The Instigator
baby_cheetah
Pro (for)
Losing
28 Points
The Contender
Logical-Master
Con (against)
Winning
49 Points

The Dark Knight is not oscar-worthy.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 12 votes the winner is...
Logical-Master
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/28/2008 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,880 times Debate No: 6078
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (39)
Votes (12)

 

baby_cheetah

Pro

It's a great film, and if reduced down to nothing but Ledger's joker performance, then it would be among the greatest films in history. But that's not the case and, as a whole, The Dark Knight is not oscar-worthy. I'll start with its most crucial flaw, but will be happy to elaborate on other flaws when and if anyone accepts my debate challenge. Here it is...

Harvey Dent's crossover to 2-face. The hero-turned-villain concept is a magnificent tool to use...but only if it's used ever so craftily. If not done so, it becomes a cliche.

Let's use Darth Vader as a reference point. Anakin is born a slave and remains a slave throughout most his childhood. Then he decides to leave his home to study the force and become a Jedi, pledging to return and free his mother. His mother is then murdered, and we begin to see his anger, hatred, emptiness, despair surfacing. But only surfacing. If Anakin had turned to the dark side five minutes after his mother's death, then half of Episode 2 and all of 3 would become pointless. Instead, George Lucas reveals another 5 or 10 years of the villain's life, creating more suspense, more drama, more build-up, more plot, more emotion. Anakin's crossover is ever so gradual. It takes three portions/films of the saga to finally reveal, at long last, this hero's downfall. Thus, Anakin Skywalker aka Darth Vader has become a classic, legendary villain.

But district attorney Harvey Dent's crossover/downfall? Umm...sloppy, rushed, quick, mediocre, and reckless at best. Rachael Dawes, his only love, his girlfriend, his bride-to-be, his whole life...is murdered. So, of course, it's only natural that Harvey is a little upset, a little angry, a little sad, a little depressed, and now a little insane. But all of the sudden? In five seconds? The next day? Gotham's white knight, its savior, its true hero, is, in the course of 15 seconds of footage, now a sadistic murderer? Oh and the brains behind your true love's murder, the ONE most responsible person for Rachael's death, gently places a handgun in your palm, offering you the chance to blow his head off...and you don't take it? I don't understand. Here's a man who has just listened to the one person on earth he loves the most explode on the telephone, and it's turned him inside-out with hatred and anger and insanity...yet this same person allows the killer responsible to live.

It's choppy and sloppy, quick and stupid. Perhaps if we had seen just a tiny level of the inner villain surfacing within Dent, before he lost his mind, then ok. But there was no sign whatsoever that Dent had anything close to a moral flaw...until he went insane. Hero-turned-villain, or even villain-turned-hero...must be a gradual process. If it's rushed in any way, then it collapses under its own weight.

Thus, TDK is not worthy of an Academy Award.
Logical-Master

Con

Greetings to my opponent and many thanks for starting this debate. In todays case, if I manage to properly contend whatever flaw PRO brings to the table or manage to demonstrate how these flaws aren't enough to deem the film not worthy of an oscar, then my job as the contender shall be fulfilled and you shall have no choice but to vote CON.

The instigator's one an only argument is that Harvey's Dent's transformation into a villain was awful.

However, from this complaint as well as his Darth Vader comparison, it is quite obvious that he misunderstood the meaning behind Dent as well as the actions of the Joker.

#1. There were two ingredients in Harvey's fall to the evil side. The first one was Rachel Dawes. The second was the idea that there was good in Gotham and that it could thus be saved from the evil which was manifesting itself daily in the city. Before proceeding, I shall discuss both of these ingredients.

a)Rachel Dawes. Her death was more of a heavy blow than PRO has suggested: In the film, it was made clear that Harvey clinged to Rachel for support moreso than one could fathom. Even during the party scene (before the Joker had arrived), we see Harvey confiding to Rachel about not knowing anyone else at the party and that he didn't wish for her to leave him alone with the other guest. Clearly from this scene as well as his description of her while he and her were dining with Bruce at a restaurant earlier in the film, we can gather that Harvey considered Rachel to be his pillar of support. In fact, one could even suggest that this was his reason for making her his legal partner as well as his reason for proposing to her.

b) Dent believed and was strongly convicted towards change in gotham. We have plenty of reason to believe in Harvey's convictions. Whether it be at the beginning of the film where he willingly takes down an armed criminal in court (hence risking his own life), where he seeks out James Gordan (one of the few honest police officials in Gotham) just so that he may work with Batman (a vigilante; a violator of the law, yet someone who was focused towards change in Gotham) or where he willingly gives up his own freedom (by claiming that he is Batman) in order to insure that Batman manages to continue existing, we know where Mr. dent stands.

#2. The Joker was well aware of both of the ingredients that made Harvey Dent. If both of these ingredients were stricken from the formula, the white Knight of Gotham would become the villain we came to know as Two Face. The Joker knew this was possible just as he knew that ANYONE COULD BE CORRUPTED IF WHAT THEY VALUED THE MOST WAS UTTERLY COMPROMISED!

Thus, over the course of the film, we saw the Joker's plots and plans effect Harvey's two ingredients for his life. In terms there being good people in gotham and that it could be changed, Harvey began to see otherwise when approached with the fact that many of the individuals in the city were connected with the Joker or to mobsters. Essentially, this gives him the idea that everyone has been corrupted (hence, why he nearly kills a man, only to be stopped by Batman)(incidentally, contrary to what PRO says, this is the Nolan's way of demonstrating Dent's main charactacter flaw so early in the film). This begins to give him the idea that no one can be trusted, hence why he tells Rachel that she cannot trust anyone in the city when going into hiding from the Joker. In terms of Rachel herself, we see that Mrs. Dawes is blown to smithereens due to clever planning of the Joker.

It is at this point in the film that Harvey is brought to Gotham's hospital only to have his fateful conversation with the Joker. At first, Harvey wants to avenge Rachel's death, but the Joker merely sees this as an opportunity to dismantle Harvey's remaining ingredient for being the white Knight of Gotham. During the course of the conversation, he reinforces Harvey's idea that Gotham is all too corrupted and that there is no one who can be trusted. He then goes on to give Harvey the idea that it was the corrupt people of Gotham (Commissioner Gordan included) who ultimately caused Rachel's death). Harvey, already having been emotionally disturbed due to Rachel's death as well as the corruption of gotham, simply goes over the edge due to the Joker's words. This causes him to completely turn towards the only system of justice which is not corruptible; this causes him to turn towards Chance. It is by chance that he doesn't murder the Joker.

#3. There is one crucial difference between StarWars and The Dark Knight. The film isn't centered around Harvey Dent (contrary to StarsWars being centered around Vader). Two Face is simply nothing more than a tool of the film's true centric villain (The Joker) that is being used to establish a point, thus more character development would simply be a waste of time given that it would be unnecessary.

Thus, I have answered this so-called "flaw" in TDK and now await R2. :D
Debate Round No. 1
baby_cheetah

Pro

"The instigator's one and only argument is that Harvey Dent's transformation into a villain was awful."
-Actually no, that's not my one and only argument. I stated these words in my opener: "I'll start with its most crucial flaw, but will be happy to elaborate on other flaws when and if anyone accepts my debate challenge." Had no one accepted my challenge, then identifying each of the film's flaws would be a waste of time. Therefore, I focused on its most crucial, which is Dent's crossover. Now that someone has accepted, however, I will happily address other flaws. And I will do so after I counter CON's argument about Dent.

"Rachael Dawes. Her death was more of a heavy blow than PRO has suggested."
-Really? Holy cow. I guess my saying "Rachael Dawes, his only love, his girlfriend, his bride-to-be, his whole life...is murdered. So, of course, it's only natural that Harvey is a little upset, a little angry, a little sad, a little depressed, and now a little insane" somehow falls short of addressing that it was a "heavy blow," though I don't see how.

"In the film, it was made clear that Harvey clinged to Rachel for support moreso than one could fathom."
-Neither "clinged" nor "moreso" are words, but that's beside the point. Here's the point: the way CON depicts Harvey Dent's love for Rachael implies that she basically breast feeds the man. She's his "pillar of support"? Then how do you explain the fact that Harvey established his career as a lawyer (at IA) before even knowing who Rachael Dawes was? If she is indeed his almighty "pillar of support," then he wouldn't be much of a lawyer...I'm sorry, but in desperate, desperate times, and in one of the world's most famous cities (as Gotham is a metaphor for NYC), you aren't much of a district attorney whose chief "pillar of support" is your girlfriend. Harvey Dent's integrity and willingness to lock up criminals doesn't stem from Rachael Dawes.

"ANYONE COULD BE CORRUPTED IF WHAT THEY VALUED THE MOST WAS UTTERLY COMPROMISED!"
-Not true. Batman is incorruptible. And also, a grammatically correct statement would read: "anyone could be corrupted if what HE (or SHE) valued the most was utterly compromised." The word "they" is plural, and does not represent agreement with the noun "anyone," which is singular.

"Thus, over the course of the film, we saw the Joker's plots and plans to effect Harvey's two ingredients for his life."
-"Effect" is a noun. "Affect" would be the correct term.

"Essentially, this gives him the idea that everyone has been corrupted (hence, why he nearly kills a man, only to be stopped by Batman) (incidentally, contrary to what PRO says, this is Nolan's way of demonstrating Dent's main character flaw so early in the film)."
-Early in the film? That scene did not take place early in the film. It was after the parade. And also, during this very scene, Dent did not "nearly kill a man." He was threatening to kill the mobster so the mobster would reveal information about the joker. Thus, it was not a character flaw. He wasn't actually going to shoot the guy.

Also, CON addresses the hospital scene in which Harvey crosses over to evil. He also implies that Dent was so disturbed by Rachael's death, along with corruption in Gotham, that he decides to leave everything to chance...which is correct. I'm not debating that. What I'm debating is the incredibly quick amount of time it took him to do so. Experiencing your loved on die on the phone and then NOT taking the chance to punish the person responsible for it? OK, that's possible...but the film did not elaborate on this whatsoever. It would take an odd man not to avenge his loved one's death...and the movie does not address why this is an oddity, or even that it is an oddity. Instead, it simply portrays a white knight one second and a villain who is obsessed with coins and chance the next. In order to pull something off like that, the process must be gradual. WHY did Harvey care more about a system of chance more so than he cared about avenging his loved one's death? That's the question the film should have asked, but failed to do so.

And as for the Star Wars comparison, I'm fully aware that Vader is the focus point and Dent isn't. But that's no excuse for his transition into evil being a sloppy choppy one. In the comics, 2-Face was one of the major villains...yet in the film, he lasts for 20 minutes and then he's gone! Just like Spider-Man 3...Venom was Spider-Man's arch enemy in the comics, yet appeared in the saga for no more than 12 or 15 minutes in the film.

I was stupid and set the limit to 5k characters, so I'm about out of room.

But I do have room to say this: the debate topic was whether or not The Dark Knight is worthy of an Oscar. I say no; my opponent says yes. But I haven't seen one convincing piece of information that supports why and how TDK could win an Academy Award.
Logical-Master

Con

RE: "that's not my one and only argument."

Promising to make an argument and actually making an argument are by no means the same course of action. In fact, if you shall pay special attention to this round, you shall note that PRO brings up no other flaw which concerns the film in question.

RE: "Really? Holy cow. I guess my saying . . ."

I'm not sure why PRO chooses to be so condescending in terms of his conduct here . . . especially considering that he clearly states that "Harvey has a right to be a LITTLE upset, a LITTLE angry and perhaps a LITTLE insane." In addition, I find it rather strange that PRO would agree that Ms Dawes meant the world to this character, yet complains that we have little to no reason to believe that he'd go over the edge.

RE: "She's his "pillar of support"? Then how do you explain the fact that Harvey established his career as a lawyer (at IA) before even knowing who Rachael Dawes was? "

Given that I have yet to dictate anything along the lines of Harvey having relied on Rachel his entire life (or at least to establish his career as a lawyer), I find this question which my opponent makes as being irrelevant. I insist nothing more than the notion that she became his pillar of support upon him falling in love with her.

RE: " Batman is incorruptible"

Not true. Batman as a symbol in incorruptible. On the other hand, Bruce Wayne had been corrupted when had lost his parents. In fact, he nearly murdered his parents' killer during the events of the first film in attempt get revenge. Furthermore, we know that the actual person is corrupt in that he is regularly depicted as one who breaks the law (being a vigilante, embezzling money from his company to fuel his operations, kidnapping, monitoring all of the cell phones in the city, etc) in order to stop others who are breaking the law.

Of course, this is all besides the point. The point I was getting at was that the Joker knew that Harvey Dent could be corrupted through utterly compromising what he valued. My opponent responds to the actual point I am making with nothing more than a grammatical correction.

RE: Early in the film? That scene did not take place early in the film . . . he was threatening to kill the mobster so the mobster would reveal information about the joker . . ..He wasn't actually going to shoot the guy."

Yes, I consider that early. Fortunately, our connotations of early is not what this debate concerns. In addition, holding someone at gunpoint only to determine whether or not the trigger should be pulled based on the outcome of a coin toss (a coin toss which Batman felt the need to PREVENT) seems to constitute as nearly committing the act ( as in being close, yet only being prevented by something quite meager). PRO's idea that Harvey had no intention of shooting the guy is baseless conjecture at best.

RE: NOT taking the chance to punish the person responsible for it? OK, that's possible...but the film did not elaborate on this whatsoever."

The film elaborated on this several times. In fact, during the climatic showdown with Batman and Gordon at the end of the film, Harvey states the following:

Harvey Dent: It's not about what I want. It's about what's fair. You thought we could be decent men in an indecent world. You thought we could lead by example. You thought we could break the rules . . . you were wrong. The world is cruel. And the only morality in a cruel world is chance. Unbiased. Unprejudiced. Fair.

The guy is out of his mind and bases his morality on chance. We see him rely on a coin flipping to make decisions even before becoming Two face and have sufficient opportunity to note this as being one of Dent's flaws (refer back to the example of Dent coming close to killing one of the Joker's thugs). PRO suggesting that there is not an attempt to explain Dent's motivations as well as why he did not bring himself to kill the Joker is like suggesting there is no sun in the sky on a cloudless day.

RE:"WHY did Harvey care more about a system of chance more so than he cared about avenging his loved one's death?"

See above quote.

RE: StarWars comparison.

PRO's counters my previous claims on this matter by citing the fact the TwoFace was a major villain in the comics. Indeed, Dent was a major villain IN THE COMICS, but the film is NOT the comics and works within a different continuity. Just as Batman is trained by Ras Al Ghul for the film universe alone, Harvey isn't treated as a primary antagonist but rather an extension of the Joker as well as a means of developing Batman enough to make the sacrifice he does at the end of the film.

As for the debate topic: If I recall correctly, PRO instigated the debate, thus has the burden or proof. As the contender, I need only counter his reasons for affirming the topic in order to win.

As for grammatical errors: If PRO insist, then . . . http://img409.imageshack.us...
Debate Round No. 2
baby_cheetah

Pro

"Promising to make an argument and actually making an argument are by no means the same course of action."
-First, I stated that if someone accepted my debate challenge, I'd happily elaborate on flaws other than the most crucial. Rd. 2 rolled around, and I hadn't addressed other flaws yet. However, I have 1 more round, which is this round, to do so. It's that simple. It's not a broken promise. I never said I'd address those flaws within the first two rounds.

I'm going to summarize the Harvey Dent flaw, and also summarize my opponent's attempt to convince us that it's not a flaw. In the film's chronological order:

1. First, HD takes on the role of Gotham's district attorney and simultaneously its "white knight."
2. Then, HD is Gotham's "white knight."
3. Then, HD is Gotham's "white knight."
4. Then, HD is Gotham's "white knight." Despite CON's attempt to identify the scene in which Harvey threatens to kill a mobster (which he's clearly not actually going to do) in order to get dirt on a psychopathic murderer...is not a character flaw. Period. Dent was trying to HELP the people of Gotham by CATCHING this homicidal maniac. You can call that whatever you want, but in the end...it boils down to the fact that he was trying to help catch the Joker. It's simply not a character flaw.

5. HD is still Gotham's "white knight." Everybody loves him.
6. HD Gotham's "white knight."
7. Harvey Dent is a maniac.
8. Whoa!!! Back up!! He's a maniac, already? But the film didn't show any surfacing character flaws! It wasn't gradual! It was choppy! He cares more about sparing the Joker's life than avenging Rachael's?? But why? Oh, I forgot...it's because he has an obsession with coin-flipping. Experiencing his loved one's death caused him to go over the edge, become a psychotic villain, and.........flip coins. Sure, that makes perfect sense.

9. Harvey Dent aka Two-Face dies 15 (or 20 at most) minutes later. Awesome! Don't you just love it when one of Batman's most epic arch enemies takes up 15 whole minutes of footage? Man! That deserves an Oscar award!

Ok enough of that. I've spent enough time on Dent. Now it's time to address TDK's other major flaw: clumsiness. A boundary exists between what is known as "willing suspension of disbelief" and flat-out clumsiness. Willing susp. of disbelief is basically the act of accepting those cheesy, unrealistic scenes in movies. For instance, 5 rebel soldiers battle 15 storm troopers...and surprise surprise, the rebels blow the storm troopers, who outnumber them 3 to 1, out the roof.

But certain scenes in The Dark Knight venture beyond WSOD and into the realm of clumsiness and flat-out blooper-ness. Have a look-see:

Exhibit A) Batman fights the Joker at the party in the penthouse. The Joker dangles Rachael by her arm from the window. He lets her go. She falls. Batman flies down and saves her. But what the heck happens next? While Batman and Rachael are conveniently resting on the roof of a car...the Joker and his henchman, and not to mention the innocent party people...are doing what???? Are they still up there? Are they discussing the Super Bowl? Do the Joker and his men flee??

Exhibit B) This one is so horrible that it's funny. The Joker asks that cop how many friends he'd killed and a few screen shots later, he's got him (a highly-trained police officer) by the throat with a knife. That's right, a knife...even though the Joker was stripped of all his knives (and lent) once he was imprisoned. Maybe he carved a perfectly good knife by hand while he was in Gordon's cell. Hmm...or maybe the cop had a switchblade? Ha. Either way, it's laughable to me. But that's not even the punchline. Here's the punchline of the whole scene: the Joker has that cop by the throat, and then asks for a phone call. He gets the cell phone and then calls the number that detonates the bomb. What happens next? The bomb detonates and blows everybody in the building away except...you guessed it: the Joker and Lao. How convenient! Everyone in that room, including the person within breathing room of the Joker...was blown away! Yet the Joker remained perfectly unharmed! And so did Lao! Classic.

I'm almost out of room, so for my finale, I'll say this: when debating whether the Dark Knight will indeed win the Oscar, we clearly must address other films of 2008. A certain slew of films is due this month...all of which are more Oscar-likely, in the eyes of leading critics, than TDK. As long as we can agree that Ledger's performance is more of an individual accomplishment than an accomplishment of the film as a whole, then it's clear that the odds are on my side.
Your stance implies that TDK is better than all of the following: Wall-E, Benjamin Button, Frost/Nixon, Revolutionary Road, Slumdog Millionaire, The Wrestler.

http://movies.aol.com...
http://www.oscarfrenzy.com...
Logical-Master

Con

In this final round, PRO has opted to summarize my previous argument as well as to introduce the arguments he originally suggested he'd introduce.

In terms of the Dent argument, I shall respond to his attempt to demonstrate the film's order as well as show the problems with my understanding of the order.

1. HD's rise to becoming the district attourney as well as Gotham's white knight was suggested to happen in the events before the film. We are merely seeing him do the tasks required of both roles in this film.

2 and 3. As interesting as PRO's attempt to make this film seem repetitive is, I think I speak for everyone when I say that it would be better if PRO actually provided some evidence to favor this idea.

4. In response to me proving that Dent is willing to take a man's life based on chance as well as demonstrating this to be a character flaw, PRO essentially counters by saying "Nuh-uh as well as bringing up the fact that Dent was trying to capture a homicidal maniac. I nor the audience should find any fault in Dent's ends. Rather, it is his MEANS that is questionable. If anything, PRO has simply provided us with an extra character flaw as he has brilliantly shown that Dent believed that the ends justify the means. Of course, we as the audience nkow better in that using the methods of a homicidal maniac does not justify capturing the a homicidal maniac.

5. See "2 and 3."
6. See "2 and 3"
7. Conveniently, PRO leaves out the fact that the Joker reduced everything Dent values to dirt; the Joker took away Dent's faith in Gothem as well as his pillar of support. Ergo, he snapped. And given that he already had a character flaw (one that enabled him to nearly murder a man before coming Two Face), the transition was perfect.
8. Again, PRO is essentially saying nothing more than "Nuh-uh" to my character flaw argument as well "nuh-uh" to my explanation of the Joker's methods against Dent. Basically, if one COMPLTELY IGNORES these WELL ESTABLISHED part of the storyline, then yes, it's easy to accuse TDK of being choppy or whatever else PRO has complained about.
9. This should be seen as PRO saying "nuh-uh" to me pointing out how Two-Face is merely nothing more than an extension/tool of the Joker as well as a means to develop Bruce Wayne into making the sacrifice that he makes at the end. This is completely opposite to Anakin Skywalker (who is the MAIN character in SW).

Now, in response to the so-called scenes which venture well beyond WSOD:

A) This is rather simple. Could it be that maybe Harvey Dent (the reason the Joker even showed up to the party) was nowhere to be found, thus giving the Joker no further reason to be at the party? Or perhaps is it the fact that the Joker believed Batman was Harvey Dent after watching him save Rachel (as he points out in my video source). If that were the case, there would still be no further reason to leave the party. For that matter,taking the time to filmthe Joker walk out of a simple door would be a waste of time, no?

B) Who says that officer was highly trained? For that matter, we've seen the Joker go toe-toe with Batman two times in the film. If he can hold his own against batman, then it's quite reasonable to suggest that he would have been more than capable of taking down a simple police officer in a fist fight. As for getting a knife, given that these knives were inside the detention center, there doesn't seem to be much of a mystery here either. As for the explosion, given that the Joker was the one responsible for it, maybe he understood the radius of such an explosion and was fully aware of how far he had to be away. You know, like an average soldier knowing the blast radius of his hand grenade?

As for PRO's finale, I agree that we are debating whether or not this movie can win an Oscar. When I had initially saw that PRO/the instigator provided no argument for this in his first round, I was willing to let this slide given that he was new to this site and that he was apparently more interested in discussing this film's flaws. However, if PRO wants to play that way, I have no problem.

I disagree that Ledger's performance was an individual accomplishment. The Joker's depravity was a significant building block in the plot, thus, one could insist that Ledger's performance greatly contributed to the plot.

Finally, neither of PRO's sources are reliable given that they are merely blog like opinion websites (although at least one of the websites INITIALLY provides the opinion of two self proclaimed "big" oscar fans). ANYONE could sign up and post their opinion to either website.

Regardless though, it would still be PRO's job to prove that the TDK can get rooted out of the list with those other films. He has not done so. Since PRO has failed to uphold his stance as the instigator, you are to vote CON as I have successfully countered every argument insinuated.

Thanks for the debate!
Debate Round No. 3
39 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by democrat435 5 years ago
democrat435
lol
Posted by Lamer 7 years ago
Lamer
Just an observation, Harvey actually didn't have any intention of killing the man after the parade, because at that time the coin he was threatening to flip had to heads sides, and harvey fully knew this. He was only attempting to scare the man with a trick coin.

However, holding a gun to someone's face and pretending to threaten them with it for information (psychological torture) is still a character flaw, in my opinion.
Posted by baby_cheetah 8 years ago
baby_cheetah
Holy cow! I though for sure I had lost this one!
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
See? Told yah I would lose. Your friendly joshand will always assure it. :D
Posted by baby_cheetah 8 years ago
baby_cheetah
Perhaps we should cast a protective spell over the debate then, because I don't like to win unfairly.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Possibly. The thing is thought is that he is rather persistent and shall keep doing it as long as I'm winning.
Posted by baby_cheetah 8 years ago
baby_cheetah
He might have already done so.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
If you want, I could lend you my vote until you confirm your identity.

PS: You don't have to worry about losing though. There is a troll here with a plethora of extra accounts (the one whom I have referred to as joshand) who is insuring that I lose all of my debates (hence my low win ratio). When he logs on tonight, the score should be in your favor.
Posted by baby_cheetah 8 years ago
baby_cheetah
This "confirm your identity" business is a bunch of jargon. I entered my cell number, only to have received not a single text message containing this mysterious "confirmation code." It's kind of unfair. I mean I'm sure Logical-Master voted for himself and that's fine, but I'd kind of like to do the same.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
"I never really understood why Harvey blamed the mob more than he did the Joker."

Who says he blamed the mob more than the Joker? He blamed the Joker a great deal (hence why he was prepared to shoot him based on the results of the coin flip). If anything, I'd say he blamed them equally. Then agai, it is quite logical to suggest he blamed the mob moreso than the Joker given that the mob HIRED the Joker in the first place.

"The mob didn't set him loose because they never had him in chains to begin with."

We have no reason to believe that Harvey was aware of how the Joker intended to invade Gotham regardless of whether or not the Mob had begged him.

"Maybe Harvey was just weak-minded from having been set on fire, but that doesn't make him much of a villain."

Yes, I'd say Rachel's death weakened him mentally. Communications research does dictate that death of a loved one has that effect. Also, he wasn't much a villain. This is well acknowledged in the film. As even the Joker points out, Harvey is nothing more than an ace up his sleeve; a tool being used to insure his plan succeeds. Basically, a mere EXTENSION of the Joker.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
baby_cheetahLogical-MasterTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Evakian 8 years ago
Evakian
baby_cheetahLogical-MasterTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Snakepliston 8 years ago
Snakepliston
baby_cheetahLogical-MasterTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Scribs 8 years ago
Scribs
baby_cheetahLogical-MasterTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by LakevilleNorthJT 8 years ago
LakevilleNorthJT
baby_cheetahLogical-MasterTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Ineffablesquirrel 8 years ago
Ineffablesquirrel
baby_cheetahLogical-MasterTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Jerred102 8 years ago
Jerred102
baby_cheetahLogical-MasterTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by theitalianstallion 8 years ago
theitalianstallion
baby_cheetahLogical-MasterTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by DeadLeaves93 8 years ago
DeadLeaves93
baby_cheetahLogical-MasterTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Zero 8 years ago
Zero
baby_cheetahLogical-MasterTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00