The Instigator
ScarletGhost4396
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Veridas
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Resolved: Lord Voldemort is a better villain than The Joker

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/26/2011 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,701 times Debate No: 17661
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

ScarletGhost4396

Pro

Round 1- Introduction of our positions and acceptance of challenge
Round 2- Presentation of Statements Pro and Con
Round 3- Rebuttal #1/ Cross-Examination
Round 4- Rebuttal #2/ Follow up Cross-Examination
Round 5- Final Rebuttal

I will be arguing for the pro
Veridas

Con

I accept the challenge on the basis that f*ck Lord Volemort and his pansy-arse quest of species-specific domination. Ignoring for a second that this is a man thwarted by a pubescent boy, a man so incompetent that he didn't think to kill Harry in the ten or so years that he was guarded by his non-magical aunt, uncle and cousin, he then utterly fails to crush Harry like the little nerd that he is because...why? Oh, right, yes, he chose the single most incompetent lackey to do it for him. Wonderful.

It's not even like he doesn't have chances, one of his minions is Ron's rat for pete's sake, here's an idea, make the rat get something deadly on it's teeth, then bite harry when he sleeps. Ron's frequently portrayed as accident prone and sort of useless, you can't possiby tell me that Voldemort is seriously so pathetic that the idea of killing the one child, CHILD, that is prophecised to murder him is taken precedence by, say, acquiring a rock that, being a rock, probably isn't going anywhere for a while. You know, rocks aren't the quickest thing in nature, after all.

The Joker, on the other hand, not only numerously thwarts entire state and federal organisations whose sole purpose it is to hunt him down and kill or arrest him, but it takes a millionaire ninja with more high-tec gadgetry than an army of James Bond's backed up by Michael Friggin' Caine to do it.

Let me rephrase that for the dense.

Lord Voldemort is thwarted multiple times by a child.
The Joker is only brought down after long and arduous struggles by a man who could quite possibly buy his sole, smash it with a karate kick and have his butler make a quotable quip about it, while the joker simultaniously outwits literally everyone else in a fifty mile radius.

Lord Voldemort had to overcome a child and fails, the Joker probably eats children for breakfast.

Then there's the choice of weaponry, Lord Voldemort? Death Eaters, Horcruxes, immense quantities of magical capabilities, immensely powerful minions, not to mention agents inside Hogwarts itself, even so close that one of them is seldom more than ten feet away from Harry in the first book without Harry, Ron, or anyone else even realising it, and yet he STILL fails.

The Joker? A potato peeler.

I am serious.

http://postimage.org...

The Joker will ruin your day, your friend's day, your mum's day, your boss's day, your boss's mum's day, with a tool typically used to murder vegetables.

"but wait" I hear you cry "what of all the explosives, guns, and knives?"

Shut the f*ck up, that's what. The Joker makes all his explosives, do you know how batsh*t insane that even is? and guns? he uses those only when he has to, say, when trying to kill an armoured truck. The knives? That's it, that's probably his weapon of choice, and one of those knives is a potato peeler. The Joker routinely brings knives to gunfights, wins, laughs, and smacks his lips like a psycho.

Lord Voldemort could have probably laid siege to Hogwarts at any time and had a fair chance at winning but doesn't because he's a sneering supremacist coward who can't even kill a child. The Joker routinely puts himself in immense physical danger for achieving an end that only he truly believes in, going against the entire world in the process, and he's beaten...why? he's not, actually. In The Dark Knight, the Joker goes to prison, as if he's never gone through that before, we are given zero indication that the Joker's plot ends at that point. (and let's be fair, chances are he has a plan to get out even before the cuffs are put on him) and while he's doing all this, he's having the time of his life.

This is what the Joker looks like:

http://www.newhotstuff.net...

and this is what the Joker acts like:

http://media.animegalleries.net...

Don't get it? Then you will never understand why the Joker is one of the most popular villains of Gotham, or why Voldemort might as well bend over and lube up whenever Harry gets within a hundred miles of him.
Debate Round No. 1
ScarletGhost4396

Pro

Before continuing with my argument, I would like to make a quick cross-examination of my opponent's argument:

1. You state that Voldemort has been thwarted multiple times by a child and defeated by one in the end. In the other times that Voldemort has been thwarted, was he always at his strongest, and when he was defeated in the end, was it through the efforts of Harry alone or more than one person?

2. You make references to the Joker from the 2008 film The Dark Knight, correct?

3. This will seem like a silly question, but, how do you prove that the Joker actually used that potato peeler?

4. You state that Joker prepares all of his materials for destruction. Why does that make him a better villain?

5. It takes Batman alone to stop the Joker, right?
Veridas

Con

"1. You state that Voldemort has been thwarted multiple times by a child and defeated by one in the end. In the other times that Voldemort has been thwarted, was he always at his strongest, and when he was defeated in the end, was it through the efforts of Harry alone or more than one person? "

Voldemort was only alone because he had nobody else to hide behind. The Joker, by comparison, hid his face only once, and that was to fool some bank robbers. While Harry does defeat Voldemort, he's only able to because he's backed up by Nerd-girl-3000 and a ginger. Harry would have fallen flat on his face in the first film if they hadn't been there, and that's ignoring the, you know, years of tuition, learning spells, facing Voldemort's minions as a warm-up, at any time in all this Voldemort could have struck one way or another, but simply "chose" not to.

"2. You make references to the Joker from the 2008 film The Dark Knight, correct?"

You bet your arse.

"3. This will seem like a silly question, but, how do you prove that the Joker actually used that potato peeler?"

I will answer that question with a question. What other tool does the Joker carry that he doesn't use or attempt to use?

"4. You state that Joker prepares all of his materials for destruction. Why does that make him a better villain?"

Ignoring for a second the fact that heroes place themselves in direct danger in order to triumph over evil, and thus a truly great villain will have no qualms about doing the same to stop the hero. (Many great villains, even in historical writing, have done this, from Moriarty to Dick Dastardly) A great villain is powerful not because of his henchmen, but despite them. Darth Vader, Shao Khan, Moriarty, even Satan in the bible, these men are not made powerful because they have henchmen, they are powerful in a way seperate to the henchmen entirely. No Clone trooper could stand up to Darth Vader, and the likes of Quan Chi and Shinnok, despite having godly powers, have to trick Shao Khan into inadvertently sacrificing himself by invoking the wrath of actual, hones-to-god deities because they are simply too cowardly and weak to face Shao Khan themselves. Moriarty never expects more than paltry efforts from his lackeys, and Satan acts against something so immensely powerful that, in theory, that thing could simply make it vanish without batting an eyelid or breaking a sweat. Rewriting history as we know it, without a care in the world.

Great villains put themselves at risk just as much as they employ henchmen or lackeys, hell, the Joker risks his own life in order to recruit Harvey Dent, AKA, Two Face, to the side of "Chaos" Not only does he risk his life, but he literally gives Dent a gun, and then has Dent hold it against his head. That is not just crazy, THAT is a great villain.

Voldemort avoids all opportunities to attack Harry until it is far too late, and only when having exhausted every other possibility, expended every other minion, and sacrificed every other option.

"5. It takes Batman alone to stop the Joker, right? "

Oh clever, you're referring to Lucius Fox's assistance, hmm? Except Lucius Fox doesn't actively aid Batman in the Joker's downfall, he just gives Batman a location, and even then, he protests against that so strongly that he resigns from a high paying job that carries with it the insurance that his actions will help fight crime, such is his morality. Lucius Fox's half-hearted resignation was no small feat given the immense loss to Gotham it would pose, and even if it was, it's still Batman that does all the grunt work.

The Joker and Voldemort aren't cut from the same cloth, but the Joker has been one of Batman's most popular villains for so long for a reason. Voldemort lived and died in the shadow of a child he was too cowardly to kill, too cowardly to face, until he absolutely had to. The Joker, if he could, would have brought dinosaurs to bear against Batman, because he's just that insane, and just that awesome.
Debate Round No. 2
ScarletGhost4396

Pro

1. So you do agree that Harry wasn't able to defeat Voldemort by himself at some level? Was it only Hermione and Ron that Harry had to have in order to be able to win?

2. Is that the only Joker that exists?

3. But if there were no scenes in the movie where he used the potato peeler, how do you prove he actually used it at all?

4. So you agree that it was mostly Batman alone that was required to take down the Joker?

Veridas

Con

"1. So you do agree that Harry wasn't able to defeat Voldemort by himself at some level? Was it only Hermione and Ron that Harry had to have in order to be able to win?"

Harry's help is no more special or competent than he is. Besides which, it's called "Harry Potter and the x y z" for a reason, Harry is the protaganist, the hero, the knight. Granger, Weasley and everyone else are support characters at most.

"2. Is that the only Joker that exists?"

No but given that the Joker as perceived in the Dark Knight is both A: as true to original, un-watered-down form as you can get a B: The most modern incarnation, I think it's fair to employ him. Particularly since the other mode media depicting him such as Arkham Asylum keeps the xanatos gambit section of his psychosis but does away with the "crazy prepared" and "villain with a cause" tropes that make him able to do what he does without getting his sh*t ruined on day one. The animated series of batman reduced the Joker to a giggling nitwit who would occasionally kill someone in cold blood because they'd annoyed him. The other films depicted him as an all-round psycopath complete with arbitrary morality and poir choice of henchman, and even Arkham City seems set to paint the Joker as someone trying to revive some arbitrary cause for the sake of monetary gain rather than being the agent of chaos that he is meant to be.

"3. But if there were no scenes in the movie where he used the potato peeler, how do you prove he actually used it at all?"

You didn't answer my question. Therefore I shall not answer yours.

"4. So you agree that it was mostly Batman alone that was required to take down the Joker?"

Required? Probably not. The Joker's interest in Batman probably comes from his unique take on crime. The Joker knows, one way or another, how to fool and deter standard law enforcement agencies but the batman is a totally different kettle of fish. I would say the Joker, on a scene by scene examination of the film, actually won. The Joker hurt Batman in a way no other criminal has done before or probably will do since. The Joker managed to make the Batman afraid, afraid for the life of Rachel, his love. The Joker managed to take away the one thing that Batman truly cherished. The Joker managed to turn Harvey Dent, a man who was seen as untouchable, into a cold blooded killer. The Joker did all this while outwitting absolutely everyone. Batman punched him in the head, but the scars Batman carries away from the encounter wil most likely last forever.

The joker didn't do this to prove a point or promote a cause, he didn't even do it because he "wanted to watch the world burn" or because he had some grudge. The Joker did all this because he thought it would be funny. That's it. Like some kid in a playground being laughed at for getting a nutshot on the swings or falling off the side of the slide like a pinhead, the Joker extended immense influence over an entire city without an army, without any riches or material wealth, without even a sense of dignity, he does all this because it tickles his funnybone, even when he's hanging by a thread over a drop that could easily kill him. Hell, he's LAUGHING when he's falling towards his death moments before.

Mouldywart ain't got no thang on tha Jokesta.
Debate Round No. 3
ScarletGhost4396

Pro

Alright judges, I don't know about my opponent, but I feel that I've asked enough questions in a cross-examination to make a statement of my own as well as a counterargument to my opponent's statement. My opponent can ask me as many questions as he feels is required because he has allowed me to make questions of his argument. Now, to the rebuttal: In this debate, you will notice, judges, that my opponent only makes an analysis on the Joker's performance when it comes to the opposition to the hero and other forces that try to stop him. There's so much more that goes into making a good villain than that, and to think that this is the only analysis that my opponent makes, it make his entire case inherently shallow in depth of the analysis of the debate in entirety.
The judges wil also see that my opponent's representative for his debate when it comes to the analysis of the Joker is the Joker from Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight (2008). To make an analysis on the entirety of a general character merely through one example is faulty because there are aspects in the Joker from the film that do not correlate entirely with the general image of the Joker. For instance, the Joker from the Nolan film does not have the Joker's background, general image (fallen into a chemical bath), the quality of having gag weapons that distinguishes the Joker from the other villains known in the comic universe, etc. This is something in the general image of the Joker that makes him distinct, and the fact that the Nolan film eschews so many distinguishing characteristics in the traditional, general image of the Joker, this makes it faulty to base the entirety of the character on this single character when he's only a fraction of the whole (let alone a very small fraction). Therefore, that makes his entire case pretty much easy to trump.
When we move on to his points and his general responses in the cross-examination. What he really tries to show us is that Lord Voldemort is not a good villain because he is thwarted by Harry so many times, doesn't make his own weapons, and apparently has had so many opportunities to attack Hogwarts and didn't really do it. However, when we look at the answers that he made in his cross, where he tells us that Harry won because he had the help of Ron and Hermione, it contradicts his own point that it only took Harry to bring down The Dark Lord. In addition to that, my opponent isn't entirely correct on that because Harry required the assistance of Albus Dumbledore as well in order to ensure that the Elder Wand (the most powerful wand in creation) didn't end up in Voldemort's hands and the assistance of Severus Snape infiltrating Voldemort's organization in order to be able to carry the process out. Let's not forget the required assistance from the parts of both Dumbledore's Army and the Order of the Phoenix in order to be able to vanquish Voldemort's forces. What does that prove? My opponent's argument is faulty at best if he's trying to argue that Harry alone could've beaten him. Harry Potter and Goblet of Fire shows us exactly how Harry couldn't have beaten Voldemort by himself when he had no one for his aid to fight Voldemort and just barely came out alive from the battle. Also, my opponent acknowledges that it takes only one man to bring down the Joker, which only shows us the Joker isn't that efficient of a villain. Also, I'd like to ask my opponent that if he is really using the Joker from the Nolan film, when does the Joker EVER make any of his own weapons? That never occurred anywhere in the film, and for him to be bringing that kind of point on the table is nothing more than false. When we move on to Lord Voldemort's performance in the attempts to kill Harry Potter, we have to realize that 1) Voldemort was never at his strongest and had so many objectives to fufill, including making himself strong enough to battle Harry, conquering the wizarding and muggle worlds, etc. 2) Sending out someone to kill Potter would've been contradictory to the book's plot because as we learned in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, no one else was meant to kill Harry Potter directly other than Lord Voldemort himself.
Now, we make an analysis between Lord Voldemort and The Joker at my level. When you analyze both characters, you will realize there's not much difference between their personalities: a sadistic lust for the torment of other human beings; an extremely violent and ruthless execution for desires; a strong degree of intellect and an ability to install fear in the populations. What we realize, though, is that Joker is more of a representation of insanity in contrast to Lord Voldemort, who is more of a representation of pure evil. We know this about Lord Voldemort simply through his symbolism. Lord Voldemort has been designed to look like a snake, has a snake with him at all times, and came from a house in Hogwarts that had a snake for its symbol. The snake is known to be a symbol of evil according to any symbolism dictionary, stemming from the story of Adam and Eve in the Bible. Not to mention that JK Rowling herself has told in interviews that she based the character from actual persons in history, most notably Adolf Hitler with his idealisms of ethnic cleansing. Voldemort has also been associated with the images of terrorism, especialy in the scene from the sixth film where his Deatheaters destroy a bridge. This shows us that Lord Voldemort is more symbolically significant than The Joker with all of the background that he has.
Not to mention that Lord Voldemort has been pretty much successful in all of his feats except killing Harry Potter. Regardless of the actions of Severus Snape, he had acquired the Elder Wand. He had taken over the Wizarding government and installed terror in the muggle world, meaning that he's brought terror at such a larger scale. He was able to become powerful again. He was able to attack Hogwarts. Lord Voldemort has been such an efficient villain, and he has been able to do so much more than the Joker. The Joker terrorized Gotham. Voldemort terrorized two worlds.
Bringing my argument back to the weapons ordeal, it doesn't really matter who made the weapons. What matters is the potency of them and the amount of resources that each villain has. Not only is Lord Voldemort's weapon more dangerous than the Joker's based on the amount of things it can do, but Lord Voldemort has so much access to resources, including his Deatheaters and Horcruxes, making him a very difficult villain to defeat indeed.
Then, of course, is the cultural impact of both characters. Lord Voldemort has been used for so many references for evil in the world, including Osama bin Laden and George W. Bush. A particular joke showed the words "Republicans for Lord Voldemort" because Voldemort was such a symbol for evil. This is not limited to the culture of the US, but also for the UK. This shows us that Lord Voldemort has made more of a cultural impact than the Joker has.
So, why should my judges vote PRO? I've shown you the many holes of my opponent's argument; I've shown you an objective and subjective analysis of Lord Voldemort as well as the appeals of both in two cultures; I've shown you that Voldemort has been able to accomplish much more than the Joker has. I've shown you that Lord Voldemort has more potency as a villain than Joker has.
Therefore, the answer is clear: Vote PRO.


Veridas

Con

"hat my opponent only makes an analysis on the Joker's performance when it comes to the opposition to the hero and other forces that try to stop him. There's so much more that goes into making a good villain than that"

Trying to tell the judges what they should think is a poor choice of strategy.

"To make an analysis on the entirety of a general character merely through one example is faulty because there are aspects in the Joker from the film that do not correlate entirely with the general image of the Joker."

Already answered for this, the Joker in his original form was closer to the Joker we see in TDK than in any other incantation anywhere. Not only does this mean that this incantation is the best easily accessable example, but it also means the likelihood of your familiarity with the Joker that I'm referring to skyrockets.

"fallen into a chemical bath)"

Which would add...what, to his character? Every Batman villain at one point or another has fallen into a chemical bath of some kind. Two-face, Mr Freeze, Bane, Poison Ivy, hell I'm pretty sure in the super-camp TV series of e 90's that Batman himself fell into a sodding chemical bath at least once.

""the quality of having gag weapons that distinguishes the Joker from the other villains"

So you're criticising TDK's version of the joker for not being child friendly?

"This is something in the general image of the Joker that makes him distinct,"
No.

http://batman.wikia.com...
Quoth the wiki:
"The Joker is a master criminal with a clown-like appearance. Initially portrayed as a violent sociopath who murders people for his own amusement, the Joker later in the 1940s began to be written as a goofy trickster-thief."

Your Joker is not THE Joker.

"traditional"

HA!

"it contradicts his own point that it only took Harry to bring down The Dark Lord."
Irrelevant to the discussion, as it goes.

"My opponent's argument is faulty at best if he's trying to argue that Harry alone could've beaten him. "

Again, irrelevant, if we're going to gauge the quality of a villain by how many people have to help the hero to beat him then the greatest villain in the world is probably Shao Khan.

"Harry Potter and Goblet of Fire shows us exactly how Harry couldn't have beaten Voldemort by himself when he had no one for his aid to fight Voldemort and just barely came out alive from the battle"

Pay attention folks, this bit's important.

"Also, my opponent acknowledges that it takes only one man to bring down the Joker, which only shows us the Joker isn't that efficient of a villain."

In the same way that if a pie is small enough to be eaten by one person then it must taste worse than a pie that can feed several people.

"Also, I'd like to ask my opponent that if he is really using the Joker from the Nolan film, when does the Joker EVER make any of his own weapons? "

Well there's all the bombs, every single bomb, in fact, the bombs on the boat, bomb in the hospital (fun fact, the delayed hospital explosion was actually a pyrotechnics error and not in the original script, Ledger ad-libbed that scene), bombs meant for Rachel and Harvey, bombs in that fat guy's stomach, the bomb jacket towards the beginning. Not to mention using the law enforcement of Gotham AS a weapon, you know, the sniper scene, the fake guards, the taking of hostages, and so on.

"false"

HA.

""When we move on to Lord Voldemort's performance in the attempts to kill Harry Potter"

There's something that troubles me greatly in the revelations about Harry's parents in the first book/film. Harry's parents died protecting baby Harry, yes? That wou sort of imply that Voldemort killed them, yes? Which would in turn imply that Voldemort had a clear shot at Harry (a point boosted by the, you know, scar that's painted on his face)

So...why couldn't Voldemort kill a baby, precisely?

"Between Lord Voldemort and The Joker at my level."

Pay attention folks, "at my level" means looking at the Joker like the only criminal with down syndrome that hasn't yet given up and gone to play legos.

"a sadistic lust for the torment of other human beings;"

Actually Voldemort by his supremacist ideology would be a genocidal villain, which makes him about as special and unique as Duke Nukem Forever.

"an extremely violent "

Voldemort-only when it suits him
Joker-more akin to Monty Python's Black Knight in his lust for violence.

"ruthless execution for desires"
"a strong degree of intellect"
"an ability to install fear in the populations"

Worse than Yoda's, your grammar is.

"What we realize, though, is that Joker is more of a representation of insanity in contrast to Lord Voldemort"

Because a man who wants to wipe out all human life in the name of some pathetic supremacist agenda and is willing to employ everything from giant snakes to flying grim reapers couldn't POSSIBLY be insane.

"who is more of a representation of pure evil."

Because pure evil gets chicks, or so I'm told.

"Lord Voldemort has been designed to look like a snake, has a snake with him at all times, and came from a house in Hogwarts that had a snake for its symbol. The snake is known to be a symbol of evil according to any symbolism dictionary"

Actually a snake typically represents subtlety and deception rather than outright evil, but snakes in general have been used as symbolism for everything from eternity (the famous snake eating it's own tail image) to the Rod of Asclepius, the image of which formed the basis for the modern day Caduceus symbol, present in most U.S Hospitals in one form or aother.

"Not to mention that JK Rowling herself has told in interviews that she based the character from actual persons in history, most notably Adolf Hitler"

Who definitely wasn't insane, nope, despite going through Trench Warfare, immense economic difficulties and prison, who wanted to exterminate Blacks, Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals, Marxists, Jehoah's Witnesses, disabled people, Slavs fro Eastern Europe, Poles, and Freemasons and that would make the world one big happy family. Nope, definitely not insane.

"Voldemort has also been associated with the images of terrorism, especialy in the scene from the sixth film where his Deatheaters destroy a bridge. This shows us that Lord Voldemort is more symbolically significant than The Joker with all of the background that he has. "

Because destroying a bridge is WAY worse than destroying a hospital. Oh, take note, apparantely, terrorists: Not insane.

"Not to mention that Lord Voldemort has been pretty much successful in all of his feats except killing Harry Potter."

Which is like being a world champion bodybuilder with a three inch dick, you can lift boulders but every single woman you bed is going to laugh at you.

"meaning that he's brought terror at such a larger scale"

See this is what bothers me about people's perceptions of the Joker, how quickly they link him to someone who wants others to be afraid, but that's never the point. Not even in TDK. The Joker wants us all to become more...unrestrained, more feral. If you want a non-Joker antagonist to compare the Joker to, then you should compare the Joker to Tyler Durden. Both think mankind is less human for it's collective attitude, and that we should seek to see what we can accomplish in life rather than settling for a Semi in the suburbs, a dog named "Jack"and a holiday every few years.

"it doesn't really matter who made the weapons"

It does, it really really does.

Sun Tzu said that all warfare is based on deception. The Joker deceives everyone, now imagine someone was walking towards you holding a potato peeler. Would you think they were going to attack you? Hell no, you'd be deceived, and you'd die.

You'll note that I didn't answer for many points here, but then many points are a variation of the ones I did answer, repetition, or just downright stupid. So roll on the next round.
Debate Round No. 4
ScarletGhost4396

Pro

Alright, since this is the last round of the debate, I'm going to give the judges of this debate a quick recap of the debate itself and reply to my opponent's rebuttal.
The fact that my opponent places a character bio of the Joker in general in his rebuttal, but tells us that the Joker from Nolan film was closest to the classic, general joker actually defeats his entire case because the character bio that he gives us upholds what I've been saying entirely. He uses that bio as evidence in his argument, and what it describes is the Joker that I've been describing this whole time as being the optimal Joker to look at: having a twisted sense of humor, using gag weapons, and all of that jazz. Not only that, but all of his arguments against what I'm saying goes against his own evidence, so you can clearly see where the contradiction lies in his case. Therefore, at this point, I wouldn't even need to debate the rest of his case because he was analyzing the wrong thing. He tells us the Nolan Joker is the best Joker to look at it from, but he doesn't give us a reason why, and I've explained to you why we shouldn't just use the Nolan Joker, but he doesn't make a real response to that. So, at that point, count off anything my opponent said about the character.
Then, my opponent states that everything that I've said about the amount of people required to bring Voldemort down was heavy was essentially irrelevant, but this is also contradictory because my opponent talked about the very same thing in his original statement: how the Joker needed to have all of these organizations and Batman to take him down, to which I have explained that Lord Voldemort has not only been able to outsmart the organizations as the Joker has had, but he was able to directly take them over and cause more havoc to both worlds, in contrast to the Joker, who terrorizes only one city.
Then, with the argument about the bombs, my opponent seems to be just making evidence up. There's no proof he made the bombs on the boat himself and rigged them. There's no proof that he made the bombs for Rachel and Harvey (which shows to be more of the actions of the Mafia rather than the Joker, so it shows just how little my opponent's evidence is in strength). There's no proof about the fat guy's stomach. I guess the two things would be the bomb jacket and the law enforcement makes a bit of sense in some way, but my opponent clearly says that the Joker makes ALL of his weapons, but when it's all questionable and has no real strong proof, it doesn't validate his point in any way.
My opponent questions why Voldemort wasn't able to kill Harry. It was because of the magical spell that was placed on Harry: love. It tied in with the central theme of the story that love conquers all. Voldemort is bad, but there is always a force that is stronger, just like how the Joker is bad, but there is a force stronger than he is as well.
My opponent tackles my point about the Joker being more of a representation of insanity by stating that Voldemort could be insane as well, but the main difference is that the Joker is legitimately insane as diagnosed by the doctors of his universe in the general image. Of course, we should analyze that, but my opponent doesn't in his case.
My opponent also tackles the point about the snake symbolism. The snake symbolism can go in many ways, including the snake being the devil himself (the representation of evil). Any symbolism dictionary will tell you the exact same thing about the evil connotation.
My opponent also argues about the accomplishments that Voldemort has made, but when he's making more accomplishment than the Joker, as I have explained in my case, it definately makes him a better villain because he's a more efficient one.
My opponent doesn't really argue against many of my points as well. He's instead succumbing to just either insulting me or insulting my character directly, so you as well just hand me the points for conduct as well. He doesn't explain most of his arguments, as I have done, and the only reason that he pulls up to support his case over mine is that my arguments are stupid, which aren't very valid arguments. He even openly says that he's not going to argue against anything I said in my case, so that's the cue for the judges to extend everything I've said across the flow.
Voldemort is more efficient. Voldemort is eviler. Voldemort represents much more. Therefore, you must vote for the PRO.

Veridas

Con

I would instead ask the judges (assuming that anyone cares) to think for themselves rather than be swayed by the petty pleas of one side.

I will summarise my opponent's points contrasted against my own in the hopes of achieving this end.

My opponent claims that posting a biography containing a description of the original Joker is fruitless because it also includes later variants, as if later variants have any bearing whatsoever on the character's original design.

My opponent claims that since it took so many people to bring down the Joker that he must be a worse villain than Voldemort...who was brought down by a child, his ginger friend, a nerdy girl, some teachers and an emo ghost. What bearing this has on how effective either villain is, frankly, is beyond me.

My opponenty claims that because it took so many people to defeat the Joker, a point that's false in itself, that Voldemort must have been the greater threat. This is ignoring how the Joker manages to outwit an entire city. Twice.

My opponent argues that since the Joker didn't "take over" the state funded and federally mandated institutions that tried and failed to take him down, that he must be ineffective, ignoring that such a method is totally antithetical to the Joker's ambitons.

My opponent claims that love is the sort thing that can apparantely stop a great villain, ignoring how laughably ridiculous such a premise is, if that's the case then should that love not also have protected Harry's parents, you know, the people that died?

My oppnent is committing hypocrisy in claiming that the Joker is insane as a point of discussion when he earlier attempted to use the Joker's insanity as a black mark against him, note also the complete lack of equivalently admitted insanity for Voldemort, you know, the man that my opponent has compared to terrorists, Hitler, and evil symbolism in general.

My opponent attempts to claim that Voldemort is made better because he is efficient, while ignoring that the Harry Potter books span, what, seven years? The Joker brought Gotham City, the only city in the world protected by The (Goddamn) Batman to it's knees in the space of less than a month and he did it with seemingly very little pre-planning, he did it off his own back, and he did it by toying with the very fabric of people's humanity rather than trying to encourage some supremacist agenda.

My opponent feels that his every argument requires validation for my resistance to be accurate, and yet my opponent has yet to begin to debate properly, choosing only to make points in the penultimate round and instead ask elusive questions beforehand, and acting as if my points have no merit purely because he believes so.

I would argue that even if Voldemort truly were more vicious, more insane, more intelligent, more cunning, these things do not make a great villain. I wold argue that even if the Joker relied on minions and magic and other non-personal nonsense as much as Voldemort does, the fact that the Joker goes out of his way to put himself in the crosshairs makes him a much rarer breed of villain and the fact that he does this while effectively eschewing every single state attempt at his apprehension that doesn't involve Batman means that the Joker, a civilian, an ordinary guy, outwits the equivalent of every single armed policeman, criminologist, criminal psychologist, gangster, bank robber and even on at least two occasions the (goddamn) Batman himself. Whereas Voldemort's plans are figured out by two kids and a ginger. Repeatedly.

Even if Voldemort had something that the Joker didn't in terms of his ruthlessness or tenacity, the Joker has one claim to fame that Voldemort will never have.

It took the (goddamn) Batman to bring the Joker down. When everyone else had tried and failed, it took the (goddamn) Batman to defeat the Joker.

Voldemort will never have that.

Ladies and Gentlemen, on your marks, get set...VOTE!
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by mongeese 6 years ago
mongeese
ScarletGhost4396VeridasTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Delaying arguments until the penultimate round is poor conduct. Spelling/Grammar: Just worse in general for Pro, often forgetting basic punctuation. Arguments: Con was able to dominate from the beginning. Sources: Con actually used them.
Vote Placed by Puppet911 6 years ago
Puppet911
ScarletGhost4396VeridasTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Reasons for voting decision: In terms of the debate and what was debated, I'm obliged to give it to con primarily because of the voting criteria and only somewhat how he debated, which was a rough yet fitting personality of the topic at hand