Lord of the Rings is better than Harry Potter
I will be arguing that Lord of the Rings is better than Harry Potter.
All aspects can be used in the debate e.g movies, books etc...
My opponent can start debating in the first round if they wish
I have two observations. To ensure proper debate of the topic, we will look to ONLY the original novels, not the movie adaptations. This ensures that the original context and meaning are kept secure. My second observation is that the better franchise is that which is proved to be the most substantial to the reader, not that which is the most fun to read or the "coolest" as these are objective. Substance is indisputable, and will serve as the basis for the voters decisions. (Ideally, as people will still only vote for their favorite franchise anyway.)
I have three contentions for todays round.
CONTENTION 1: THE HARRY POTTER FRANCHISE IS MORE ACCESSIBLE TO A BROADER AUDIENCE.
The Harry Potter series is more user-friendly than Tolkien's series. The sheer length of the Lord of the Rings novels discourages more casual readers and non-fantasy fanatics. Each installment of the Harry Potter franchise gets progressively longer, which allows readers to pick up the first installment of the series, and progress as far as they desire, as opposed to never picking up the series to begin with. This is evidenced by the fact that 400 Million copies of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone have been sold, whereas only 150 Million of the Lord of the Rings have been sold.
CONTENTION 2: HARRY POTTER IS A BETTER PROTAGONIST THAN FRODO BAGGINS
Continuing with my point of appealing to a broader audience, Harry Potter is a more relatable, stronger protagonist. The narrative of Harry Potter supersedes that of a common man story, and includes a coming-of-age element that allows more relatability to the character. Harry's appeal to a broader audience makes him a superior protagonist than Frodo, as they share many of the same charcteristics, both being young men set up by the actions of their fathers to vanquish evil, both overcoming various trials, and both being supported by their friends. Harry's addition of relatability simply makes him a better character.
CONTENTION 3: THE STORY OF HARRY POTTER CONTAINS A THEME, WHILE LOTR IS SIMPLY A NARRATIVE
The story of Lord of the Rings is an adventure fantasy. While incredibly entertaining, it contains no moral to be taught to the audience. The persistent theme throughout the Harry Potter franchise is, coincidentally, persistence. Harry Potter teaches the moral that you can lose absolutely everything, but never give up hope. By giving the reader with something more memorable and life-changing than merely a good read, Harry Potter comes out as the superior franchise.
I stand open for my opponent's points.
I thank Con for this debate.
I would just like to clear somethings up.
"To ensure proper debate of the topic, we will look to ONLY the original novels, not the movie adaptations." Sorry Con, but I already said, "All aspects can be used in the debate e.g movies, books etc..." Since I am the instigator, I get to make the rules.
R1: THE HARRY POTTER FRANCHISE IS MORE ACCESSIBLE TO A BROADER AUDIENCE.
Con says, "The Harry Potter series is more user-friendly than Tolkien's series.The sheer length of the Lord of the Rings novels discourages more casual readers and non-fantasy fanatics.
I think it is important to know the timeline of when these books were written. The Sorcerers Stone was releasesd on 1997, while the Fellowship was released on 1954. Back then, grammar was much different, which is why people today think the grammar is advanced. For a 15 year old in the 50's, the grammar wouldn't seem difficult, compared to a 15 year old in 2015.
Con says, "The sheer length of the Lord of the Rings novels discourages more casual readers and non-fantasy fanatics"
If I count the total amount of pages of the 3 LOTR books, it totals to 1008 pages. t's 398 pages for The Fellowship of the Ring, 327 pages for The Two Towers, and 412 pages for The Return of the King. For Harry Potter,
SS - 223 (UK)
CoS - 251 (UK)
PoA - 317 (UK)
GoF - 636 (UK)
OOTP - 766 (UK)
HBP - 607 (UK)
DH - 607 (UK)
Books 4 to 7 are longer than the LOTR books, so this proves Con's arguments wrong.(Im only using the U.K version).
"This is evidenced by the fact that 400 Million copies of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone have been sold, whereas only 150 Million of the Lord of the Rings have been sold."
I do not know where Con got his information, but according to http://www.cesnur.org..., both series sold about the same. With the Harry Potter slightly edging out Lord of the Rings. Keep in mind though, its 7 books to 3 books.
R2:HARRY POTTER IS A BETTER PROTAGONIST THAN FRODO BAGGINS
"The narrative of Harry Potter supersedes that of a common man story, and includes a coming-of-age element that allows more relatability to the character."
R3:THE STORY OF HARRY POTTER CONTAINS A THEME, WHILE LOTR IS SIMPLY A NARRATIVE
My opponent points out that my first observation is null because the instigator makes the rules. This is my first debate and I was unaware of this so I apologize for my breaching of the rules.
My opponent does not mention my observation concerning substance of the text meaning he has no attacks for it. Keep this in mind as I will revisit this later
My opponent attacks my first contention by saying that people in the 50s used different grammar. While this is true, we cannot detract from the fact that more people TODAY are willing to read a Harry Potter novel than a LOTR novel. The impact of the present generation of readers on the books reception cannot possibly be ignored.
My information concerning total copies sold comes from here. http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
My opponent says that this stat is skewed due to the presence of more Harry Potter installments. However, there are 7 HP novels, and 4 LOTR novels if the Hobbit is included. (As it should be)
Mathematically speaking, if Harry Potter had only half as many books (3.5, less than LOTR) it would still have sold 50 million more copies, so this argument falls flat.
My opponent further claims that Harry Potter contains more total pages. I clearly stayed that each book was progressively longer, so readers would not be discouraged by the length. Additionally, when the Philosophers stone was written, the series was a fifth that of LOTR, drawing in many initial readers not persay due to the length, but many were not discouraged.
My opponents sole attack on my second contention is nitpicking concerning the plot of LOTR, which I can turn against him by saying that Harry Potter is not "about a wizard leading two young lads to fight evil" as 1) all three protagonists in HP were wizards/witches 2) Harry was the youngest of the three and 3) Hermione Granger was female
C3: my opponent states that LOTR also contains a good moral and I concede to this rebuttal
Attacking my opponents case now, I bring you back to my observation. My opponents first two points both deal with his opinions of the series. My opponent cites that in the movies the villains have "cooler" armor as one reason the pro should win. Until my opponent creates a viable reason that subjective opinions of one man should win the round, neither of his first two points can be looked to.
My opponents third argument states that critical reception of the movies should determine the round. However, we cannot assume critical reception of one aspect of the franchise wins the round. We also must look to the original source material and a tangible way of measuring impact, rather than unrelated actors and directors abilities to convey such material.
To summarize this round. My opponent's first two points are useless at proving LOTR is the superior franchise, and third is very sketchy at best. While I show that Harry Potter is accessible to a broader audience, and a superior protagonist. Therefore, con should be considered for victory.
I stand for the opposing arguments.
R1: Con admits my first statement was true, and provides no rebutall to it. Con makes the assumption that more people today are willing to read a Harry Potter novel. Since Con provided no evidence that proves more people are willing to read Harry Potter, his argument stands void. Con says the impact of the present generation of readers on the books reception cannot possibly be ignored. The Lord Of the Rings also had amazing book reception, so Con argument makes no sense.
Con sabatoged his argument by bring in the The Hobbit in this debate. With The Hobbit, Con can no longer say that Harry Potter is meant for a broader audience, as The Hobbit is designed for that purpose only. Con uses wikipedia as a source, which is not acceptable. Con must provide another source. He says Harry Potter would have sold 50 million more copies, but gave no source of where he got the sales of the Lord of the Rings. Con cannot use my source, because he presented his own source for the total sales.
Con says each book was progressively longer, so readers would not be discouraged by the length. Con assumes that readers are automatically discouraged when he or she comes across a big book. The Fellowship was 398 pages, which in my opinion is not very long. Con doesn't show how a progessively longer book is easier to read than a book that is between 300- 500 pages.
R2: Con believes I "nitpicked" his arguments by saying that "about a wizard leading two young lads to fight evil" Hermione and Ron were only helping Harry defeat Voldemort. If I go by that, I can also say Sam, Pippin, Merry, Legolas, Aragorn, Gimili, and Boromir were all protagonists, as they helped Frodo destroy the ring.
R3:Con says my first 2 arguments were "opinions". My first argument was about Tolkien being the orginal writer of his fantasy themed books, and how Rowling was inspired by Tolkien. There was no opinion in my argument, and I provided sources to back that claim up.
Con seems to think that having opinions in this debate is wrong, even though he contridicted himself when he said Harry Potter is a better protagonist than Frodo Baggins. Not everybody will agree with you, and that simply is your own opinion if you believe that. Again, that isn't wrong, as this whole debate is based on opinions.
Con provided no rebutall for my 2nd argument, but saying it was an "opinion". Just like Con said how he proved Harry Potter was the better protagonist, I proved how I thought the Villiains in LOTR were better.
Con states, "We also must look to the original source material and a tangible way of measuring impact". Again, I already said all aspects of the trilogies can be used in the debate. I showed how Lord of the Ring movies were better than the Harry Potter movies, by showing the critical reception, and the number of Oscars it won.
Con did not provide any rebutalls for my 2nd and 3rd argument.
TheAceT2 forfeited this round.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|