[Dai Grepher]

The Missing Link: Let's think about this. The only time we truly get to see Zelda's magic, provided you take none of Sheik's abilities as magic, is the pink glowing door thing and the white beam of doom at the end of the game. The pink glowy thing didn't seem to phase her at all (and it's arguable that the sigh was just a thrill of feeling that rushed through her at the evocation of the magic).

Dai Grepher: No it isn't. That sigh was a strain and there is nothing else it could be. The two Stalfos also trapped her in a circle of fire, which she could not get out of that without Link's assistance.

The Missing Link: However, the white beam of death could quite have been the strongest spell she knew of. You've got a pig-demon battling Link with the Triforce of Power. The Master Sword is weakening him, yes, but it darn well looks like he's still powerful and is raring to go for quite some time longer. (Indeed, one could argue that the Triforce of Power brings you close to immortality.) Zelda has to have her spell go up against a magical prowess that could very well exceed her own... and THEN atop that bind him in place so that Link can deal the "final" blow to him. It could very well be that her magical power was nearly exhausted in that spell just to counter it. That's quite a different story than the one you present.

Dai Grepher: All she did was hold down an already beaten Ganon so that Link could finish him off, thus enabling the Sages to cast their seal.
Also, I only used the Zelda from Ocarina of Time as an example of someone who would benefit from a magical sword.

The Missing Link: Your assumption is that Zelda is weak, however. If the other assumption is made, your entire argument falls apart.

Dai Grepher: Of course it does. The entire purpose of this discussion is to theorize why Zelda would have a sword, if what Cap'n Boo from Timbuktu says about Zelda not being able to wield it in physical combat is true. The pretense for this particular discussion is that Zelda is weak and cannot wield the sword as a warrior. This is what Cap'n Boo from Timbuktu suggested. That is why I am suggesting that if this is the case, then the sword would probably be used for magic.

The Missing Link: (Not to mention that the Triforce of Wisdom has typically been associated with magical prowess. Just something to consider.) Beyond that, with regards to your last statement, it could be, as in Ocarina of Time that even her strong abilities aren't quite enough to conquer the insurmountable mountain that is Ganon's magic.

Dai Grepher: All the more reason to have a magical sword.

The Missing Link: I have not watched the show very much, so I will merit you that. However, be that as it may, the Legend of Zelda places itself in a very different world than Inuyasha. What might work in Inuyasha just might not fit the standard theme in the world of Hyrule.

Dai Grepher: That is basically what I just told you about Lord of the Rings. The difference is that I didn't ask you for an example of magical swords from another series.

The Missing Link: Of course, there could be other reasons for it to be a thin blade as well. Zelda is inevitably a princess (or so we presume), and it's likely she wouldn't have time to build her sword arm for practice, so Link's broadsword is probably out of the question for her to use.

Dai Grepher: That is a baseless assumption. The Zelda in Ocarina of Time had nothing better to do than spy through windows or make plans to enter the Sacred Realm. The life of a princess is not busy enough to the point where a princess would not have enough time to practice combat with a sword.

The Missing Link: Another thing to consider is that Zeldas have used weapons as weapons before. Zelda in the Legend of Zelda cartoon as well as Zelda in Wind Waker were archers. You can argue their ability all you like (my Zelda only nailed me once in Wind Waker, and that's because my shield got lowered by Ganondorf). Princesses can be at least mildly adept at some weapon. Why not the sword instead of the bow?

Dai Grepher: Her being able to use the sword is not the question. What she uses the sword for is the question.
We know she can use it because she is depicted with it. What she uses it for is not known, and that is why we are discussing it.

The Missing Link: It looks like you're either trying to proof by exaggeration or not picking up on my sarcasm. The point is that if you are unarmed--even if you're not crying in a corner, just... UNARMED--the ploy will still work and be much more like all things Zelda.

Dai Grepher: That still does not negate the benefits of a magical sword. Not having one would encourage and enemy to attack. Having a sword as defense would discourage an attack. Also, being able to wield a more powerful magic through the blade and have more control make a magical sword even more useful.

The Missing Link: I don't have to use your theory. There's nothing that says I do. Specifically, I'm not using your ASSUMPTION.

Dai Grepher: If you are arguing against my theory then you must follow the pretenses for my theory. If you are stating a new theory to add a new possibility, then you may do so. However, in your post you were giving me two scenarios to choose from, both being counter points to my theory. By stating your own theory, it does not counter mine.

The Missing Link: The fact that there exists another possibility--that the sword might not be magical--firmly gives me the right to do such. I can counter your claims that a sword must be a certain way by using assumptions from another scenario entirely. (Remember, I'm a mathematician; I prove things for a living.)

Dai Grepher: Math is one subject, but conversation and debating are others. The only type of discussion that I could see math being applied to for Zelda is the calculation of a township or kingdom's economy, taxes, or revenue. Or perhaps even a numbering system that is applied to an RPG style game like Adventure of Link.
In math there is only one right answer and formulas exist as guides. However, in a discussion of theories such as this one there are many possibilities, and only logic and known facts exist as guides.

The Missing Link: However, to humour you, you also cannot say, even if it would enhance her magic by some amount, how strong that amount is. What if the sword only mildly benefited her? Then the element of surprise, provided her magic was at least a certain level, might offset entirely the benefit given by the sword. A lot of possibilities exist.

Dai Grepher: A lot of improbable possibilities exist. If she wields a magical sword then she will also know the sword's capabilities. I cannot possibly know to what extent a magical sword would benefit Zelda, but I do know that if it does increase her power by any degree, then it is useful. How much power it gives her is irrelevant. The fact is that her odds of victory are greater with it than without it.

The Missing Link: Dai Grepher, let me tell you a bit here:

You and I together are going to show that a certain possibility is likely, that a result is probable, if you will. If you're asking me to DISPROVE the theory, you cannot prove that anymore than I can.

Dai Grepher: I did not ask you anything of the sort. I asked if you believe that your argument against the theory that Zelda's sword is magical actually has any merit. I cannot understand your thinking if you do, because what you have submitted in rebuttal thus far does not even cast doubt on the theory, let alone prove that it is improbable.

The Missing Link: Given that there are too many unknowns, not to mention that the playing cards haven't even been dealt to us, there's no way you can PROVE or DISPROVE anything.

Dai Grepher: Then why did you say, "Dear gosh, I could argue your own side better than you guys are. However, even if I were to do so, when it boils down to it, Occam's Razor is going to slice your idea to smithereens."
I take "slice to smithereens" as another way of saying "destroy", "kill", or "prove wrong".
So is that what you were really saying or not?

The Missing Link: What we're arguing about is the likelihood of this happening.

Just based upon the historical usage of swords across all mediums--movies, books, myths, video games, history--swords are typically used as a fighting weapon. Granted the statistics might be biased by real life data in history, but I would reckon that if you factored into account only those swords that existed in universes where magic was possible, a good many were simply swords, a good many were swords with a hue of magic to them but still used quite a bit as a melee weapon, and a rare, very rare minority was used in the manner you're suggesting. That alone shifts the weight against your own theory and sides the probability that it is a direct combat weapon.

Dai Grepher: It does not. Fictional elements from other series do not apply to Zelda. I also stated that the sword would probably be used for magic if it is not used for combat, which Cap'n Boo from Timbuktu suggested when he submitted the idea that Zelda does not meet the requirements for physical combat.
I do not know what you are misunderstanding about my theory The Missing Link.

The Missing Link: You then have to take into account the specific world of Zelda. The only magic power any sword has ever had is that Link's sword was capable of shooting fricking laser beams. Oh, and split Link into four seperate entities. Even Ganon's huge pointy things of doom in Ocarina were unmagical. All of these were used also as weapons with which to fight.

Dai Grepher: Ganon's sai-swords did not have magic because they were not magical swords. You cannot say that magical swords do not exist in the Zelda series just because Ganon does not wield one, or you have never seen a Stalfos wielded one.
Ocarina of Time, Legend of Zelda, and others all prove that magic can be focused into the blades.

The Missing Link: I'm not saying Zelda's sword is unmagical in the least, however, and if you believe that's what I'm trying to point out, you're missing the entire conversation. What I'm saying is that it is much more in alignment with the existing Zelda games that Zelda's sword in LoZ2K5 will physically be used in some way as a melee weapon against enemies rather than as a pure magic enhancement/cool looking prop/+9 to saving throws against evil princess kidnappers/what have you.

Dai Grepher: I agree that it will be used for physical combat as well. I only suggested to Cap'n Boo from Timbuktu that it would be used for magic, after he stated that Zelda was too weak to wield it in physical combat.

The Missing Link: The goal is to show that your theory is likely. So far, it just seems as if you're shooting a golf ball far off the fairway in hoping that the golf course will at some point turn 180° and have the green right where your ball will drop.

Dai Grepher: In other words, I am stating an unlikely theory that is off base with the Zelda series, and I am hoping that Nintendo's new Zelda game will fit my theory? That is completely false. I think you misread all of my posts thus far.

Cap'n Boo from Timbuktu: DG, no matter how you twist and turn it, there's no reason at all to imagine that Zelda's new matchet is anything other than an object for whacking people with.

Dai Grepher: Excuse me, but you are the one who suggested that Zelda could not use it as a weapon because of her assumed weakness in battle. That is why I suggested the possibility of magic use.