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

Harry Potter should not be banned.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
SteelGraph has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/6/2017 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 1,080 times Debate No: 98750
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




Greetings opponent.
In the following debate, you will be arguing that the reading and viewing of the Harry Potter books and films should be banned by government legislation. I will be arguing that this should not occur.
Before we begin, I will lay out the rules and the structure. If these are broken by either me or my opponent, the offender will be expected to apologise in the comments section and the voters should give the conduct points to the non-offender. However, I am sure that both my opponent and I are mature and respectable people who will have no issues in respecting these guidelines.

Capitalisation may be used for emphasis, but not to portray anger.
The Burden of Proof lies with Pro.
Spelling, punctuation and grammar can be from any form of proper English. For example, as a Welshman, I shall be arguing with British English, but you may use American English etc. Words from other languages are only acceptable if they have been integrated into the language, unless they are used in quotation, in which case the word must be explained. This helps with understanding.
No use of strong or very strong language. Mild language is acceptable in context or if expressly needed for emphasis
No discourteous comments towards your opponent. No personal argument is permitted, regardless of whether it is offensive or not.
Any information that is not written by you must be placed in quotation marks, and the source for these quotes must be cited.
Trolling is not permitted.
Do not accept if you're a kritik please.
Please do not forfeit a round without first explaining that you will do so in the comments section.

Round One- Acceptance.
Accept the debate. State your position. Make any necessary definitions, and query anything in the rules or structure. The queries will most likely be addressed in the comments section.
Round Two- Argument.
Make your case for why you hold your opinion. DO NOT counter your opponent's argument OR try to argue against commonly held opinions. This round should therefore focus on affirmative statements.
Round Three- Rebuttals.
Argue against your opponent's argument from the previous round. DO NOT make new arguments. Explain fully why you believe their opinions to be incorrect. Obviously this round should focus on dissenting statements.
Round Four- Defense.
Here, you attempt to rebut arguments made in the rebuttal round without introducing entirely new arguments. Clarification of your original argument may be required.
Round Five- Conclusions.
Synthesise all of your previous rounds. Do not make new arguments, rebuttals or defences here.

This is a topic I have heard much discussion about, however I have not yet come to understand any points in favour of banning these works. I therefore hope to learn something from my opponent in a constructive debate, and to potentially teach them something too.
I wish the best of luck to my opponent, and hope that they have an enjoyable debate. Let the best "Muggle" win!


When citing sources, are we required to provide links to websites if able, or only the author? Also, is it acceptable to question the dates of evidence and qualifications of sources?
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to thank Con for joining this debate. I look forwards to having an interesting discussion with them. Their query has been addressed in the comments section as promised. I hope that they are satisfied with my ruling.
I do not believe that the reading and viewing of the Harry Potter books and films should be banned by government legislation, and this is for several reasons. Firstly, I believe that people have a right to engage in any form of entertainment that they choose, assuming that it is not in violation of another's basic rights. In the UK, we have a law stating that adults have an express legal right to choose their own entertainment (1). I believe that the banning of Harry Potter by the government would heavily infringe upon this right, and that such an action would thereby be immoral.
I also argue that Harry Potter is a much loved franchise, and that banning it could have serious repercussions. Harry Potter has countless fans worldwide (2) and therefore any attempt to ban the franchise would be faced with a stout opposition. This could result in mass violence and anger, as rallies would be near impossible to avoid. One can almost picture a large group of Potter fans massing between platforms 9 and 10 of King's Cross Station, angrily waving books in the face of distraught police. This is a situation best avoided. It could also result in some form of black market, leaving the revenues that rightfully belong to Rowling and the Warner Brothers in the hands of crime lords and the like.
I also believe that Harry Potter spreads a good message to people, and especially children. It teaches about acceptance, especially through the included themes of racial equality and diversity (3). It also gives children characters to which they can relate, especially throughout the difficult years of puberty, and shows them how even the most unlikely of people has the ability to change the world. It shows the value of friendship and bravery, loyalty and hard work. The tale of "The Half-Blood Prince" teaches children that redemption is valid, whatever evils a person may have committed, and teaches them mercy.
I would finally state that Harry Potter is a perfectly entertaining franchise and that banning it would cost us a lot of fun.
I look forwards to seeing my opponent's argument and wish them the best of luck.

(1) See the Law of England and Wales
(3) See JK Rowling's Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. See whole franchise for reference to "Mudbloods/Muggle-borns and Wizarding Superiority.


Harry Potter should be banned by government legislation due to it's promotion of unethical and immoral concepts such as racism, witchcraft, and disobedience.
Racism is a tricky subject, as it may appear the book is friendly toward house-elves, but there is much discrimination towards "Muggles" and "Mudbloods", with it constantly being reinforced throughout the book the they're the inferior race!

Witchcraft is a rather obvious one, as practicing the dark arts is literally an entire CLASS in the series. I know it's intended for defense, but that's like telling kids today "This is how Terrorists get their weapons, now you can defend against them."

Now on to the disobedience, Harry and his friends have disobeyed their teachers, parents, and others several times. When they miss the train, Harry and Ron STEAL MR. WEASLEY'S CAR. When instructed to stay out of the restricted section, they merely use the invisibility cloak to steal the book they want. There's also the use of the "Marauder's map", which encourages bad behavior, making it's user swear they're "Up to no good" before using it. Harry Potter clearly has a negative impact on society, and as such is already banned in China.[1]

I eagerly await the next round of debate and thank everyone who is partaking in this debate, from the pro to the voters.

Any references to the books can be found in the books, if the specific book is wanted or a source for a fact, post in the comments. (Pro you can just ask in your next argument)
Debate Round No. 2


I will begin by thanking my opponent for a very fluent and coherent argument, that has been well delivered and is worthy of respect. However, as this is the rebuttal round, it is my unfortunate duty to now diligently work to tear the said argument apart.
Con begins by stating that the Harry Potter books advocate racism. In my understanding of the texts, this is completely incorrect. Reference to blood superiority is often made, that much is true. Yet, throughout the series, it's constantly shown that the protagonists feel that this is unacceptable behaviour. When Draco Malfoy refers to Hermione as a "filthy little Mudblood" (1) she is immediately backed up by Ron, and later supported by Hagrid. The idea that Muggles are seen as inferior is again a generalisation, as whilst antagonistic characters like Voldemort and Grindelwald obviously support this ideology, it is made clear that they are wrong. The villains are plainly not mean to be the role models for children, that is the job of the heroes. It is also worth mentioning that the racist ideas are proven wrong, as Hermione, a Muggle-born, is the most accomplished Witch of her age. Whilst some people call Mr Weasley racist, I rather feel that he is simply naive and fascinated, like a curious child asking why different people look different and have different skin colours.
Con then goes on to argue against witchcraft. However, they appear to have missed the fact that the lessons in Defence Against the Dark Arts ARE entirely for defence. For example, during the Duelling Club (1), students are taught only disarming charms, not the spells they will be defending against. My opponent may point out the lesson on the Unforgivable Curses (2), however it is worth noting that this lesson is not being taught by the Hogwarts curriculum or even a member of the Hogwarts staff, but rather by a Death Eater impostor. Therefore, your analogy should read that they teach people how to stop a bullet from a terrorist's gun, unless they have a sadistic, psychopathic and evil teacher.
Finally Con argues about disobedience. I would firstly say obedience is not always a good thing. It breeds indoctrination, conformity and promotes authoritarian control. However I would also point out that in the series, disobedience is often punished. When they steal Mr Weasley's car (1) they are almost expelled. When they are caught out of bed with Hagrid and Norbert (3), they are given detention in the Forbidden Forest. When Harry breaks the law for using a Patronus charm outside of school (4) he is expelled and has a disciplinary hearing. Therefore disobedience is not entirely advocated, but neither is it shied away from in a real world that honestly, in my humble opinion, needs more of it.
I will once again thank my opponent and await their rebuttal to my Round Two arguments. Good luck, and let's remain civil, which we appear to have been able to so far.

(1) Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
(2) Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
(3) Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
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
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by LordDeclan 1 year ago
I eagerly await my opponent's rebuttals.
Posted by LordDeclan 1 year ago
Steelgraph, you are permitted to question absolutely any element of a source. If the source is a website, please provide a hyperlink. If the source is anything else, the author and the title of the work is acceptable.
This debate has 4 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.