The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
8 Points

Battle royale beats the Hunger Games

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/8/2012 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,455 times Debate No: 24167
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)




Battle Royale was much more deep, as the characters were more connected to each other. Hunger Games is too similar and too censored to compare. I look forward to someone commenting.


I accept this argument.
Before we begin, I want to state beforehand that
1) I have not seen the Hunger Games movie, but I have *only* book 1, and know the details.
2) I have not seen the Battle Royale movie or read the book, but have read the Battle Royale manga.

I state these in the belief that they are sufficient to argue.
Additionally, although I take the con role, I will state my opinion is most likely tied/no opinion in specifics, doing this as more of a devil's advocate to the original argument, in hopes of an interesting debate.

Additionally, it should be noted that this is my first debate here, and should I fail any rules, I hopefully don't do them intentionally.
Good luck, have fun.
Debate Round No. 1


Cool, my first one too. I'm gonna start with relationships. In The Hunger Games each person only knows one other person. In most cases they weren't even close. In BR they were all from the same class, and they might be paired with their best friends, siblings, lovers whatever. It helped add the emotion to it.
I would also like to talk censorship. In the movies Battle Royale was able to use the blood and gore to make it more realistic and in a way more scarey, as it looks like these people are really dieing. In the Hunger Games the amount of young fans from the book meant that they couldn't give the film the gore that sort of film needs.
My third point is the fans. Most huger games fans have never seen battle royale and, manly due to them being 13-16 on average, won't believe you when you tell them that the hunger games is too similar to be properly good.

I await you responce. Good luck!


Thank you for your argument.

Before I start I'd like to mention that BR means Battle Royale and HG means Hunger Games.

1) Relationships
I would like to point out that relationship and ties are independent of their worth, particularly as it pertains to the story. Naturally, it does have an effect on what happens in the story; in BR, the boy that is initially killed by the teacher (with a knife to the head if I recall?) serves as a shock and introduction to brutality in the story.
Development of relationship and the characterization that derives from that is probably a better measurement of what can be considered 'better'. BR had many independent storylines that were often disconnected from each other. Of course, they all had their points - I remember one story about.... twins or best friends That died together. BR had this as an aspect of its story that worked to drive several points, as *well* as enforce the whole realism and brutality feeling of the story.
On the otherhand, HG had the story focused primarily on one storyline of a main/major character throughout. While of course BR had its main characters, HG could reasonably be said that it was focused much more on Katniss and her adventure/trials than the others. Relationships that did appear tended to center around her group.
What this does is make the reader (and viewer?) much more... well, attached to Katniss. If I recall correctly, there are less different plots. Thusly, relationship development and characterization would thusly be more impactful on the reader/viewer.

2) Censorship
While BR had much less censorship compared to HG, I'd like to call in a psychological effect in which you'd get more used to the blood and gore the more you see it. With *that* in mind, after the first initial shocks and deaths, you'll be more used to it, and have less of an impact. This combines with the previous section; there are many relationships, and thusly deaths, and since the viewer is less connected, the impact is less. Not to say the impact of BR is little or that it *should* be different, but the structure of HG is different, and made differently.
HG uses the blood, gore, and action sparsely compared to BR. People do die - as a matter of fact, I think I heard things about how an entire Hunger Game was crappy because they all froze and starved to death? However, it's sparse usage invokes a different response. The relationship aspect notably comes in when one of the Katniss's friends, a little girl that she was protecting, dies.
At times like these, the blood and gore is an option that is not necessarily necessary. A notably inspiration and predecessor for both HG and BR (assuming HG's author did not rip it off BR) is The Most Dangerous Game, and it was a story that didn't require much blood and gore to be classic, did it?

3) Fans
Well, naturally HG and BR are for different audiences, but both carry similar/same messages, meanings, and story. However, I'd like to note that initial exposure to something makes it better for the person. The first of a genre you read that's done well will leave much more impact on your mind. Although of course BR came first, the US exposure is probably the first notable one of its kind. Also, the fans are supposedly between 13-16, right? First time exposure at this age to things makes it much better/notable in their mind since they have less defined tastes and points of reference.
It's sort of like a Twilight effect - Twilight was the first major one to do the supernatural romance genre for teens.
Also that doesn't necessarily mean that HG is better, it means it makes itself more exposed, and also the psychological implications give a modicum of excuse for HG fans in ignorance.

Things to hash out:
In terms of popularity meaning the best, I would argue HG wins. It's grossed hundreds of millions, as well as millions fans, while BR is fairly contained, I so believe.
In terms of money, would you say BR grossed more? I believe not, so in such a way, HG also win.
In terms of impact and actual worth, I would say the popularity advantage makes the net impact of HG more, in a quality to quantity sort of way (assuming that the overall philosophical impact of BR is more).

Thank you for the debate, good luck!
Debate Round No. 2
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Daxisheart 4 years ago
I don't think it's supposed to have entered voting period yet. Or is it? I'm not sure about the settings.
Posted by sirhaddock 4 years ago
Lets make my first debate a good one!
Posted by Daxisheart 4 years ago
Good luck, have fun :D
Posted by audun0905 4 years ago
I agree with you. Good luck if someone take the challenge, sirhaddock:)
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by ScottyDouglas 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made a strong arguement for HG.
Vote Placed by bp_1138 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had a better argument...