.

Only Stunners and lemon drops for the great White Wizard; if he needs someone to die he's got Snape or a mildly retarded 11 year old boy.

 

The Philosopher's stone would have been in Gringotts where it was for the-gods-know how long. After all of Dumbledore's manipulations, do you really believe that Quirrell accidentally stumbled into Voldemort? And that, a teacher with no history of Dark side activity (source: Voldemort's speech on his resurrection) would simply easily tumble into the plots of a spirit?

Without Dumbledore, Harry would never have participated in the Tri-Wizards cup, simply because Pettigrew would never The greatest wizard could not tell that his close friend had been replaced by an impostor for the better part of a year? Pfeh- give me a break! The old man wanted Voldie's resurrection for his own reasons. Without that, Harry would have been a spectator and Krum, Diggory and Fleur would have participated.

Well, for ten years (in the first war), they managed to fight Voldemort to a standstill. What Dumbledore did is unknown - whether he actually captured any Death Eater is not shown. On the other hand, we have Crouch and his aurors battling Death Eaters furiously, earning some degree of success (they had managed to capture Dolohov, Karkaroff, Rookwood, and the Lestranges and killed Wilkes and Rosier). Nowhere is it shown that Dumbledore had a hand in any of this.

This takes us into a realm where every guess is probably right. It is impossible to discuss your contention with any degree of accuracy. The problem with the existing canon is the morality - or lack thereof - of Dumbledore's actions. Dumbledore made utterly loathsome choices. That the greatest/wisest wizard in the world has to throw a child before a killing curse is the epitome of his utter amorality. Give me a break. What if in the final battle, Voldie, despairing of the inefficacy of killing curses against Harry had chosen to transfigure his robes into a python which would swallow him whole? We have to judge Dumbledore by his choices, and the choices he made give lie to his being a light wizard at all.

I am sure it is only the long arm of coincidence if you squint at it just right.

Source: Fudge's explanation to Rosmerta of the dementors hunt for Sirius in PoA. Chapter : The Marauders Map. Quoting verbatim from the text:
`Dumbledore told them (the Potters) that their best chance was the Fidelius charm'. Without that charm, Pettigrew would never have been exposed, Sirius would never have gone after him, and Peter would likely have gone back to his old life.

Why should he be killed if he can be kept permanently in spirit form?

No, now I'm sure flowers of solace will bloom on the graves of those who were killed by Dumbles' machinations. Their spirits will, I am sure, appreciate the greater good.

Ahh - here we come to the crux of the matter. Dumbledore made his decision right after Voldie was killed. He had decided that Harry had to suffer because he could not be bothered to try any other means. There is no evidence whatsoever that the old man tried any other means - a more painless way for Harry - to spare him the anguish. As it is, his utterly amoral plan revolved around child-abuse, and attempted murder, among other things, all the while maintaining his holier-than-thou attitude. If that is not ultimate hypocrisy, I cannot see what is.

 

Oh, this is getting lulzy.

So Dumbledore engineered the whole thing eh? Next, you are probably going to tell me Dumbledore got Dobby to fuck Harry up in CoS. Or that Sirius' escape from Azkaban is also plotted by Dumbledore too. Or how about Dumbledore even controlling when Harry goes to the loo.

You say Dumbledore engineered Voldemort's meeting with Quirrel. What canon evidence is there? None. What would Dumbledore's motive be? Without a motive nor canon evidence, your theory is worth nothing more than those outlandish "McGonagall is a Death Eater" or "The lake in the Cave is not filled with water but Draught of Living Death" theories I've read about.

Dumbledore turned out to be manipulative in the end, but you are really being ridiculous. JKR was trying to write him out to be someone who, despite being somewhat of a legend in the magical world, was still human with his flaws and tendencies to make mistakes or take things into his own hands. But he does everything for what he thought was for 'the greater good'. He truly believed that what he was doing was for the best.

You on the other hand are making him out to be some evil, but virtually omniscient god who knows everything everywhere, and who has a part to play in almost every event that occurred throughout the series. A wizard, no matter how powerful, can't do that.

Nope. The Stone would have been successfully stolen by Quirrel. Yes, I do believe Quirrel's possession was an unfortunate accident due to nothing suggesting otherwise. Or are you going to tell me Voldemort marking Harry as his equal planned by Dumbledore too?

Barty Crouch Jr? Are you forgetting him, or is he Dumbledore's agent too (lol)? Dumbledore is someone who is blinded by his desire to see the good in people (his reluctance to expose Malfoy in HBP says it all). I highly doubt he would be putting his close friend under careful scrutiny. Also, Moody, being the aloof, eccentric wizard he is, wouldn't be hard to impersonate as any oddities in his action can be explained by his personality.

You are also forgetting that Pettigrew fled back to his master because of Sirius' escape, and subsequent confrontation, not because of Dumbledore.

Lulz, the Death Eaters outnumbered the Order ten to one and were picking them off one by one despite Dumbledore's presence, but yet could not ultimately stamp them out. Voldemort had free reign to attack anywhere he wished (he singlehandedly went to the Potters). This is not fighting Voldemort to a standstill, this is struggling for survival.

It also speaks much of the Death Eaters' dominance and contrastingly, the Order's resilience. What did our Ministry do? Nothing much, probably. If they did, could Voldemort have wreaked as much havoc as he did? You mentioned that the Aurors caught or killed a number of Death Eaters? A number of these happened after Voldemort fell (Bella, Lestranges, Crouch Jr.). And conversely, you don't know how many Aurors were slain.

I'm interested to see what you would have done, given that Harry is a Horcrux and without eliminating the fragment of Voldemort's soul within him, could never hope to truly put an end to the Dark Lord.

At least Taure's arguments make sense, no matter how annoying or tl;dr they may be. Yours are simply so ludicrous it turns into lulz. You might well have simply argued that Dumbledore plotted every single event in the series, beginning from Tom's rise to power.

 

There is no reason for those, although I doubt not that the old man would have descended even to them had they been necessary for one moment. All for the `greater good', of course. That abstract concept is beyond argument.

Wrong. Dumbledore had a motive. He wanted to test the calibre of his weapon. Whether it was willing to sacrifice itself for the `greater good'. That was why those idiotic puzzles and games were placed to guard the Stone. He wanted first years to be able to get past those obstacles. Or are you seriously suggesting that Dumbledore believed Voldie would be stopped by the silly games and crossword puzzles?

You are forgetting another important point. How did Dumbledore know when to get the Stone out of Gringotts? How did he even know that someone was going to make an attempt on it? I am sure it was just pure coincidence that he knew of Voldemort making an attempt on the stone.

Sorry, only the Order was getting kicked around because of Pettigrew's betrayal. There is nothing in the text to suggest that the Ministry was getting kicked around as well. The Order is not the Ministry - it was just one resistance groups (we don't know if there were other resistance groups as well).

It was the Ministry that was most successful in capturing many of the Death Eaters. There is nothing to suggest that the Order had a hand in the capture of most of the Death Eaters in Azkaban. Only Karkaroff was captured by Moody, and Moody was part of the group which killed Rosier. There is no evidence of the Order's involvement in any of the other captures. On the other hand, Crouch and his aurors, whatever casualties they may have suffered, did have much more success.

Tried to find another way to remove the Horcrux? Not waited until Sirius' death to start finding the other Horcruxes? Not made an amoral plan to throw a child in front of a killing curse, while keeping my own hands clean? Where you see a flawed but good man, I see a consummate hypocrite who wants power without responsibility.

You are trying to sketch from JKR's point of view - that she tried to write a good, but flawed Dumbledore. I am simply ignoring what JKR tried to write and am concentrating only on the text, with the proviso that everything Dumbles has said is false until proved otherwise. Dumbledore has manipulated and lied for his own ends - consequently his testimony is to be automatically regarded as a lie until independent corroboration.

If you must have the last word on the discussion, feel free. I am not replying again.

 

Wanted to test Harry, yes. But he did not know of Voldemort's possession of Quirrell. He removed the Stone since he knew Harry was coming to Hogwarts and set up all the traps in order to test his ability. But no, he did not arrange for Quirrell to stumble upon Voldemort.

Also, by and far, the main defence for the Stone was the Mirror of Erised. Until Harry arrived, Quirrell was all but stumped since no one with the intention of getting the Stone for his own desires would be able to retrieve it. Dumbledore knew it would be a good test of Harry's character and at the same time present a significant challenge for any unlikely interloper.

No sir, if the Ministry was functioning effectively, killing and capturing Death Eaters left, right and centre, the Death Eaters would not be as dominant as they were, attacking targets with impunity. If a resistant group itself is struggling to survive, it doesn't really paint a bright picture of the Ministry.

Read above. And for your info, Moody was described in canon as the one who was singlehandedly responsible for most of the Death Eaters' incarceration.

How do you intend to remove the Horcrux? Get a Dementor to suck out Harry's soul? Have Fiendfyre consume him? Stick Gryffindor's sword through his head?

Dumbledore wasn't initially sure whether Voldemort was using Horcruxes. Neither do you know when he actually started his Horcrux research. I don't see him rashly going out to look for them without confirming their existence and doing much research on them first.

You on the other hand are just grasping at straws, trying to twist any shred of canon to back up your admittedly outlandish theory. There isn't any strong canonical evidence supporting your theory, so it's just one amongst the many similarly fantastical theories out there ("Ron is Dumbledore"... etc etc)

 

I'm not even going to touch this, Lucullus is handling it fine.

All I'm going to say is that the apparent choice that Dumbledore made between the greater good and Harry's good is a false one. Sending Harry to his apparent death was both in Harry's best interest (he would have died had he not done exactly as Dumbledore manipulated him to do) and in the interest of the greater good.

Everything else being argued is just too ludicrous.

Oh, and this:

Is the worst sort of circular reasoning I have ever seen.

P1. Everything Dumbledore says is a lie.
P2. With P1 in mind, we can look at the text and see Dumbledore lying to manipulate people all the way through the books.
C1. Dumbledore is a liar.

But wait? Isn't the conclusion the same as the premise?

 

I don't want any part in this drama otherwise (Lucullus indeed is doing a good job at it) but regarding that particular sentence I'd have to disagree, Taure.

Evidence exists to support the fact that: Dumbledore has manipulated people and evaded many questions for what he'd seen as the "greater good".

So we must conclude that: Any testimony given by him has to be carefully screened for evasions and/or (what he would regard them as) white lies before it can be taken as the "gospel truth".

So considering only the given sentence, which frankly is in need of some revision, I don't see circular reasoning.

 

I added in this qualification deliberately. We see that Dumbledore has been manipulative to some extent, but we only see this in DH regarding the solution to Harry being a horcrux. There is no reason to believe that he is manipulative in any way for books 1-5.

I don't see the PS obstacles as a test for Harry, I don't believe that Quirrell was sent by Dumbledore to Albania for the express purpose of getting possessed, I don't think that Dumbledore knew where the Chamber was all along, I don't believe that Dumbledore knew Sirius was innocent until the end of POA, I don't believe that Dumbledore ensured Harry would be in the tournament and thus Voldemort's resurrection, I don't believe that Dumbledore deliberately offed Sirius.

There is no reason to believe such things. The only way to make them even remotely plausible is to presuppose Dumbledore being manipulative (and not only manipulative, but also incredibly stupid), which is indeed circular reasoning.

Incidentally, I feel like I should also make it clear that I don't think that Ron and Hermione are Dumbledore's spies, I don't think that he's withholding a massive inheritance from Harry at Gringotts, nor do I think that Harry could have trained up to Voldemort's level of skill in 2 months.

^^Because this conversation is reading increasingly like a rant from the worst kind of indy!Harry fic.

In addition, JKR has told us that she uses Dumbledore and Hermione as her "mouthpieces": any information that we get from them is to be believed, whereas information from, for example, Ron, is to be considered with a modicum of doubt.

 

People have been reading far too much fanfiction for their own good. Don't worry, I like evil manipulative Dumbledore also, too bad most authors are not intelligent enough to actually make one that we could call good. But Dumbledore (canon) wasn't trying for Harry to get hurt. Heck I'm not even sure if he meant for Harry to find the stone. He manipulated Harry into being his 'yes man' but not much else really.

 

I'm not so sure about that:

The Prince's Tale - DH

 

Ignoring the fact that we already know that Dumbledore lied to Snape at least once in that conversation:

That quote supports non-manipulative rather than manipulative Dumbledore, since he is talking about how he gave Harry a free reign - he didn't interfere when he could have done.

 

Then he's a retard. The only way I can accept Dumbledore not being the stupidest human being ever is if he was using Harry's yearly Voldemort encounters to strengthen him in a controlled environment. Seriously, obstacles first years can get by? Making no effort to get Harry out of a tournament designed to risk his life? Not noticing one of your oldest friends has been replaced by a deranged death eater for an entire year?

I don't think he arranged everything deliberately but I think he quite regularly pretended not to know what was going on in order to force Harry to face Voldemort himself. That's actually one of the less objectionable things he does IMO.

 

Updated. Pretty much an entire chapter dedicated to more DD bashing. I'm dropping it.

 

You're assuming that the purpose of the obstacles was to stop an intruder. I find it much more likely that they're simply there to slow an intruder down, to give Dumbledore time to come and stop them himself (as he did in PS). The only real obstacle was the mirror, and even then it would only slow someone down. No obstacle would be able to hold Voldemort off indefinitely, so to attempt to do so is foolish.

You're assuming that it's possible to break binding magical contracts, and thus that Dumbledore had that option...I see no reason to believe this.

 

There is the point with the binding magical contract...
I don´t know, but how can there be such a contract when Harry didn´t put his name in the Goblet himself?
If you can make a binding contract for someone else, than the concept is seriously fucked up.
When the goblet has the power to judge the canditates just by their written name, than there must be some kind ofenchantment, that connects person-piece of paper-goblet (this way, we can explain the binding contract in general)...so how does this piece of paper connects wizard/witch and goblet?
A name has power, exspecially if it is given to you by the person whose name it is and magic makes this effect stronger. A magical signature on the paper maybe...but how did the Imposter get such a thing?
I doubt you can just rip the name from an assignment and use this.
The goblet is old, but the people who made this thing must have some sense...think about it: Everyone can put everyones name in the goblet...
That is stupid, there wasn´t an ageline in the past and an angry first year could put the name of who know who in the goblet.
They must have thought of a way to counter such attempts!
The explaination given in The Denarian Renegade by Shezza88 is quite good, but we doesn´t have such a thing in cannon.

So...why did no one thought about this and why didn´t Dumbledore do something?

 

The idea behind the story is somewhat original but there is too much ranting for my taste. The author already devotes a chapter to show that Dumbledore is manipulative and then writes the new chapter to have Harry and Luna convince Hermione that Dumbledore is manipulative. 2.5/5

 

It started of as a good fic for me but became stale very soon. However the last two chapters have been good, so the journey for Harry shouldn't be completely a walk in park.
So because of last 2 chapters I will give it 3.5/5.