The Instigator
maxprimo
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
tulle
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Lord of the rings vs harry potter.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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 3 votes the winner is...
tulle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/4/2013 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 9,753 times Debate No: 33279
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (19)
Votes (3)

 

maxprimo

Pro

Hello
I will be arguing that the Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit are better than the Harry Potter series

Better
Adj
Superior.

Wikipedia is considered a reliable source for this debate

No arguments shall be made in round one

Time to crunch some numbers.
Although the sales for the first few Harry Potter novels are unknown we do know the sales for books 4-7
The sales are in book order.
4: 66 million [1]
5: 55 million [2]
6: 65 million [3]
7: 44 million [4]
Assuming that the first three books had similar sales, the average would be around 55 million per book

The books in the Lord of the Rings (Abbreviated lotr) have sales like this
Lotr: 150 million
The Hobbit: 100 million
[5]

an academy award or an oscar is considered of by many as the highest award a film can receive

Number of academy awards won by the harry potter series: 0 [6]

lotr academy awards won
The fellowship of the ring: 4
The two towers: 2
The return of the king:11
The return of the king won every oscar it was nominated for and is tied with Ben-hur and titanic for most academy awards won by a film.
[7]

I have presented you with some facts

Good luck

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...(film_series)
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...(film_series)
tulle

Con

As per my opponent's rules, I will not be making any arguments in Round 1. However, I would like to make note that the facts he presents in Round 1 have the Lord of the Rings as one book, and the movies as 3 separate movies. The debate is about the Harry Potter series as a whole, and whether it is better than Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit as a whole---not which particular book or movie.

Thank you for what I hope will be a fun and interesting debate, and I accept the challenge. I will uphold the resolution that the Harry Potter series is better than the Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit.

Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
maxprimo

Pro

maxprimo forfeited this round.
tulle

Con

Regrettably, my opponent has forfeited his opening round. I will uphold the resolution that Harry Potter (HP) is the better series, in the hope that we can continue this debate. I will be referring to both Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit as LOTR.


My Case


1. The Harry Potter series has made more money than LOTR.


It is interesting to note that my opponent posted what each Harry Potter book sold separately, and yet compares them to LOTR as a whole. Since LOTR was published as three volumes and he used the total sales, I think it is only fair to compare the total number of sales of LOTR to the total for all HP books. Additionally, the first Harry Potter book was published in 1997, and the Hobbit was published in 1937. Despite being 60 years late to the party, HP still boasts sales of 7.7 billion [http://www.statisticbrain.com...]


2. The characters in the Harry Potter series are more dynamic and have more depth.


Throughout the Harry Potter series, the reader is taken through an engaging character arc for multiple characters.


The Hero


Harry is a hero with a dark side, and can be compared to numerous “villains” in the series, including Draco Malfoy, Severus Snape, and Voldemort himself.


You see Harry as he matures from an 11-year-old boy who lives under a cupboard to a stubborn, angry teenager, to a man who gives up his life in order to save everyone. Here, JK Rowling highlights:


“One of the ways in which I tried to show that Harry has done a lot of growing up – in Phoenix, remember when Cho comes into the compartment, and he thinks, "I wish I could have been discovered sitting with better people," basically? He's with Luna and Neville. So literally the identical thing happens in Prince, and he's with Luna and Neville again, but this time, he has grown up, and as far as he's concerned he is with two of the coolest people on the train. They may not look that cool. Harry has really grown.” [http://www.mugglenet.com...]


Throughout the series, Harry is both lauded and hated for his celebrity, and as the reader grows, Harry grows. The Harry Potter of Book 1 is not the same as the Harry Potter of Book 7. The same cannot be said of Frodo.


The Best Friend


While Sam is the quintessential best friend, Ron has layers that make for a better story. While Sam accepts his position of lesser importance, Ron resents it. What Ron sees in the Mirror of Erised, his greatest desire, is to stand out among his family members and famous best friend.


Ron remains a “Sam-like” character for the first three books, but then you first see him desert Harry in the fourth book, when Harry’s name comes out of the Goblet of Fire. Harry and Ron’s relationship involves feelings of resentment, anger, betrayal, and envy. In the seventh book, Ron deserts Harry completely, and his feelings of jealousy over Hermione become apparent. Ron is a whole character with his own arc, while Sam is just a one-dimensional plot device to help Frodo along his way. The Ron Weasley of the Book 1 is not the same Ron Weasley of Book 7. The same cannot be said of Sam.


The Sage Advice


Dumbledore begins like Gandalf, simply being the person to go to for answers. In Book 6 Harry and Dumbledore’s relationship becomes slightly more egalitarian, as he requires Harry’s help and they seek out information together. After his death, the reader is taken to another level with Dumbledore and made to question his character, his actions, and everything we knew about him.


While Gandalf loses depth as a character by becoming more stoic after his death, Dumbledore’s character continues to surprise and engage the reader until the very end.


The Villain


The villains in HP are perhaps the most intricate characters created in both JK’s world and JRR Tolkien’s world. Since the stories are told from Harry’s perspective, who we think is the friend or the foe is often turned on its head. In HP, the line between good and evil is blurred and the reader is made to question judgements made based on first impressions.


In Book 1, we think Snape is evil because Harry thinks so. Throughout the series, the reader thinks Slytherins are evil due to Harry’s prejudice. And yet you find evil people in other houses (eg. Peter Pettigrew); and Slytherins who would risk everything for their families (the Malfoys); Slytherins who refuse to join Voldemort (Slughorn); and Slytherins who would risk everything for the memory of the woman they love (Snape).


The reader is given insight into Voldemort’s childhood and his development as a person, as opposed to the one-dimensional evil of Sauron (does he even say anything in the movies?). In the movies, Ralph Fiennes portrays Voldemort as theatrical, charming, even funny.


Support Characters


The development of support characters in LOTR is essentially nonexistent. There are many examples in HP, but let's take Neville Longbottom. He began as a very minor character, and could have remained the chubby, forgetful, inadequate boy of Book 1. However, at the end of that book he stands up to Harry, Ron and Hermione, showing a different side of him.


Not only do we see Neville become a determined, defiant, noble young man as the series progresses, but we are given insight into how close he came to being the Chosen One and his tragic story that parallels Harry’s. [http://www.mugglenet.com..., FAQ Poll #3]


3. The themes in the Harry Potter series are more thought-provoking.


The themes in LOTR are limited and weak. HP includes (but is not limited to) themes of good vs. evil, bravery, friendship and loyalty, misleading appearances, love and its powerful magic; of trust, sacrifice, bigotry; and of good and evil not being purely black and white,.


The practice of the Sorting Hat makes you question how different we really are. Harry’s change of heart for Kreacher makes you question how the way you treat others affects the way they treat you. The Tale of the Three Brothers makes you question the importance of immortality, and Voldemort’s desire to seek it—and despite “Vol de mort’s” flight of death, Harry was The Boy Who Lived. [Note: In French, vol de la mort means flight of death]


Additionally, despite being intended for children, the HP movies are darker and more mature than LOTR.


4. The plot is more intricate and interesting.


Each and every HP book is filled with information and foreshadowing to further the plot. Each book/movie can stand alone as its own story, with a well-defined story arc, and contributes to the larger whole. The LOTR and the Hobbit were separated into 3 movies each, despite each movie being unable to stand on its own. A few things happen here and there, but all they do is walk and walk. In each Harry Potter movie, things are actually happening!


The LOTR movies are unnecessarily long. The first time I watched the Fellowship of the Ring, I fell asleep, woke up, and they had just formed the fellowship.


This Cracked article sums up the first Hobbit movie quite nicely. Just CTRL+F the word “walk”, it's hilarious. [http://www.cracked.com...]


Conclusion


While reading and watching HP the audiences is taken through a myriad of emotions along with its complex title character. You cry for Dumbledore’s death, for Hedwig’s, for Fred’s—but did you cry for Boromir or Gandalf the Gray? [http://www.debate.org... Posts # 3 & 4]


While both Rowling and Tolkien have created elaborate fantasy worlds, LOTR focuses too much on the details of the world within the story, and not enough on character development, plot development or themes. Rowling has the details, but she doesn’t bore her readers with them by drowning her books in them—instead, she leaves it for during her interviews.


The Harry Potter series uses this elaborate wizarding world as a backdrop to the bigger, more interesting picture—its various characters, themes, and plot developments—and this is why HP is better than LOTR.

Debate Round No. 2
maxprimo

Pro

I apologize for any inconvenience I may have caused you

1.) Harry potter has "stolen" many parts of the Lotr story, For example:

The main character watches helplessly as his elderly beaded mentor falls hundreds of feet after an encounter with an enemy (Draco/orks) until a more powerful and feared foe (Snape/Durin's Bane) appears and kills the bearded wizard.

The main characters best friend is forced to leave the group because of an object (Locket/Ring) only to appear later to save the main characters life and destroy the object.

A good amount of the last Harry potter book is about a group of friends who are traveling the country side looking for a way to destroy a piece of jewellery before it controls their emotions and destroys their relationship.

Both stories have object that assure that the dark lord remains alive but at the cost of part of his life force. Those objects can control the wearers, plus one of the horcrux's is even a ring.

In both stories the dark lord is defeated and loses a object of power (Harry as a horcrux/the one ring) and remains in a weakened state until becoming a threat years later

In both the hobbit and Harry potter the characters must go underground to find a great amount of gold guarded by a dragon to find a certain object of value.

A good book would have a more original story

2.) The Lotr film series won more academy awards than the Harry Potter film series. Harry potter has never had the best makeup, had the best original score, had the best visual effect, had the best Cinematography, had the best sound editing, had the best art direction, had the best costume design, had the best director, had the best film editing, was the best picture, had the best original song, had the best adapted screenplay and had the best sound mixing that year for any of its films while the Lotr series has won all of them. The Oscar awards are one of the most prestigious awards that a film can receive [1][2][3][4]

3.) The Harry potter film series has differences between some of the movies. For example, the actor who plays Dumbledore gets replaced between the second and third movies (RIP: Richard Harris). The new Dumbledore is more "Angry" and less calm and loopy and silly than the original. Plus the look of professor Flitwick changes. If you take into account the different cgi directing styles and overall fell of the movies you will find that this can be an issue

Rebuttals:

1.) Even though the lord of the rings was divided into three volumes it was one novel[5]. The three volumes are sold together in one book here[6]. Also the article in the link listed it as one book. You argue that the lord of the rings was 60 years earlier. I would say that the lord of the rings would be less popular if it had made films about it as soon as it was released. Because the films where released in the late 70s early 2000s and in the 2010s the books enjoyed resurgences in popularity. The Harry potter series might have enjoyed this resurgence if they had waited a little while after the series had ended to start making the movies. 7.7 billion dollars*

2.) Even if a character has more depth than another, I think that it is irrelevant if the character isn't original.
The character similarities:

The hero
A young person who one day discovers that is is his duty do destroy an object with the dark lord's life force in it, He sees things sometimes involving the dark lord (when Harry sees into Voldemort mind or when Frodo puts on the ring) and he is forced to stand by as he watches the Sage get killed. Harry is an imitation of on Frodo and isn't very original.

The best friend
A Red headed boy who eats a lot, can be mistrust people at times, has far less money than the hero ,travels the countryside with the hero, leaves the hero because of a object of power and returns to destroy it and you even admit that Ron is "Sam-like" in the first three books. Ron is an imitation of on Sam and isn't very original.

The sage advice
An old(old) bearded wizard who gives the main characters advice and a certain times abandons them and who's death involves falling a long distance. Plus you see the Sage differently after he dies and he continues to help the hero. Dumbledore is an imitation of on Gandalf and isn't very original.

The Villain
A dark lord who is defeated and left in a weakened state for a good part of the series. Also he poor his life force into object(s) of power that need to be destroyed before he can die. He also has a large number of followers that he "Created"
Voldemort is an imitation of on Sauron and isn't very original.

Your argument about Snape shall not included in this debate as the title was "The Villain"(Singular) not "The Villains"(plural)

Support Characters
There are to many support characters to compare so here is a quick one

A pair of similar looking young people who are constantly getting into trouble and who assist the hero and are related to the best friend (by species in Lotr) Fred and George are imitations of Marry and Pippen and aren't very original.

3. Isn't it strange (sarcasm) how the themes of good vs. evil, bravery, friendship and loyalty, misleading appearances, trust, sacrifice and good and evil not being purely black and white are also in lord of the rings.

Also the first movie isn't very dark and not all of the movies are rated pg. 13.

5. The lord of the rings does not require you to read one book to read the other (although it does help clarify) and can also stand alone. Your argument of Lotr being boring is an opinion Not a fact. Plus focusing on details better puts you into the character.

Thank you
Good night
-Max

1[http://en.wikipedia.org...]
2[http://en.wikipedia.org...(film_series)]
3[http://en.wikipedia.org...]
4[http://en.wikipedia.org...]
5[http://en.wikipedia.org...]
6[http://www.amazon.com...]
tulle

Con

I would like to thank maxprimo for continuing this debate and providing us with some interesting points for consideration.


Rebuttal of Pro’s Case.


1. Harry potter has "stolen" many parts of the Lotr story


It would appear that Pro’s first argument and the majority of his rebuttal rest on the premise that something being original makes it better. This is false. The Model T [http://1.bp.blogspot.com...] is not better than all the cars that succeeded it, the first Blackberry is not better than all the smart phones that succeeded it, mankind’s first clothing garment is not better than YSL or Armani—I can give plenty of examples.


Not only is his premise false, but his argument that LOTR was “original” is also false. Tolkien based his Elvish language on Finnish; the concept of ‘Middle Earth’, various names, including Gandalf and all the dwarves, and the Mirkwood Forest Bilbo travelled were taken from “Edda”; and the ring that Harry Potter supposedly copied from LOTR? Wagner did it first in the 19th century. For a full list of everything LOTR/The Hobbit “stole”, please visit the following website. [http://www.sacred-texts.com...]


Harry Potter having some similarities to LOTR does not make the story unoriginal. Like every writer to ever exist, JK Rowling’s writing is influenced by various things. Yes, even Tolkien was influenced by others [http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_influences].


2. The Lotr film series won more academy awards than the Harry Potter film series.


It is well known that the Oscar’s have genre bias and there are many people who deserve to win, and don’t. Steven Spielberg wasn’t even nominated for best director (Jaws) in 1976 [http://roblacy.writingonlineatcsu.net...].


Conversely, there are many Oscar winners who didn’t deserve to win. For example, Driving Miss Daisy (which somehow won Best Makeup?) won Best Picture and was nominated over Do the Right Thing in 1989; Tom Hanks (Forrest Gump) won over Morgan Freeman (The Shawshank Redemption), John Travolta (Pulp Fiction), and Paul Newman (Nobody’s Fool), for Best Actor in 1994; and Crash won Best Picture in 2005. [http://movies.about.com...][http://www.timeout.com...]


I’m not saying that the LOTR didn’t deserve any of its Academy Awards, but the claim cannot be made that the Academy is the end-all-be-all judgement of whether or not a movie is “the best”.


Regardless, LOTR only won Best Picture for The Return of the King, and being a better movie does not make a series better.


3. The Harry potter film series has differences between some of the movies.


I really do not think that this can be a serious contention. Alfonzo Cuaron (the director of HP3) had no control over Richard Harris dying. Michael Gambon’s portrayal of Dumbledore may have differed, but he is an actor with artistic license. The differences in CGI and makeup can be explained by having better technology, considering the movies took over a decade to make. Is my opponent suggesting that as technology rapidly changed over the course of 10+ years, the movies should have remained the same? Additionally, the different directing styles made sense, given that the books/movies get progressively darker and more mature, and considering that the 11-year-olds who initially saw HP1 in theatres would have been in their 20s by the time HP8 was in theatres.


Despite these minor changes, HP was able to retain its core cast over the course of 8 movies and a decade, which is a pretty remarkable feat.


My Case


1. Harry Potter made more money.


LOTR being one novel is irrelevant if it was published on 3 different dates. The fact is one reader would have to purchase the same novel 3 times, thus inflating the number of books sold. Even if it can be sold as one book, it can also be sold as 3. Being less popular between book publication and movie releases is also irrelevant. The fact is the Harry Potter series did make more money.


2. Character depth.


My opponent has claimed character depth is irrelevant if the character isn’t original. I have shown in my rebuttal of his first case why being first is irrelevant. The fact is, JK Rowling takes these characters to greater heights and gives them life, while Tolkien’s characters are one dimensional.


The Hero


My opponent ignores the first 5 books and the stories within them.


The Best Friend


My opponent admits that Ron was “Sam-like” for the first 3 books only. My argument is about depth, which is created in the following 4 books.


The Sage Advice


My opponent’s argument rests on originality—In addition to refuting this notion earlier, my previous round did show how Gandalf and Dumbledore were different in depth. He does not address their differences.


The Villain


Again, Pro has not addressed the differences I pointed out between Voldemort and Sauron.


Pro does not even address the other villains I mentioned in the series, simply because I didn’t say “villains”. Notice how “support characters” is plural, but I only mentioned one. That is because I am listing character devices and not the characters themselves. He has effectively dropped my points about Snape and Slytherin House.


Support Characters


My opponent mentions two out of dozens and dozens of support characters in Harry Potter and again mentions originality. [http://en.wikipedia.org...] If you have a big enough sample size (the dozens of support characters) you will find similarities anywhere. He completely drops my point about Neville.


3. Themes


While LOTR may have some of the same themes as HP, the themes in HP are “deeply entrenched in the whole plot” and “grow organically” [http://www.mugglenet.com...]. My argument is that they are more thought-provoking. Each and every subplot or story in HP is filled with elements for the reader to ponder. They are too numerous for me to list. I’ve listed a few in my previous round and thus far, my contention has been unaddressed.


4. Plot


The LOTR does require you to read every volume, and each volume was made into its own movie. The first movie does not resolve the major plot that was brought in the beginning. The three movies are meant to be watched as a whole and only do you get a resolution at the end. The first HP movie has a beginning, a middle, and an end—a full story arc that comes to a resolution (Voldemort is thwarted from getting the Philosopher’s Stone). The same can be said of the next 5 HP movies.


Conclusion


My opponent claims focusing on details helps better put you into character—despite this, LOTR’s plot is not as intricate as the Harry Potter series, and the characters still do not have the depth of the Harry Potter characters.


I have dismissed Pro’s first contention that something being first makes it better. I have also shown how LOTR has borrowed elements from other stories. I have shown how the Academy Awards is not definitive proof that a movie is better.


I have also dismissed the notion that the HP movies having differences makes LOTR better.


Pro has not refuted the fact that the Harry Potter series has made more money. He has also not addressed the depth issue with LOTR characters. He mentions similarities, which I have already shown is irrelevant, and ignores the differences, which was the point of my argument. My opponent has also said that LOTR has some of the same themes as Harry Potter, but again, does not address my point, which is that in HP they are greater and more thought-provoking.


And lastly, Harry Potter having a more intricate plot, and each book and movie (save for the last 2 movies, which were made from the same book) having its own beginning, middle, and end, has not been addressed.


I hope that, thus far, I have brought forth compelling reasons for why the Harry Potter series is better than LOTR, and I look forward to my opponent’s rebuttal.

Debate Round No. 3
maxprimo

Pro

I apologize for any inconvenience i may have caused you

Due to an issue with my computer, my argument was deleted. I don't have enough time to rewrite it. Again I apologize
tulle

Con

That's unfortunate :( Arguments extended.
Debate Round No. 4
maxprimo

Pro

maxprimo forfeited this round.
tulle

Con

Arguments extended. Thank you for reading.
Debate Round No. 5
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by GavinDymock 2 years ago
GavinDymock
Tulle I fully agree with ur argument for harry potter as it us far grater than LOTR as I have just watched the first one while being on my phone or being distracted by anything else as the film was that boring. But 1 thing I didbt agree with what u said was about Tom Hanks winning the oscar (Forest Jump) over shawshank and pulp fiction I do believe that Forest Jump was 100 times better than any of the other films nominated against it.
Posted by tulle 3 years ago
tulle
I seeeee. I don't see the Slytherin students as that much meaner than other students, apart from the fact that Harry interacts with them (namely Draco) more. Draco and his friends (including Pansy Parkinson) do not represent all the Slytherin in the school at the time that Harry attended.

Additionally, at least in the movie, when Harry first meets Draco, he decides not to be friends with Draco because he insulted Ron, despite the fact that Ron insulted him FIRST. Ron, and the other Gryffindor are often cruel to Hermione, and the entire school participated in ostracizing Harry when his name was called in the Goblet of Fire.

While it is true that Slytherin produced the greatest number of Death Eaters, Slytherin House is also chosen on their cunning and ability to look out for themselves. Siding with Voldemort because it's the easiest thing to do doesn't make you evil (eg. Regulus Black). Not everyone would prefer to choose death.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 3 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Harry's prejudices do in fact become the prejudices of the reader. On a related note, Harry says good things about Slytherin house to his son. But is it really the case that Slytherin is good? After all, Salazar Slytherin was the one who left the school. The Slytherin students are often mean, and evil. Not so for the students of other houses. Slytherin also has the greatest number of death eaters. Despite Harry coming around at the end of book 7, I am not convinced that Slytherin house is any good.
Posted by tulle 3 years ago
tulle
@F-16---that's an interesting argument, though I think I could have made a case for the Harry Potter series having one's child's/man's perspective (and I think I did a little bit when I talked about Harry prejudices becoming the prejudices of the readers').
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 3 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
The biggest thing about LOTR is the "epicness" of the story. Wikipedia calls it "high fantasy." The story revolves around several characters who each have their own goals and responsibilities. For instance, there is Aragorn who leads an army to attack Sauron. The Ents destroy Isengard. There is the battle at Helm's deep for Rohan etc. All this while Frodo and Sam try to get the ring into Mordor. The focus is not on one particular character but on the world as a whole. Tolkein also writes various other books like the Hobbit, Silmarillon and others where he hashes out the history of middle earth and shows how various kingdoms evolved and the dark lord formed and forged his ring. To an extent the Harry Potter world is similar. Voldemort ~ Sauron, Harry ~ Frodo, and OOTP ~ Fellowship. But the mere title gives it away. It is always "Harry Potter and the Xxx Yyyy." All the books begin with his title. We rarely (4 chapters total) view the world from anyone's eyes except Harry's. It is always about what Harry thinks, what Harry feels, and what Harry speculates about the thoughts and feelings of others. The entire tale is told from the perspective of one man. Not so for Lord of the Rings. The tale is told from the eyes of many. Their thoughts and perspectives are their own. I am not saying one is better than the other. I enjoy viewing the world from Harry's eyes, but this was one of LOTR's strengths and I don't think Pro said much about it. Also, graphics and action sequences from LOTR movies beat HP movies any day.
Posted by tulle 3 years ago
tulle
Yeah, I'd love to have feedback on my arguments once this is done.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 3 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
This debate is really good. I like Tulle's arguments but I think there are many ways where LOTR is better than HP that Pro hasn't yet taken advantage of.

Max_Primo, I didn't remember initially but I seem to have voted on a few of your debates.
Posted by tulle 3 years ago
tulle
Ehh I guess there's not really a point since 2 rounds were missed :/ Anyway, hopefully I can do this again.
Posted by tulle 3 years ago
tulle
@maxprimo---oh man, that sucks and is super frustrating. I always type my rounds into Word first because of that :/ Do you wish to do a 5th round? If so, I can wait before I turn it over to you.
Posted by tulle 3 years ago
tulle
I definitely won't be able to post my round tomorrow. It'll likely be late Tuesday night.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 3 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
maxprimotulleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 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: Forfeit and Con had better arguments anyways.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 3 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
maxprimotulleTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: F.F. Unfortunatly, due to technical difficulties Pro was unable to complete the debate. I usually take a conduct point for F.F., but here I felt that pro adequately explained that it was due to technical difficulties rather than carelessness and apologized, thus I did not take the conduct point.
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 3 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
maxprimotulleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 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: Pro conceded the debate due to technical difficulties.