The Harry Potter books/movies are better than Twilight (Stephanie Meyer)
Debate Rounds (3)
Firstly, the book has diverse characters. The characters have at least 5 different traits. Let's analyze the three main characters.
*Protective of friends
*Hostile to some
*Kind to most
*Great in classes
*Good with emotions
So there's a balance of good and bad in the good characters. Each character has at least 5 character traits, as demonstrated, with at least 2 of them bad. Now let's stack them up against the 3 main Twilight characters.
*Average attitude and personality
The characters have much less personality in Twilight than in Harry Potter, as demonstrated.
Secondly, Harry Potter has a much better plot than Twilight. Think about it: Harry Potter is about an orphaned boy, mistreated by his non-magical relatives, who finds out he's a wizard, goes to a school of magic, and faces his destiny to defeat the greatest evil wizard of all time, along with his loyal friends. Twilight is about a girl with a pretty face and a bland personality who moves to Washington State and starts dating a vampire who sparkles in the sunlight and watches her in her sleep, then dates a werewolf who has the need to take off his shirt. Then the glittering vampire gets her pregnant, and they have a baby that could have killed her because they're extremely pro-life (bad message!). Oh, and her werewolf ex dates her daughter instead. Is this supposed to be romance?
Also, you must note that Harry is much stronger than Bella. While Harry saves the world from an evil murderer, Bella lays around and waits for her supernatural boyfriends to save her. Talk about a bad example!
Last, but not least, Daniel Radcliffe (Harry in the movies) can act, whereas a rock has more expression than Kristen Stewart (Bella in the movies)
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (Book by J.K. Rowling)
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (Book by J.K. Rowling)
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (Book by J.K. Rowling)
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (Book by J.K. Rowling)
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (Book by J.K. Rowling)
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (Book by J.K. Rowling)
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Book by J.K. Rowling)
Twilight (Book by Stephanie Meyer)
New Moon (Movie)
Between Twilight and Harry Potter as both fiction stories, Twilight is better because it creates a more fulfilling dream world. Twilight gives teenage girls their idealized true love. You are Bella. Edward comes into your life. He's not human. He loves you. You agree to sacrifice everything for him. Your love is unbreakable. Twilight manages to place scenes and move the plot just right to let teenage girls have the love that they are looking for, if only in the book.
Harry Potter is imaginative, but lacks in feeling. "You" are just a spectator. You can view the plot developments from third person view, but you don't live in it. The books are based mostly on plot developments and heavy description with few very emotional points. When Harry wins again the reader doesn't feel epically heroic because he or she was a spectator and the book that didn't emphasize emotion. As a novel, Harry Potter can do better at letting readers live and feel the ups, downs, and struggles of the main character more.
Harry Potter's characters may have specific traits to paint the character's better, but Twilight's character's also have specific traits. Edward is a 100 year old vampire who is very smart. Bella is a very, very emotional girl who is usually weak but willing to give up anything for love. Jacob is a young teenager who's rash and instinctual and a werewolf. These characters are impactful and yes, do have the overall role of looking hot.
Harry Potter's plot isn't better than Twilight's. Proof is that everyone copied Twilight's vampire theme while not many copied Harry Potter's wands and magic one. After Twilight came out, a great surge of other vampire books followed. This shows that Twilight had a greater impact on other authors than Harry Potter did.
I wish to refute my opponent's argument that Twilight makes you feel more into the book because "you" are Bella. Twilight is written in first-person perspective, meaning it is written with "I" and "me". It is not second-person perspective, meaning it is not about "you". It's about Bella. Meanwhile, Harry Potter is written in third-person perspective, meaning it is composed using "he". So basically, when you read Twilight, it is like Bella is telling you the story of what happened after she experienced it. But in Harry Potter, it is like you have been sucked into the story to watch it all.
I also beg to differ with my opponent's idea that Harry Potter has less emotion. The thing is, unlike Stephanie Meyer (who does not let one good, prominent character die), J.K. Rowling is not afraid to kill the good main characters in her books. And when these characters die, many characters and fans are devastated. The most obvious example is Dumbledore. When Snape killed him, every teacher and student at Hogwarts grieved and was shocked. There are many fans who felt the same way, even though the book is in third-perspective rather than second. One of the pages dedicated to fans crying over his death (under Sources) has over a thousand likes, meaning many others felt the same way. Note that this is only one page out of hundreds. Another death with a strong effect is that of Sirius Black, Harry's godfather. Harry is so angry and devasted from his murder from the Death Eaters, he shouted at Dumbledore, destroyed his possessions, and felt horribly guilty about unintentionally leading Sirius into his murder trap. He then hardened as a person, set to vengefully destroy the Death Eaters. This proves there is much more character development than in Twilight, where every character stays pretty much the same for the whole Saga. I also cannot grasp why Twilight makes the reader feel any more heroic when one, it is written in first-person perspective and two, Bella is not even a hero. She just stands around, letting Edward take care of her, like when a gang met her in the first book, and when James tried to attack her in the first, too. I will most definitely agree with my opponent that "As a novel, Harry Potter can do better at letting readers feel the ups, downs, and struggles of the main character more."
So now Edward is 100 years old, smart, and hot, according to my opponent. This still does not give one personality trait. Is he kind? Sweet? Fierce? Humorous? No, he is just some hot boyfriend (and later husband) of Bella who happens to be a vampire. I highly doubt that Bella is very, very emotional, too. Throughout the movies, she only has one expression: "Blank". Look at the wall on your left, you will see much more emotion than her. If she really is that emotional, then Kristen Stewart sure isn't doing a good job of showing that. Besides, if "weak" and "emotional" and "will do anything for love" are her only traits, she sure a very good protagonist. Protagonists are supposed to have weaknesses, but have more strengths. However, those traits (which are only three, anyway, compared to five for Harry) are all weaknesses. Doing anything for love is not always good. Bella sets a very bad example in demonstrating that you should date a hot boy, even if it will make you nearly lose your life more than several times. So now Jacob is a fierce, hot guy. Two traits, one of them having nothing to do with personality. One personality trait stacked against five for Harry and six for Ron and Hermione really isn't saying much.
The reason why Twilight has caused a huge breakthrough with people writing more vampire romance stories is because it is very easy to rip off. Paranormal romance has existed for a long time now, and a story about a girl falling in love with a vampire is much more generic than a story about a boy who goes to a school for wizards and fights the worst one of all time. Nobody has dared to steal J.K. Rowling's idea because it is too obvious when someone tries to rip it off, due to its uniqueness. Additionally, the movie "Harry Potter and the Philospher's Stone" has won over 60 awards. The movie "Twilight" has only won 33, in contrast. Additionally, the Harry Potter book series has won 34 awards total, while the Twilight book series has only won 14 arguments. I believe this says much about which series is better: The Harry Potter Series.
As I question my opponent's authority for their lack of sources, I again would like to thank my opponent for joining this debate.
All 7 Harry Potter Books
Twilight (book by Stephanie Meyer)
New Moon (Movie)
I stand by my argument that Twilight is more "you". Twilight's first-person perspective allows a reader to easily imagine that she (assuming most readers are girls) is in Bella's place as the lucky girl who gets the dream boyfriend. I don't understand why the author claims she tells it "after she experiences it", but even if that, the story moves as if events happen in the moment. As to Harry Potter, you're watching because of the plot, descriptions, and 3rd person viewpoint. You're not made to associate to one character so you don't feel like you're doing anything.
I consent that Harry Potter can be emotional. But it doesn't have the addictive quality that Twilight does due to its focus on plot events. Twilight does not make the reader feel heroic, it makes the reader feel luckity in love. By "As a novel, Harry Potter can do better at letting readers feel the ups, downs, and struggles of the main character more.", I actually meant that Harry Potter didn't do well enough.
I looked at my wall and it was a nice wall, but Bella had much more emotion. Kristen Stewart does not show Bella's emotion on her face, but in her actions and the books Bella goes through depression and drops everything for Edward, which is very emotional. Bella's personality is that she's lovesick, she doesn't have a path in life, and she's willing to give up everything for Edward. It's not a unique personality, but it fits the purpose of the book to find a lonely girl a hot boyfriend. Wikipedia says "Edward is described in the book as being charming, polite, determined, and very stubborn." and that "Bella describes Jacob as a "happy person" who extends this happiness to the people around him. As Jacob's character emerges in New Moon, he is shown to be cheery, passionate, and adventurous, but hot-headed." These characters now each have 4-5 personality traits, yay. They are not as completely characterized as JK Rowling's characters are, but again they fulfill their purpose: to make Bella feel lucky and loved. JK Rowlings's characters are not perfectly-made but made to fit the purpose as well. Her good characters are completely good while her bad guys are completely evil, which is unrealistic.
As to the argument that Twilight spreads the message to give everything up for love, well it does. But the dominant message that it spreads is that lonely girls can get great guys. And before they do, Twilight lets them live their dream relationship. Twilight does its purpose well so can be considered equal to Harry Potter, not inferior.
Twilight was copied while Harry Potter wasn't because Twilight's plot was more captivating. After Harry Potter came out, Authors had the oppurtunity to all write about worlds of magical spells and they wouldn't have been stealing, and then there would have been a magic spells craze. But there wasn't, and Twilight's plot was the one that made the huge impact. Right after Twilight, vampires(and werewolves) became popular characters when they weren't before. As to awards, you cited awards that Harry Potter gained just last year and maybe this year. Harry Potter has had nearly twice as much time as Twilight to gain awards so this is not a fair comparison. Also, Harry Potter goes through 9 books while Twilight goes though only 3, so Harry Potter has more room for awards.
Perhaps the biggest complaint I would like to state is that the Harry Potter series is way to Harry Potter-y. Proof is that all the books are called Harry Potter and the author keeps talking about Harry Potter. You see in Twilight, Harry Potter isn't even brought up. See, Stephanie Meyer does a much better job of not talking about Harry Potter.
Here are my sources. I have to say I've forgotten some of them though.
-First 3 Harry Potter Books and Parts of the 4th
-Sparknote Summarys for the rest of the Harry Potter Books
-All Three Twilight Books
-Breaking Dawn Part 2 the Movie
My opponent has chosen to ignore the blatantly obvious fact that Twilight is not about "you". I will repeat my previous arguments since I have nothing new to counter: Twilight is first-person, not second-person. It is all about Bella, not you. She tells you the story, but you are not there. In Harry Potter, you are there. You are watching it all. I refute my opponent's idea that Harry Potter is not addictive. It blends plot events with emotion, whereas Twilight has muchmore emotion. If it has more emotion than a balanced book like Harry Potter, then my opponent basically just admitted that Twilight has more emotion because it is plotless. "He's ice-cold... He sparkles like diamonds..." All of these are just added to fill in for the fat the books are quite plotless.
My opponent has also conceded that Kristen Stewart cannot act, making the Harry Potter movies better than Twilight. Also, even if Bella is allegedly emotional, it is a horrible example for a protagonist to drop everything for Edward. This basically teaches kids to forget about college, ditch their family, and go live with some 100-year-old glittery vampire who wants to bang you. Apparently, the goal of the books is "to make Bella feel lucky and loved". This is another bad example. It doesn't teach that you need to do things for yourself to become successful, which is what you need to do in real life, rather than have a boyfriend do everything for you. I also find it very self-defeating for my opponent to point out that they had to look up the character traits on Wikipedia, meaning it was difficult to find any personality by reading the books or watching the movies. I protest the notion that the characters in the Harry Potter series are all bad or all good. Take Severus Snape, for example. He used to be on the bad side, but now he is on the good side. Although he may not be evil, he certainly is cruel towards his students, especially Harry Potter. He hates Harry for his father, Snape's enemy, yet also loves him because he loved Harry's mother. Another example is Ron Wealsey. He may be funny, loyal, and brave, but he also easily gets jealous of many characters, especially Harry. He is also sometimes rather rude, as pointed out by Luna Lovegood. Hermione Granger may be a bookworm and have a high emotional IQ, but she also comes across as a stuck-up know-it-all. Harry Potter, brave and protective as he may be, has a very short temper at times, too. Draco Malfoy, who is mostly bad because he bullies many characters, did not have the heart to kill Dumbledore, which he was instructed to do, proving him not 100% evil. Voldemort, the ultimate antagoist, is all-evil, but so many characters in Twilight, like James.
"The dominant message is that lonely girls can get great guys." This goes back to the bad message, in which you should not be successful, but instead be close to someone who is. What an awful message! Harry Potter has a much better message: "Do what is right. Stick up for your friends and help omit bad in this world." Therefore, I contradict my opponent and say Harry Potter is way above the league of Twilight.
"Twilight was copied because it was more captivating." No, it was copied because the idea is so broad and unoriginal, it is quite easy to steal. The idea of a paranormal romance was not invented by Stehanie Meyer, it was invented long before. The idea of "Human girl meets supernatural boy" has been used in literary works long before Stephanie Meyer. An example is the book "Sweet Starfire", published in 1986. It is quite easy to say you didn't base your story on Twilight because there are so many books similar to Twilight. This is an easy way to make money off of someone else's work without getting sued for it. Meanwhile, Harry Potter has a mcuh more original plot. How many book series besides Harry Potter are there having a plot similar to a boy who goes to a wizarding school and defeats the worst wizard of all time? Here's a hint: It's less than one! Hence being impossible to rip off without being sued. As for awards, it is true that Harry Potter has had more time to get more, but the thing is, the year after the first Harry Potter movie came out (2002), it won 22 awards. Meanwhile, in 2009, after Twilight the Movie came out in 2008, it only won 9 awards. So even in the same timespan, Harry Potter has earned more. The same goes for the books. The first Harry Potter book won 4 awards in 1997 alone, while Twilight only won 2 in one year (2005). Even though there are more Harry Potter books than Twilight, each book alone has more awards than each Twilight book. Next time, I also with my opponent to do their research: There are seven Harry Potter books in the series (and a few out of it), and four Twilight books. For someone who claims to know Twilight, I am not sure whether or not they possess an adequate amount of knowledge to be in this debate in the first place.
I again would like to thank my opponent for being in this debate.
All 7 Harry Potter Books
Harry Potter Movies 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 (Part 1), and 7 (Part 2)
New Moon (Movie)
Twilight is about the reader. Twilight may be first person not second, but when I read Twilight I read it as if I were living Bella's experience. Readers read it as if they were in Bella's shoes. So they don't feel jealous of Bella for getting Edward but instead feel the way Bella feels. The whole romance whole genre in its selfish way is about "you". Twilight does this well by being 1st person, telling the story through the view and feelings of one character, an empty girl who had no direction but got Edward. Bella might sound like she lacks unique characterization but she is meant to let readers put themselves in her place, as opposed to put themselves in the place of a award winning, powerful women with particular quirks.
Personally I found Twilight, especially the first book, very addictive because it felt personal and I like romances. I know a lot of romance readers felt the same way, at least at first read before the prejudice that Twilight was very very awful. Events happen in Twilight; there are more average day events than big Harry Potter world events because it's mostly a romance not adventure story.
Kristine Stewart portrayed Bella as a careful girl who didn't reveal her emotions on her face, only revealing them in the decisions she makes regarding Edward. It made the movie more believable rather than less in my opinion because she was serious and tense unlike usual girls who aren't around supernatural people that kill.
Twilight's Bella is willing to do nearly everything for love, but I would like to point out that Romances often show that message. Even the little story Cinderella can be said to encourage infatuation and doing anything for a girl. The prince only knows Cinderella for one evening and then he goes to every single house in the city to find her. So, its not just Twilight teens know that real life is different from romance stories. Again, Twilight shows that unconditional, near unbreakable love is possible, which some people say is good, and lets readers live Bella's life in the story which many love to do.
I'm sorry for having Wikipedia explain for me. You gave good enough examples, I consent J.K. Rowling's characters are good, but Twilight's characters are good enough for the purpose of the romance.
A broad and unoriginal is not copied because it is broad and unoriginal. Twilight was copied because it made a huge impact and is quite original. No other story before Twilight had a girl that's lost, who meets a vampire, falls in love, gets pregnant with a half vampire baby. After research I consent that Twilight wasn't the first to use vampires as boyfriends, but when Twilight was written the concept was quite underused, Twilight's exact plot was unique, and Twilight made vampires, as boyfriends, much more popular. Harry Potter was not the first of its kind either. The Worst Witch by Jill Murphy is strikingly similar to it and was written first. It's about a normal girl who enrolls in a school for witches, learns magic, and tries to overthrow the school. J.K Rowling may have copied this plot. Source: http://io9.com... And unlike Twilight, Harry Potter was not able to make wizards a popular writing subject.
So I did research. Yay Me! On IMDb awards says the awards won in year 2002 for Harry and 2009 for Twilight were Harry 10 to Twilight 9, which too close to say which is better. You can check here. http://www.imdb.com... and http://www.imdb.com... I believe I'm correct. Counting awards in those years is incorrect because Harry Potter the book was released in June of that year which gives it 6 months while Twilight was released in October of that year which gave it 2 months.
So my opponent has obviously won. Good job you're a great debater. I would just like to say to everyone that although Twilight may have faults, but it's not that bad. Don't hate on it, especially not just because everybody else is hating on it.
Thank you for debating with me. I learned a lot.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by x2MuzioPlayer 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: If I'm reading it right, Con conceded in the final round: "So my opponent has obviously won. Good job you're a great debater." The sources really didn't come into play at all, since they were just a tally of awards and/or the books/movies themselves.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.