A Song of Ice and Fire (Game of Thrones) is better then Lord of the Rings
Debate Rounds (4)
The opponent accepts the debate in favor of Lord of the Rings
Preferably the opponent has read both Song of Ice and Fire as well as Lord of the Rings and I would prefer to focus on the books instead of the movies/show. If the opponent would prefer to focus on the movies/show, then that is still fine with me
I know this is kinda a silly debate, but lets have it anyway.
Rebutle of opening arguments with additional points to prove your side.
Final thoughts, challenges, evidence.
Dominomac forfeited this round.
I understand that both story's are works of fiction, but I find the character motivation and overall storyline more realistic in GOT compared to LOTR. In Lord of the Rings, the bad guys, (orcs, goblins, etc) are all plain evil for the sake of being evil. In Game of Thrones, (with the exception of the Others) all houses and groups of people are realistic in their motivations. Even the some of the biggest villans in the books (like Tywin Lanister) does not do what he does just to rule, He is trying to protect his family.
Even starting Lord of the Rings, you know in the end Frodo will destroy the ring and the world will be saved. With Game of Thrones, It is unclear if any of the main "good guys" will even survive. You can never know if your favorit character will die, like Ned, Robb, Tywin, Jon, etc.
Because we missed round 2, I am going to make my arguments here, in round 3, and save rebuttal, as well as final thoughts for round 4.
Tolkien created a rich and detailed history for Middle Earth that spanned thousands of years. Even if we consider The Silmarillion to be irrelevant to this debate, we can still take into account the Appendixes at the end of LOTR. These appendixes not only outline thousands of years of history leading up to LOTR, but also tell what happens to the main characters and their families far past the end of LOTR. They also include detailed family trees going back thousands of years. Martin hints from time to time about the history of Westeros, and he does include family trees at the end of the books, but it is little compared to Tolkien’s history of Middle Earth.
Tolkien also created several complete languages to go along with LOTR.  Martin throws in a few words of Valyrian, but did not create a complete language, that I know of.
I would argue that Tolkien’s attention to detail when creating histories and languages make LOTR a superior book as the reader is allowed to be completely lost within a fantasy world made more real by these histories and languages.
LOTR is a complete story. ASIF is still being written, there are two books yet to be written.  Were this debate held in the future it may be a very different debate, but, as any talk of the future books would be pure speculation, we can only debate the two series as they stand today. As it stands today, ASIF is incomplete. I make the argument that an incomplete story is inferior to a complete story. If George R.R. Martin were to tragically pass away before finishing his work, his fans would be left in a lurch, with no way of knowing who lives and who dies or how the story ends. When asked which series is better, I can only possibly answer LOTR because at this point I don’t know if I will like the ending of ASIF.
Dominomac forfeited this round.
I considered just posting a joke, like I did when my opponent forfeited round 2, but I did say in round 3 that I would post rebutals in round 4, so...
It is debatable whether or not realism is a desired attribute for a fantasy novel to have, but I will go along with it because I feel that both books have their share of realism. It is true that in A Song of Ice and Fire, the characters all act with very human motivations. I would argue that the same is true of Lord of the Rings. My opponent quickly mentioned the Others in a parenthetical, as if they were of minor importance. Aware of the threat from the Others, Stannis and Jon Snow were quick to make alliances with the wildlings. This seems realistic to me. Humans side with humans against the Others. I suspect that if the Others marched south in force, all of the humans would put aside their squabbling and fight together for survival. In LOTR, we are presented with a world in which the evil “others,” have already begun their war, and we see the characters join and fight for survival.
Yes, I always knew that Frodo would destroy the ring. And I knew that Harry Potter would defeat Voldomort. This is pure speculation, but I also strongly suspect that ASIF will end with the defeat of the Others. I would be shocked if the series ended with Roose Bolton on the iron throne. As far as main characters dying, LOTR has its share, Boromir, Denethor, King Theoden. Most of the main characters do survive, however, I would not say that it is predictable. The first time I read LOTR, there were many moments when I wasn’t sure if a character would live or die, and a few where I believed that a main character was dead.
This could have been a much more interesting debate if my opponent had shown up for more rounds, but I'm sure he's a busy man. At least we each got a couple of arguments in.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.