The Instigator
Joshua213P
Pro (for)
The Contender
abps
Con (against)

Harry Potter is better than Star Wars

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
abps has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/19/2017 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 4,487 times Debate No: 105973
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)

 

Joshua213P

Pro

I strongly believe that the Harry Potter franchise is much better than that of Star Wars. Harry Potter was and is much better for the younger generation as it promotes literature to its audience while maintaining an epic storyline. The creatures are much better in Harry Potter. For example, compare Chewbacca and, for example. Dobby. The companion creatures in Harry Potter have much better backstories and are much more majestic. Flying dragons that spit fire, compared to, let's say, fat objects of matter like Jabba the Hutt. Harry Potter is simply better in every way, and I'm ready to prove it.
abps

Con

Star Wars is very clearly the better of the two. It surpasses Harry Potter in cultural impact as well as backstories. Not only that, Star Wars is far more iconic than Harry Potter. Have you ever seen a kid asking for a magic wand? No. He"s too busy asking for a lightsaber. Star Wars movies definitely surpass Harry Potter"s. Which would you rather see: A random kid and a nose less dude throwing streaks of light at each other, or a Jedi and a Sith fighting with lightsabers? I certainly know what my choice would be.
Debate Round No. 1
Joshua213P

Pro

In his opening statement, the contender attempted to definitively say that the Star Wars franchise has had a considerably larger cultural impact than Harry Potter. Star Wars has a large fanbase, but Harry Potter's imprint on society greatly outweighs that of SW.

For example, literature. As I quickly referred to in Round One, the fact that the series was based off of books is a key factor in why Harry Potter beats Star Wars. JK Rowling was and is (to this day) able to effectively hook children and adults alike into the world of books, meaning that HP has the ultimate power of being educational (or at least, promoting an essential everyday skill). How does she do this, you may ask? By having an epic plot line with magic, fantasy, noble characters and awesome duels.

You may say that, because Star Wars also has books, my point is invalid. However, you need to realise that the release dates of literary series have great importance in this scenario. The Star Wars books were published (and, as an FYI, ghostwritten) after the first (in terms of release to the public) movie's release, meaning that they weren't as recognised by the majority of their fans (in my opinion, observations and background knowledge). It's easy to notice the significance of the written series in HP, though. For example, 'The Books were Better' and a fan base that undoubtedly loves the books.

But there's more. Much more. Not only has Harry Potter saved the publishing industry, had box office highs, and won tons of awards, but the word 'Muggle' is now so popular within the modern age that it might as well be part of the English language. In fact, it is. Search up 'Muggle Definition' on Google, and you'll see a full-fletched google definition (etymology, translations, the works). Don't even bother to say that this isn't a credible source for definitions, because according to my second source, Google gets their definitions from Oxford. I wish you the best of luck trying to prove to me that an addition to the English language from Harry Potter isn't considered a massive cultural impact.

Finally, it paved the future for the YA genre. Not only did it make Young Adult Literature popular, but tons of books these days had some sort of Harry Potter inspiration. For example, Percy Jackson. The idea of a training camp, safe haven or a school for unordinary kids was made popular and, in some perspectives, started in the HP series.

Harry Potter is THE franchise when it comes to social impact.

(1) https://en.wikipedia.org...

(2) https://webapps.stackexchange.com...
abps

Con

I will first refute almost every single point my opponent has made, and then proceed to make my own.
My opponent has stated that his point about J.K. Rowling being able to hook people into the world of books is valid, because the Star Wars books were released at a later date than the movies. However, this has no effect on their popularity. In fact, the majority of Star Wars fans did read them, contrary to what my opponent has said, for a number of reasons.
As for his point about winning tons of awards and having an epic plot line with magic, fantasy, noble characters, and awesome duels, literally every widely recognized series in that genre has those.
My opponent has said that Harry Potter paved the way for future young adult books. This is completely irrelevant, as it is not about which book paved the way for a different book, it is about which series is better. This does not relate to cultural impact, as a different series could just as easily have done this. This point adds no value whatsoever to my opponent"s point.
Finally, to his point about "Muggle" being an actual word, first of all, it means "a person who is not conversant with a particular activity or skill," and second, when have you, or anyone, ever used the word in that context? My guess would be never.
I will now state my own point.
Star Wars" cultural impact is huge. Harry Potter"s cultural impact looks like a mosquito in comparison to the Death Star. Star Wars references are now embedded within popular culture. Darth Vader has become the iconic villain. Voldemort gave up on that a long time ago. Characters like Luke Skywalker, Princess Leia, Han Solo, Chewbacca, R2-D2, and C-3PO are recognized around the world. Phrases like, "May the Force be with you," are part of the popular lexicon. In fact, the first Star Wars film was a cultural unifier. Many new films, books, etc. in the science fiction department can be seen to draw heavy influence from the original Star Wars trilogy. The sheer number of sequels, spin-offs, comics, games, and much more exceeds Pottermore by orders of magnitude. Star Wars" impact doesn"t stop at fiction, though. The Smithsonian"s National Air and Space Museum had an exhibition called, "Star Wars: The Magic of Myth." It was an exhibition of the original three Star Wars movies" props, costumes, and characters. In 2007, Nasa even brought the original Luke Skywalker"s lightsaber hilt into space for two weeks! (After which it was returned to George Lucas.) The first successfully launched space rocket was called the Falcon, after Han Solo"s Millennium Falcon. In fact, scientists have named organisms after Star Wars characters, such as midichloria, Yoda Purpurata, Wockia Chewbacca, etc. Star Wars" cultural impact is so huge it has made its way into the real world. Harry Potter can"t even come close.
Debate Round No. 2
Joshua213P

Pro

Refutation:
My adversary stated that Harry Potter’s success for the Young Adult genre is irrelevant. The contender is wrong. Notice how he mentioned that any series was capable of achieving this feat. If this was true, how come they didn’t? If that was true, why did Harry Potter give inspiration to tons of authors today? That’s why Harry Potter has had such an impact on modern-age society; it was one of the biggest YA author inspirations, if not the only one.

In fact, let’s take a look at Rick Riordan, the author and creator of the highly esteemed Percy Jackson series, as well as many more. In my first source, you can clearly see that Rick loves the series and admits that he took inspiration (note: I am not saying that he tried to make a carbon copy, I am specifically saying that he took inspiration). Furthermore, he quotes “After all, Harry Potter is the most successful and high-profile young adult fantasy series of all time. I love Rowling’s books, and I am grateful for the impact they’ve had on young readers and on the revitalization of children’s publishing.” This itself essentially counteracts my adversary’s point entirely; remember when he said that “As for his point about winning tons of awards and having an epic plot line with magic, fantasy, noble characters, and awesome duels, literally every widely recognized series in that genre has those.”? My highly credible source clearly doesn’t agree.

Con attempts to invalidate my entire cultural impact argument because it’s about ‘which is better’. I’m very aware of that, however this is extremely ignorant as, he himself talked about SW’s cultural impact in the first round, as well as the fact that the social impact of the Harry Potter franchise is one of the factors, in my view, of what makes HP better.

However, I am aware that con may point out that this is simply one person. This is why I highly advise them to look at my second and third source for further nullification of their point.

Next, his muggle point. First of all, I’d like to point out my opponent’s clear lack of reading a dictionary definition; he simply took a glance, didn’t see anything explicitly HP related, and assumed I was wrong. However, if he took, what 5 seconds to look at word origin, you would see that the etymology was from Harry Potter.

Constructive Point:
Furthermore, do you know how many real-life Harry Potter events exist? From Hogwarts in the Snow to Harry Potter Universal, Star Wars simply has a small stage and a ride at Disneyworld. Next time you’re there, try a glass of Butterbeer!


Sources:
(1) http://rickriordan.com...
(2) https://media.bookbub.com...
(3) http://www.huffingtonpost.ca...
abps

Con

I will first be refuting my opponent"s tragically misguided points, and then making my own.
My opponent, in refuting my point, has said, "My adversary stated that Harry Potter"s success for the Young Adult genre is irrelevant. The contender is wrong. Notice how he mentioned that any series was capable of achieving this feat. If this was true, how come they didn"t? If that was true, why did Harry Potter give inspiration to tons of authors today? That"s why Harry Potter has had such an impact on modern-age society; it was one of the biggest YA author inspirations, if not the only one."
My opponent has clearly fallen prey to the trap of not fully reading one"s source. Had he read the entire source, he would have noticed this paragraph in his third source, "All of the elements that kids seemed to latch onto in the series had been done before, they concluded. Rowling hadn"t discovered some new formula or concept that had captured a starved population of readers R13; she"d used known elements of children"s literature to write the right books at the right time for the right readers."
Any series was, in fact, capable of achieving this feat. Rowling was simply a good writer in the right place at the right time, as the saying goes. Rowling was just as good as any other writer before her. Yet, my opponent has painted her in a light that makes it appear as though she is some great visionary, and used this to create an argument. Recall, "Notice how he mentioned that any series was capable of achieving this feat. If this was true, how come they didn"t? If that was true, why did Harry Potter give inspiration to tons of authors today?" The answer to these questions is quite simple. The other series" did not achieve this feat simply because, as his own source puts it, Rowling had used known elements of children"s literature to write the right books at the right time for the right readers.
My opponent has attempted to further nullify my point using, as he puts it, a highly credible source. A quote, from Rick Riordan. "After all, Harry Potter is the most successful and high-profile young adult fantasy series of all time. I love Rowling"s books, and I am grateful for the impact they"ve had on young readers and on the revitalization of children"s publishing." However, in this quote, Riordan expressly states that he is "grateful for the impact they"ve had on young readers and the revitalization of children"s publishing." Aren"t we all? However, as I have stated earlier, and been backed up by my opponent"s source, Rowling was simply in the right place at the right time. This therefore adds nothing to my opponent"s refutation, although the entire thing is meaningless. My opponent may also attempt to capitalize on the fact that Riordan has called Harry Potter, ". . . the most successful and high-profile young adult fantasy series of all time . . .". This, while quite an endorsement, is still an opinion, one that my opponent has yet to back up with facts.
To refute my opponent"s next argument, my opponent has clearly not understood what I am talking about when he says, "Con attempts to invalidate my entire cultural impact argument because it"s about "which is better". I"m very aware of that, however this is extremely ignorant as, he himself talked about SW"s cultural impact in the first round, as well as the fact that the social impact of the Harry Potter franchise is one of the factors, in my view, of what makes HP better."
For your information, when I spoke about, "which is better," I was actually refuting my opponent"s point about how Harry Potter paved the way for future young adult books. I will, for your benefit, include the full quote here: "My opponent has said that Harry Potter paved the way for future young adult books. This is completely irrelevant, as it is not about which book paved the way for a different book, it is about which series is better. This does not relate to cultural impact, as a different series could just as easily have done this. This point adds no value whatsoever to my opponent"s point."
As I have been forced to, yet again, prove, this point is irrelevant. J.K. Rowling had, as my opponent"s source puts it, "wrote the right books at the right time for the right people." Cultural impact is relevant, which my opponent has misunderstood, but just because Harry Potter was written at the right time does not mean the fact that it has paved the way for other YA books should be taken into account. If Star Wars was playing while every person in the world just happened to be in a theater, would this really be a valid point?
My opponent seems to think that I might point out he is only one person. His second source is basically just a list of five authors that wrote books after reading Harry Potter. If you want a list of ten movies inspired by Star Wars, check out my second source down below. Both of these are only important if you want factual evidence that Star Wars and Harry Potter inspired other people.
Next, the muggle point. Apparently, my opponent"s point was that the word muggle comes from Harry Potter. However, there are conflicting accounts. My first source below shows that the word muggle was actually first used in the thirteenth century, long before J.K. Rowling was even born. I"m afraid even Google can be wrong.
Finally, to quote my opponent, "Star Wars simply has a small stage and a ride at Disneyworld." I"m sorry, did you even read my point in the first round on how Star Wars has crossed into the real world? If you"re going to argue a point, at least read it! Not only that, if you want exhibits, Star Wars Identities is running until March 2018, and the Star Wars and runDisney Half Marathon is coming in April.
Now, I will make my own point.
Star Wars has some of the highest grossing movies of all time. So many people have watched the Force Awakens that there is literally a list of records about it, which I will put in my sources. In fact, after ticket-price inflation adjustment, Star Wars: A New Hope is third on the list at approximately 2.8 billion dollars, and The Force Awakens is third on the list of highest-grossing films of all time, at approximately 2 billion dollars, with no adjustments. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 is, after no adjustment, eighth, and about 700 million dollars below the Force Awakens. Unfortunately for my opponent, that is where Harry Potter"s fame begins and ends. The next-highest Harry Potter movie is Harry Potter and the Philosopher"s Stone, at less than 1 billion dollars. Star Wars movies are far more popular than Harry Potter"s. My opponent will likely say that everyone knows the Harry Potter books are more popular than the movies, which is true, but the numbers show that the movies actually make more money than the books. The book that made the most money, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, comes in at approximately 57.6 million dollars, a far cry from Star Wars" billions. What does this mean? Why, that Star Wars is more popular than Harry Potter! My opponent may attempt to argue that Harry Potter"s franchise is worth more. He"d be wrong. Harry Potter"s franchise is worth about 25 billion dollars, Star Wars" is 28 billion. This clearly shows that Star Wars is more popular than Harry Potter. Why? Because it"s better.

Sources:
https://www.statisticbrain.com...
https://www.statisticbrain.com...
https://interestingliterature.com...
https://screenrant.com...
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca...
http://www.starwars.com...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://www.theguardian.com...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
Joshua213P

Pro

THIS IS REBUTTAL ROUND! NO CONSTRUCTIVE ARGUMENTS ARE MADE AND SOURCES SHOULDN'T BE NEEDED (PURE REFUTATION).

Firstly, Contender referred to first and second source when they literally had no context with what he was talking about. For the record, I did go to the liberty of looking to the sources to find the ones he was talking about. I think it should be noted, viewers, that the Contender only started to use sources in his arguments after I had twice. I obviously didn’t invent the concept of a bibliography, but I believe that this is no coincidence (however, make of it what you will).

Next, my opponent’s argument is completely hypocritical. He legitimately just mentioned that Rick Riordan’s input did not matter as it was simply an opinion. Newsflash; so was Pierce’s. The contender ignorantly assumed that I didn’t fully read the source (which, by the way, is exactly what he did with the muggle definition in the earlier round). However, I had, and disagreed because she admitted herself that she was jealous and I believe her decision was partly made in spite. I quoted the source because I had used information from there; not because I agreed with the entire site. Just another assumption that abps has made.

However, let’s say that I did, in fact, acknowledge her point. Either way, JK Rowling still deserves credit. As stated, ‘she’d used known elements of children’s literature to write the right books at the right time for the right readers.’ To be honest, this just proves how smart she is. Why punish her for capitalizing on her target audience? This leads me to restate my point; if it was so easy, why was it not done by another series in the same time period? Like the source later on says, as well as what I mentioned, she still had major success in the child fiction and YA lit genre.

I assume that it’s common sense as to why an endorsement is an opinion. Anyways, if you don’t want to accept the combined opinions of the most successful YA authors, even those who envy her, that’s purely your belligerence. In an argument like this, it’s mostly opinion that can be used debate style. However, I’ll give you the book stats, as you claim I haven’t used facts in my debate rounds so far (which, by the way, is completely false). Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone sold over 120 million copies, which is one of the highest individual books sales of all time. What’s even more awesome is that, even though Harry Potter was fifth on this list, it had the most recent publishing date. Make of that what you will, but if it isn’t clear, it means that it had the least amount of time but still did amazingly well. The fourth book, Le Petit Prince, beats the Philosopher’s Stone by 20 million copies but was made over fifty years ago. This concept of time also connect to my refutation towards your constructive point about the Star Wars franchise.

To be honest, I still don’t understand what you mean about the YA cultural impact. If it paved the way for books to be authored as well as saved a genre, that’s cultural impact. As my point was that it’s massive cultural impact makes it better, in my view, it makes it better. It doesn’t matter if it was written ‘at the right time’, there’s literally nothing wrong with that. Either way, it led to the publication of several popular books. And, again, you underestimate the caliber of JK Rowling’s skill when it came to HP. Even if she simply hit a goldmine for the time she published the books, she still knowingly used elements of children’s literature to gain attention from her audience. In my opinion, there aren’t many modern YA authors capable of this; nullifying your point again, of any series being equally able of such an achievement. Your SW theater point also lacks sense. By the right time, the source meant that JK Rowling published the series at a time where children lacked interesting, modern-day serial fiction to read. It doesn’t mean that HP was made when every child was in a bookstore. A much more accurate comparison would be that Star Wars came out when movies weren’t entertaining enough for their audience, such and such, which actually would not be a bad argument.

Your muggle point is also essentially baseless. Those definitions of the word muggle were used as slang for marijuana and more. The definition that is in Google right now came from JK Rowling. No matter the uses before HP, ‘a person who is not conversant with a particular activity or skill.’ is completely from JK Rowling, as you can see in the etymology. If the definition was ‘slang for marijuana’, then it obviously wouldn’t have originally come from JK Rowling. But the muggle we all refer to is completely from HP. I need to comment on how incessantly bad this was on an argument, for debate purposes. That’s like finding a word that was defined, not created by, let’s say Thomas Jefferson (idk), and then saying that the definition and that word isn’t his because of slang used centuries ago. Sure, the words may be the same spelling-wise, but if the definition is different, the word is different.

Of course I read your Smithsonian point, and I was merely refuting it with amusement parks. I hope you’re aware that the Smithsonian is a museum...Furthermore, though Disney ran, your arguments do not take place in an amusement park. You may say, oh, Disney has an amusement park, but this would simply be illogical. Disney would obviously run at least one of the events considering they own the franchise.

Lastly, I can easily refute this point. Have you ever considered it stupid to compare to movie franchises when one started in 1976, and when one started in 2001? Have you ever considered it illogical to compare an ongoing movie franchise to one that’s ended (we’re talking about the original HP movies here)? The fact that Star Wars started 25 years before Harry Potter and only has 3 billion more dollars is actually pretty sad; and in my view, that doesn’t seem to be too popular when you consider all factors. (Remember, I’m talking about movies as you were).
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Duranndal 6 months ago
Duranndal
If you asked this 5 years ago the answer would be starwars
Posted by Zombiesize 6 months ago
Zombiesize
If you look at wards, Star Wars clearly wins. Stars wars had been nomited 15 times while Harry Potter has been nominated 12 times. Also, Star Wars won 10 academy awards, while Harry Potter has won NONE. However, both Harry Potter and Star Wars are extremely well made. We shouldn't get too lost in deciding which one is better.
Posted by Zombiesize 6 months ago
Zombiesize
Big fat load of nothing? Clearly you know nothing about Star Wars.
Posted by Historybuff01 6 months ago
Historybuff01
About the coolness of creatures: how can you equate Jabba the Hutt to a flying dragon? A more equal comparison would be to a Rancor or one of the arena beasts on Geonosis. Their is so much more that can be done with the Star Wars universe, which is filled with more alien creatures than Harry Potter can boast.
Posted by Historybuff01 6 months ago
Historybuff01
To kyky33, You know Star Wars has everything you just mentioned too right?
Magic:The Force
Mystery of the sith
Romance between Han and Leia
So much more that Harry Potter doesnt have.
Star Wars is considered unique because it is a combination of a Sci-Fi, Western, Fantasy, Old WWII films, etc.
Posted by lil_bread 6 months ago
lil_bread
SMH instead of watching these movies you guys should be going to the nearest libraries nerds, i highly believe kyky 33 is the type of guy to rap about math equations and count it as R&B
Posted by kyky33 6 months ago
kyky33
Harry Potter truly is better than Star Wars. I mean, Harry Potter is filled with magic, mystery, romance, and more, and what does Star Wars have? A big, fat, load of nothing! XD
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.