The Instigator
Pro (for)
14 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
8 Points

Lord of the Rings Trilogy is Better than the Harry Potter Trilogy

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 4 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/6/2014 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,086 times Debate No: 60085
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (4)




Lord of the Rings 1, 2 and 3 were much better than the entire Harry Potter trilogy.

My opponent must present his arguments for why Harry Potter is better than Lord of the Rings in the first round, and I will make my opening argument in round 2. Rebuttals will follow until the end of the debate.

However, Con cannot post any rebuttals or arguments of any kind in the final round (round 5)

The person who accepts this debate must have watched both Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings, even if not in their entirety, at least two films from each trilogy.

Voters will decided who presented the best reasons why the film he or she argued for is superior, and who gave the best arguments for each side.

Good luck to whomever accepts.


i accept. i watched harry potter and lotr.
Debate Round No. 1


My opponent was supposed to post his argument in round 1, but he didn't. Since he failed to do so, I will therefore allow him to make a final rebuttal in round 5 since I will be going first. I really would have rather my opponent go first, but this obviously isn't going to happen. I also apologize for titling the debate to place Harry Potter as a Trilogy, it's not, and I've received comments on this clarifying that its a Heptology. Anyway, I still think Lord of the Rings beats Harry Potter any day for the following reasons:

First off, Lord of the Rings received much better reviews that Harry Potter. For example Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows 2 received the highest rating of all in the entire series of Harry Potter films on Matacritic. It was given 87% on Metacritic, while all three Lord of the Rings movies beat it, receiving 92% for The Fellowship of the Ring, 88% for The Two Towers, and 94% for The Return of the King. On Rotten Tomatoes it was a bit close, but Lord of the Rings still had the edge. Here, the three best review percentages given for Harry Potter films were 96%, 91% and 88%, while Lord of the Rings triumphed with 96%, 94% and 91%. So my first argument is that Lord of the Rings passed the tests of the critics with more distinction than Harry Potter films.

Secondly, six of the Harry Potter films were nominated for a total of 12 Academy Awards but didn't win any, while Lord of the Rings films won 17 of them. Regarding Lord of the Rings we are told: "The films were critically acclaimed and heavily awarded... The series received wide praise for its innovative special and visual effects... The three films together were nominated for a total of 30 Academy Awards, of which they won 17, a record for any movie trilogy (the 3 nominations for The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey brings the series' total to 33 nominations). The Fellowship of the Ring earned thirteen nominations, the most of any film at the 74th Academy Awards, winning four. The Return of the King won in every category in which it was nominated, setting the current Oscar record for the highest clean sweep, and its 11 Academy Awards won ties the record held by Ben-Hur and Titanic (though both of those films had additional nominations that they lost out on). The Return of the King became only the second sequel to win the Oscar for Best Picture (after The Godfather Part II) and the first and only fantasy film to receive this honor, though this has been widely perceived as an award by proxy for the entire series (the first two films were also nominated for Best Picture)." These awards are the evidence of being a good movie in various aspects of movie production. Harry Potter can make no such boast.

Third, is character development. In Lord of the rings, the character's maintain the same appearance and personality without any abrupt changes throughout the series without explanation as part of the film itself. In contrast, there has been disappointment among Harry Potter fans about the complete change in Dumbledor's character and appearance after the second film. Notice how one movie fan puts it: "The Harry Potter films had a very steady continuity between the first and second films, but once Chris Colombus left the helm, why did Alfonso Cuaron change the character of Albus Dumbledore so drastically? First, he recast the role with Michael Gambon, who looks nothing like Richard Harris, let alone the Dumbledore described in the Potter books; then he dressed him as a stereotypical warlock with bedraggled, grey (not silver/white) hair and beard with robes that look like they were tailored by Filch - not to mention, that random beard tie! Even Gambon's accent was different from Richard Harris'.

What also bothers me is how out of place an unkempt Dumbledore looks next to the graceful, majestic symbol of immortality and hope that is Fawkes, the Phoenix. Fawkes is Dumbledore's animal familiar, like Nagini is to Voldemort ... Didn't Cuaron consider how silly these characters would look together in future films? I understand that each director has their own vision, but I would like to know what the creative process was that lead to Michael Gambon in the role of Dumbledore and his completely different portrayal of the character." The fact is that "Gambon has not deliberately aimed to follow the specific characteristics of Dumbledore, as referenced in the books, but rather developed an acting style in which he combines his own personality with that of his character." This is very unprofessional and doesn't make for a good movie when people are accustomed to one character and then see someone else playing the role, and not doing justice to the part. He didn't even try to follow the Dumbledore fans already knew and loved but replaced it with his own personality. This is why another source says "Some also feel the series has a "disjointed" feel due to the changes in directors, as well as Michael Gambon's interpretation of Albus Dumbledore differing from that of Richard Harris.",d.aWw No such disjointment is experienced by fans of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, because this film doesn't have such terrible character development.

Fourth is originality and imagination. By far, Lord of the Rings was more imaginative and original, as Tolkien created entire new languages for the Elves, Orcs, etc, where Harry Potter had no such thing, just plain English right through. The scenery in Harry Potter was mostly the same everywhere he went, but in Lord of the Rings there is brilliant imagination where entirely different backgrounds, types of buildings and clothing are used for Sauron's lair, Rivendell where the Elves were, the White Tower an other cities of Middle Earth, Cherioth-Ungul where the giant spider Shelob lived, the Shire of the Hobbit, the habitat of the dwarfs, and the forests and mountains. Each people and place had distinct apparel, language and surroundings which was more creative. Just look at the difference between the fire-and-smoke wipe of the Balrock and the flame of Undun Galdolf used. Compare this with Harry Potter's wand versus Voldermort's - the only difference was the color of the light emitted, and most people had white light.

Sauron appears as a giant eye made of fire, that's very unusual and original. Voldermort was simply pale, not very original since all zombies and many vampires etc have a similar appearance in movies.

Fifth, Lord of the rings had more odds to overcome, more terrible bad guys, like Nazgul birds swooping down from the sky, giant spiders, a being of fire and smoke wielding a firey whip, and legions upon legions of orcs. Sam's sword fight with a giant spider, and Gandolf's fight with the Balrog make Potter's battle with Valdermort seem tame. So we have more serious bad guys.

Sixth, there was more drama in Lord of the Rings, such as the love story that played out between Aragon and Lady Ariel, Frodo's turning against his best friend Sam via Smeagol's deception, his inner battle against the power of the ring, and so on. I have lots more reasons to add why Lord of the Rings is better but I'm out of space, over to Con.


ARGUMENT 1 - Stats, Characters, & Uniqueness

Combined the 3 books of the LotR sold 150 million, while the Philosopher's Stone sold 107. Factor in a ratio disproportion of sells, PS sold more books than any single LotR book including the Hobbit (100 million). Thus more individual persons have read PS than individuals have read all four original LotR books. Concluding there was more appealing in a preteen geeky boy destined to kick the butt of the biggest baddest schizophrenic villain in his universe than midgets, super-midgets, barbarians, and octogenarians battling an evil ball of fire in their universe.

Harry Potter's HBP & DH both sold 11 million copies in 24 hours. No such feat exist for any LotR books. As of November 2012, the HP franchise has made $24 billion dollars.
According to author Sammi Vanderstok, "The Harry Potter books are the number one selling book series ever published. The Harry Potter movies are the highest grossing film series of all time." Above Link.

HP has Quidditch, an in-universe sport, to which no other fantasy story on paper can claim such a unique concept--a fully multidimensional sporting event that occurs several times throughout the story No, not even LotR.

HP has been translated into 67+ languages.
LotR, umm, 38. Almost half of the Boy Who Lived series.

HP films combined $4.5 billion.
LotR combined. $2.9 billion.
Let's not argue LotR only has 3 to HP's 7. Even if we measure financial success per film, then HP still Avada Kedavra's LotR in the butt!
PS $974; CoS $878; PoA $796; GoF $896; OotP $939; HBP $934; DH1 $960; DH2 $1.3
FotR $871; TT $926; RotK $1.1

ARGUMENT 2 - Cultural Influence

In July 2012, The Department of Sociology and the Interaction Design Centre at Limerick University called "for papers for the above international academic conference exploring the cultural Influence of the Harry Potter books and films."
Educationalists have credited HP books in Western countries as well as in India & South African to increasing the literacy of children in those regions more than "a year's worth of school reading texts. This greatly improves children's skills and their motivation to read." "In Defense of Harry Potter: An Apologia" LotR, well, no such benefit to children's literacy is documented. We must admit that anything the directly benefits the education of children (HP) is "better" than something that doesn't (LotR).

Joyce Fields wrote that the books illustrate four of the five main topics in a typical first-year sociology class: "sociological concepts including culture, society, and socialization; stratification and social inequality; social institutions; and social theory"."Harry Potter, Benjamin Bloom, and the Sociological Imagination"
The only cultural influence LotR is significantly documented to have popularized is "Frodo Lives!" and "Gandalf for President". Carpenter, Humphrey (2000). J. R. R. Tolkien: A Biography.

"Harry Potter has reached out to an estimate of 200 countries, spoke out in over 69 languages and has touched the lives of more than 400 million people. It is the phenomenon that ignores race, age, gender or religion and it has brought us together despite all our differences. We are the Harry Potter Generation."
Debate Round No. 2


My opponent ignore my arguments regarding the reviews, academy awards, character development, originality, odds to overcome and drama in Lord of the Rings, despite the fact that he had more than 6, 500 character spaces left to rebut my arguments. I can only assume therefore that either he can't, or that these facts were so strong he is still trying to think up an argument against them. We'll see how he does in round 2.

He shifted from the movies to the books, and argues that Harry Potter is better because it made more money. I don't see how making more money proves a book is better, because "Around 2009, the U.S. porn industry's revenue of $10"15 billion dollars a year was more than the combined revenue of professional sports and live music combined and roughly on par or above Hollywood's box office revenue." Does that make pornography better than music, sports and possibly box office movies just because it makes more money? We tend to frown on porn, as its part of a very immoral sex industry. "More than 70% of male internet users from 18 to 34 visit a pornographic site in a typical month." Obviously, being popular doesn't make it better, so even if Harry Potter was more popular that wouldn't make it better than Lord of the Rings. Furthermore, Harry Potter books tend to be cheaper than Lord of the Rings books, just go to and see. But more than that, the marketing of products has a large effect on how many will buy, so even if Harry Potter books are not better, if they are marketed well enough they might sell better. We all know the power of advertising gets people to buy all kinds of junk. "3D Sex and Zen: Extreme Ecstasy took in US $351,000 (HK $2,790,000) on the first day alone in Hong Kong,[20] beating Avatar's HK$2.5 million opening gross in the country in 2009.[21] It earned HK$13,104,982 in the first four days after opening." So Con's argument from sales and profit is simply bogus. To be consistent, he would have to argue that porn is generally better than sports, music, and most types of movies, since it beats drama and sci-fi in terms of sales.

Now J.K. Rowling, author of Harry Potter, told the fans that Dulbledore is gay, even though there isn't any evidence of this in her books. If the man was gay, write him as being gay. The fact that she wrote about a gay man as though he were straight suggests poor character development again. There is so much more wrong with the Harry Potter series. The author herself doesn't like her own ending, and says that Hermoine should have ended up with Harry instead of Ron. "Author JK Rowling, the woman who dreamed up the pair and turned them into two of the most recognized figures in literature, is now throwing cold water on the central romance in the gazillion-selling Harry Potter series. Rowling now says she should have paired Hermoine Granger with Harry Potter, instead of his bud Ron Weasley. And then she delivers this punch to the gut of Ron fans everywhere: Ron and Hermione would have needed relationship counseling." When an author throws cold water on her own book, it doesn't even need my criticism. Even the woman who played Hermoine agrees with the fans that Ron can't make Hermoine happy over time. Lord of the Rings has no such silly ending, with Aragon ending up with the right woman, Arwen. (I apologize for mistakenly calling her Lady Ariel in round 1).

They were also unseen deaths in Harry Potter books, such as Mad Eye Moody, Tonks and Lupin, and their deaths are just briefly mentioned, treated as so trivial in the books and movies that we don't know if to mourn them or wait for their surprize return. The circumstances of their deaths were vague, whereas in Lord of the Rings in both movie and book, we are given details into the demise of all the important characters such as Theoden, Boromir, Denethor and Gollum.

The seventh Harry Potter books has them in the forest doing absolutely nothing but being silly teenagers for an entire third of the book, what a waste of space. Tolkien knew how to use his word space in Lord of the Rings, where important stuff happens page after page so you don't get frustrated trying to get to the meat.

Harry Potter actually ended up with Ginny, a girl with absolutely no personality. Aside from being "nice," or having red hair, I dare Con to tell us something about this girl's behavior. What mannerisms or traits sets her apart from others? In Lord of the Rings, Frodo is innocent, has a favorite food, a best friend, faces his fears and has a joyous side to him. Pippin and Merry are the comedians, good at singing, entertaining, but courageous in battle. What did Ginny actually do in the Harry Potter series? She was the most undeveloped character in the story, and fans were not happy about her getting Harry in the end.

Harry Potter was unrealistic in terms of its own context, for firstly, Fred and George could see everyone's location on the Marauder's map, so how could they not see Peter Pettigrew sleeping in Ron's bed every night for all the years they had the map? Even if they didn't knew Pettigrew was Serius Black, would it not be strange to see a stranger following their brother around on the map all the time? Voldemort could have had the Half-blood Prince take Harry prisoner at any time, and bring him to his death. The bad guys had so many chances to get at Harry that they didn't take it was unrealistic. Sauron wasted no time hunting Frodo in Lord of the Rings. We aren't told in the books or movies what wizards even learn at that stupid magic school. They didn't learn much magic at all in the films. We never see a Math or English class in the books, so how do they write newspaper articles and organize tournaments? The time turner was used to go back in time and save Buckbeak, so why didn't anyone think to go back in time and stop Voldemort when he was a young kid? If, in The Prison of Azkaban, they can go back in time to save Sirius, why couldn't Dumbledore have gone back to save Lily and James Potter? Doesn't make sense. The series is set between 1991 and 1998, so why doesn't anyone in the book have a cell phone? This doesn't fit the time in which the novel is set.

Lord of the Rings has nothing out of place, and I challenge Con to tell me whats wrong with the story. I will respond to Con's argument about influence on culture and add more arguments why Lord of the Rings is better next round, I'm out of space.


My opponent's first accusation is idle rhetoric, straw man arguing. Last round was for me to post my arguments, these next rounds are for rebuttals. Now I will rebut.
First he did not define "better" and attempts to wrestle you with semantics about books & movies. As my argument defines what I perceive to mean as "better".
Second, the astronomical finanaical success of HP is directly linked to cultural influence. We do not buy what we do not like. The fact that nearly every single Potter book AND movie out-sold any single LotR book OR movie is self-contained evidence MORE PEOPLE were draw to the shaggy-haired boy than that furry foot lad. This is the beginning stage of cultural influence. It is cultural influence that determined who is "better" since cultural influence is generally the response of the public to something. HP is has more cultural influence=HP is better, because cultural influence is a crucial factor in determining what is is more received by the public.

Now, he likens porn, filthy sex, to a Taylor Swift concert (live music, eh). Really? How about something not so immoral & disgusting? Why would someone waste words likening the revenue of Cumshots to the revenue of the World Cup? Straw man all the way. (And notice his weak angle of persuasion toward you-all: "he would have to argue that porn is generally better than sports...". An attempt to subconsciously influence you to expect & vote against weak argumentation. Whether I argue it or don't he was planning to exploit either one. It's classic psychology here played by Pro of dangling a carrot before us. I don't eat carrots.) Stick to direct issues.

Dumbledore's Homosexuality. I ask the million dollar question that completely shatters Pro's accusation. Show me one written piece of evidence in the HP books that allude or directly embraces a heterosexual-romantic behavior of Albus? Oh, wait. You can't! Since there is not a shred of in-story evidence to indicate his sexual orientation, you're argument is idle. Again, you are arguing irrelevant points. The finalized stories of the HP series are the standards we use to judge "Which is Better: HP or LotR?" Not the post-publicity stunts spoken by the author. "Lord of the Rings has no such silly ending" neither does HP, you have used irrelevant points that are NOT PART of the finalized HP canon.

"They were also unseen deaths in Harry Potter books, such as Mad Eye Moody, Tonks and Lupin, and their deaths are just briefly mentioned, treated as so trivial in the books..." Yes, let's grammatically depict multiple, graphic mortality to 9 years old and the other pre-teen audience these books were initially aimed at.

Wrong again. The Forest of Dean was used as a plot device to isolate the character trio in order to achieve: (1) character development, esp. Ron, who overcomes his glum attitude about being the 3rd Wheel among Harry & Hermione; (2) to establish the final test in the 3's friendship; (3) Horicrux. Did you even read the book?

"I dare Con to tell us something about this girl's behavior." I will destroy his argument again. Ron refers to her as normally talkative; she is mischievous, gossiping about Percy's crush on Penelope. She isn't afraid of bullies. In chpt 4 of CoS she rebels against Malfoy--the school bully; against the Ministry--the government, against Voldemort--the evilest, deadliest SOB in the world. My god, woman! Have you gone mad!

"What mannerisms or traits sets her apart from others?
Read the Chamber of Secrets, she's a playful mischievous person. In all of the books, she is the ONLY PERSON other than Harry who Hermione has confided to. She is Hermione's best friend AND ONLY true female friend! She's a great Quidditch player, she "scored several goals to help the team to victory" again Slytherin.

"What did Ginny actually do in the Harry Potter series? "
Wow. Either you're asking redundant questions or you've never read the HP books. Either way your inquiries help me establish the strength of Ginny's story arc in being Harry's equal. OotP, she uses Legilimency to prevent Harry from speaking dark magic words that could've had bad ramifications.
We also see she is able to calm Harry's anger when no one else could! She is the ONLY person other than Harry that have experience the direct thoughts of Voldemort! Again the only babe in the series who is justifiably Harry Potter's equal.

Make's sense: "the twins only used the map for mischief-making, not to peep at their brother while he was sleeping in his dormitory. ...they never saw Ronald Weasley and Peter Pettigrew on the map because they never checked the map for this purpose. " "you must not forget that hundreds of little dots are moving around this map at any given time" Fred and George did not know everyone in school by name, so a single unfamiliar name was unlikely to stand out."

Cellphones? They didn't become common till the end of 1998. Then, mostly wealthy adults & college students own one--not kids.

Fans don't like Ginny. Did one of you place a Confundo Charm on Pro? He's confused! Read this link. More fans like Ginny than dislike.
And notice the most dislikes come from girls (who probably had a crush on Daniel Radcliffe and thus saw themselves, not Ginny, right for him.)

HP gave us, hmmm, Emma Watson!
LotR gave us, yuck, Gollum! Ok, ok Liv Tyler. But Emma quickly became the It Chick compared to any female actress in LotR. Trivial? Yes, it's just a morsel for thought.
We saw in HP a little white girl kicking butt & getting mad respect in the process, but saw an immortal-like pointed ear dame do nothing but spit arcane dialogue. How is the latter "better" than the former?

We saw a geeky boy overcome his fears to become a legend.
We saw a geeky boy overcome his fears just to be overshadowed by a conquering king.
We saw two groups of loyal best friends stick it out with our hero tooth & nail to the end, with just one major difference. Ron Weasley GOT THE GIRL! Sam, ugh, he got Frodo. Merry & Pippin--what the hell did they get? Ale? What's a "better" ending to one's life? Returning home to drink ale & eat turkey with your singing, dirty barefoot buddies? Or marrying a pretty, super-intelligent, super-powerful female legend who can put the fear of God in your enemeies?

While Pro puts much emphasis on HP single continuity plot line in the negative, he either failed to consider OR considered it an throw it out the window--that HP was written for 5th Graders! While LotR deals with complexity only mature teens & adult can visualize. This factor alone, regardless of Pro's rebuttals, invalidates his erred attack against the implementation of HP storytelling simplicity. Otherwise, on the line with Pro's angle of argumentation, we must rebuke our kids, little brothers & little sisters for not getting their noses out of their Kindles and into the libraries to read War & Peace, The Sound & the Fury, or the writings of Josephus.

"Lord of the Rings has nothing out of place, and I challenge Con to tell me whats wrong with the story." In my final round I will do just that.
Debate Round No. 3


Notice at the end of his last round my opponent says he will only tell us what is out of place in Lord of the Rings in his final round, which means I won"t get a chance to rebut him so the readers can see that he was wrong. Why he is waiting till the end of the debate to introduce these new arguments I won"t get a chance to respond to is beyond me. Con then claims he didn"t address my opening arguments in round two because that round was only for presenting his opening arguments, but the rules laid out at the beginning said he was supposed to present his opening arguments in round 1, which he failed to do. Since he forfeited his right to present opening arguments in round 1, and had enough space rebut at least some of my arguments in round two, he has no good excuse for avoiding them till now.

He then claims that I didn"t define what "better" means, and that he was going by his own definition of "better." Mirriam-Websters dictionary defines "better" as: "higher in quality, more skillful, more attractive, appealing, effective, useful, etc." I have focused on Lord of the Rings being a higher quality book and film series as well as being more skillful for the actual content. These are the two primary definitions. Con choose to go with the third, less obvious definition, by claiming Harry Potter is more attractive to people and more useful in schools, etc. I will now show reasons why such a definition isn"t even reasonable when applied to movies or books, which will also address his argument from cultural influence.

If a book is better because of how many people like it, then this would mean that when people loose interest in a book that it has become bad. Public interest in books, movies, styles of clothing and music tends to fluctuate, but this doesn't change the quality of the book, film, song or dress. Shakespeare's writings were not as well accepted in his own lifetime as the are today, does that mean his writings became better? And what if Lord of the Rings eventually outsells Harry Potter, will that make it better? Yet the content of the films and books doesn't change, so you can't judge it based on popularity or sales.

We don't buy what we don't like, true, and many people buy porn and music which promotes violence and abusive language, and we see immorality, violence and abusive speech rampant in society, so isn't this cultural influence too? If the acceptance of a thing by the public makes it better, then porn must be "better" than science fiction because more people watch porn; in that case, slavery was once better than giving blacks equal rights because more white people favored slavery at the time. Con's argument comes down to deciding truth by majority vote, so that if most people right now don't accept gay marriage, that means it isn't better than heterosexual marriage, but then if the tide turns and most people agree to gay marriage, that somehow makes it better. What will Con say when the tide turns against Harry Potter? Does it change the quality and content of the films or books? No, so public preference in general isn't a good way of measuring quality or skill. Instead, I focused on the experts in their fields who reviews the movies for the content, as well as the actual content of the books for evidence of creativity, character development, and other specific things that makes a book great. After all, you don't ask as the public for medical advice, you go to a doctor, and you don't ask the public to make laws and policies, you appoint people who have qualifications in law, business and economic to run the country, make the law and so forth. I rather judge a book by what expert reviews have said than on public preference.

Consider that "White Christmas" by Bing Crosby is the best-selling single worldwide, does that necessarily make it a "better" song than "We Are the World" by USA for Africa, which actually has a lot more positive messages? When "White Christmas" looses first place to the song in second place, what then? Does that mean the other song suddenly became better? How could it when the content remained the same? "Kung Fu Fighting" by Carl Douglas outsold "Amazing Grace," "I'll Be There," "I Believe I Can Fly," "Umbrella" and "We Belong Together." Its simply foolish to say its better than all these despite the actual content, just because the public taste in entertainment fluctuates. Just look at how many gangster music albums sell for the catchy beat alone, but the lyrics are bogus.

3D Sex and Zen: Extreme Ecstasy sold more than Avatar in Hong Kong where it was aired, so had it been aired worldwide who knows, it might be the same result. People have an appetite for immoral stuff, just look at how much promiscuity there actually is in the world - all the one night stands and multiple partners. Con seems to think cultural influence can only be positive, but porn having a negative influence doesn't change the fact that it has just as powerful an influence as any Harry Potter film. The average person who watches a porn an a HP film will definitely remember the porn more and be more influenced by it. They will fantasize about sex, they won't be fantasizing about being a wizard. And Con's argument about choosing a music concert is simply his preference, but doesn't refute the statistic I provided which shows porn outsells music and sports events combined, so you can't judge something as being better because it sells more.

Con says Albus' isn't gay, as if he knows the characters better than the author the book. If the author says Dumbledore is gay, then she would know. Since she didn't do a good job of portraying his gayness in her book, it was poor character development.

Con's excuse for the unseen deaths in HP is that we shouldn't show graphic mortality to kids, and yet HP showed these same kids how Dumbledore died - being blown off a balcony by his own friend! Pot meets kettle. Get this madness: Con says the reason the kids were in the forest so long was character development. He says, "Ron, who overcomes his glum attitude about being the 3rd Wheel among Harry & Hermione," but this implies something romantic was going on between Harry and Hermoine. Yet, she ends up with Ron in the end, and Potter has no struggle letting her go because nothing was going on. Poor character development again.

Con describes Ginny as "talkative," "mischievous," "gossipy," and that's the best the author could give Harry for a mate in the end? He says she stands up to all these people, hmmm, how about some proof? Con says, "woman! Have you gone mad!" I am a male, so I wonder who he means? And calling me "mad" just because you can't handle my arguments is poor debating. Con says compares Ginny to Arwen, what? Arwen gave up immortality for Aragon, what did Ginny sacrifice for Harry? Arwen controlled the river to save Frdo from the black riders, she rived Aragon when he was injured, and she's not even a main character. What did Frodo get? Immortality. Sam got married and was rich and famous. Con thinks Ginny is perfect for Harry, the author thinks Hermoine was a better fit, who do you think knows best? Con or the author? Oscars, reviews, character development and originality, LotR wins in all these ares over HP. Lots more arguments to come, thanks


1st, Many will be textual inconsistencies & contradictions in the story of the books, which cannot be logically refuted since upon being published, the story is finalized canon.

2nd, you didn't define "better" in your opening, leaving it open to anyone's preference. You continue to harp on the "higher quality" angle but fail to realize the storytelling of each series is completely different since one is for a kid audience the other for an adult audience. It's equivalent to you trying to compare milk to beer; chewing gum to chewing tobacco; 10 speed to motorcycle, etc.

3rd, you continue to straw man argue using porn as an example. It's about HP AND LotR--nothing else. Compare the two in a cultural influence diagram against each other like I've done--not along side a cultural influence of porn, which is, honestly, dumb.

4th, you're still playing semantics with the voters--strategetically using limited wording to place cultural influence only in a public revenue-based guideline. Cultural Influence combines not only financial success, but educational benefits, foreign perspectives, sociological & psychological benefits, and more.

5th, you didn't debunk my "better"=cultural influence standard. You merely rambled off financial statistics which is only 1/3 of my argument, the other 2/3s you have avoided.

6th, All you're hypothethical questions, "what if" are irrelevant since they do not invalidate the current status of HP. Wishful thinking is ineffective at causing another reality to the one that is current.

7th, Again, "the gay" stuff was for publicity, appeasement to the gay agenda. Her spoken words do not invalid nor diminish the quality of her previously written finalized canon of HP. You look silly arguing from a position of redundancy.

8th, your argumentation reveals itself as void of strength & integrity when you cannot properly assess your opponent's clear words. "Con's excuse for the unseen deaths in HP is that we shouldn't show graphic mortality to kids." I used sarcasm to highlight a specific argument: "yes, let's grammatically depict MULTIPLE, graphic mortality to 9 years olds". The key word is "multiple". Had Rowling's graphically depicted Mad Eye Moody, Tonks and Lupin's murder & death or more than she did do, this would have been seen as tasteless & too extreme in a children's book. A fact which you ignore & seem to be unable to grasp.
A 3rd Wheel is also, simply, "A person that does not belong in a two person group". And isn't limited to romantic couples. See the perspective of other persons in link. Notice the "Best Answer" is the one indicating "platonic friendship", to which my Ron reference indicated.

9th, "talkative," "mischievous," "gossipy," are characteristics a lot of kids have esp. girls. Ginny was a child with these traits. Seems like you expect every girl in HP to be like Hermione. Again, Ginny faced Voldemort's thoughts similar to how Harry did, which makes these two the only person to experience the mentality of Tom Riddle. That right there is one of many things that bonded Harry & Ginny.
You not recognizing the quip "Woman are you mad!" is evidence you haven't read the HP book very well or at all. It was a reoccurring exclamation said by Ron whenever Hermione suggested or did something extremely bold. I used it as banter in reference to Ginny boldly defying the bullies. Humor has been an element in my argument style.
Proof: Draco. See Biography; Education at Hogwart; First Year, Paragraph 2
Ministry. Same source; Fourth Year.
Voldemort & Bellatrix. Same source; Battle of Hogwarts. She actuallys blocks Bellatrix's Killing Curse.

LotR Errors, Contradictions & Inconsistencies, Pt. 1
Gandalf doen't realize Frodo's via Bilbo's magic ring was Sauron's One ring. He is considered wisest of the Maiar in Arda. He failed for 60 years to connect the similarities between the ring being a Ring of Power? Saruman had told him long ago it was the only Ring of Power without a gemstone and Sauron's ruling ring. Gandalf is either an idiot or Tolkien was too lazy to discern his own errors.

Sauron is an idiot. He never prepared defenses to guard the location where the One ring could be destroyed. This is completely anti-characteristic for a Maia of Sauron's intellect. Sauron is either a non-tactical idiot or Tolkien wasn't inventive enough to come up with a clever way for them to breach the mount.

"Aragorn tells the hobbits in Bree, "I know all the lands between the Shire and the Misty Mountains, for I have wandered over them for many years."[9] But later, speaking of the Ettendales, he says, "That is troll-country, and little known to me," and "I do not know the way" to Rivendell by detouring through them.[10] The Ettendales or Ettenmoors are on a line between the Shire and the northern part of the Misty Mountains."

"Of a total of sixty-two chapters in the three-volume book set, little to none was filmed from nine of them. These are indicated in red. Another thirty-one chapters had substantial portions left out of the screenplay. These are indicated in blue. The Remaining twenty-two chapters—less than half of the total—had most or all of their material included. These are indicated in green. "

"Sauron, an immortal almost-all-powerful being, puts most of his life force into a small magical ring in order to control the other rings. By doing this he basically makes himself extremely vulnerable and mortal. As seen in the beginning of the first movie, it's enough to cut his ring finger to kill him almost completely. This makes absolutely no sense. Why would such a powerful being make himself so vulnerable and mortal, no matter what kind of world domination plans he had? Surely such a powerful being did know how vulnerable he would become if he makes such a ring? Wasn't it utterly stupid to do so, no matter how ingenuous the world-domination plan (which then even failed monumentally)?"

This website also exposes:
the stupidity of the eagles
Gandalf's illogical witholding to use his powers
coward elves
illogical geography of Helm's Deep
a lack of tactical battle strategems
and more.

LotR Errors, Contradictions & Inconsistencies, Pt. 2

At the beginning of the Fellowship's journey, they are resting on a hilltop (Hollin) with rocky formations. Bill the pony is tethered in the background in one shot. Then come the spying crows from Saruman and they all quickly hide. When the crows swoop in closer we see no-one, but who hid the pony and where?

In the Chamber of Mazarbul, when Legolas lets loose the double arrows at the Troll near Balin's Tomb, in that shot he stands in front of the same wall as in the next shot. In this second shot he spins around, slices two Orcs and then looks at the Troll in front of him, only this second shot is flipped. In those two shots he stands in front of a solid rock wall with particular markings between two pillars. In the next shot it shows Legolas' back and the Troll down below as Legolas ducks down avoiding the Troll's chain flying overhead. Then in the next consecutive shot from the front again Legolas rises and is now standing in front of a stone wall that has a large alcove with books also between two pillars. These shots were spliced from a longer sequence because the two walls noted are adjacent to each other - in the film the alcove wall is to the left of the solid wall and they share a pillar between them.

More mistakes of the LotR books/moives that crush Pro's assertion: that LotR "as being more skillful for the actual content."
Debate Round No. 4


A poll on this very DDO site shows that 16% say HP is better and 84% say LotR is better. If public opinion is a gauge to measuring which is better as my opponent thinks, I wonder how he goes about cherry-picking whose polls he will trust? This one clearly isn"t on his side! Like I said, public taste in entertainment can shift at any time, be it in certain books or movies.

Did you know that HP was actually influenced by LotR? Yes, it borrows from Tolkien"s genius, but doesn"t do a very good job at emulating the master. Tolkien's Wormtongue became Rowling's Wormtail, Tolkien's Aragon became Rowling's Aragog, Tolkien's Gandalf became Dumbledore, who was a tall wizard in robes with a long white beard in LotR, and had the same exact appearance in HP. They even wanted the same guy who played Gandalf to play Dumbledore, that"s how much they tried to get it to be like the masterpiece LotR is. "Sir Ian McKellen was offered the role, but he turned it down, having played the similar character Gandalf in The Lord of the Rings trilogy." Rowling couldn"t even come up with an original wizard!

Even HP fans who gave it positive reviews had to admit: "Rowling's debt to the great 20th-century English fantasists -- J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, E. Nesbit, Alan Garner -- made her work seem less homage than unabashedly derivative..."Tolkien continues to CAST A LONG SHADOW OVER Harry Potter's world..."But the echoes of Tolkien and Lewis are sometimes too obvious. The locket that is one of Voldemort's Horcruxes exerts a malignant power over its owners, inevitably evoking the One Ring."

"For the final, climactic confrontation... people expect something epic, momentous, archetypal. So it"s no surprise that the closer Rowling gets to that confrontation, the more heavily she relies on borrowings from writers with a natural gift for that sort of thing: Tolkien, Lewis, even Philip Pullman. The locket horcrux that weighs down whoever wears it, sapping their initiative and hope, is one of the more obvious quotes from "The Lord of the Rings," along with the thunderous last-minute arrival of centaur troops at the Battle of Hogwarts (the Ride of Rohan...)"

Tolkien's Sauron is called The Dark Lord so Rowling decided to call Voldemort the same thing, and both of them were seeking to recover their lost power after having been considered dead (or not a threat) for a long time. Just like the One Ring, the horcrux locket negatively affects the personality of its wearer. Rowling read Lord of the Rings as a teenager, and weather consciously or subconsciously, she never forgot many elements of it which influenced her writing of HP. So how could HP bite the hand which fed it and claim to be better than its master? It can"t. Rowling herself admitted Tolkien was more creative and original than she was, saying: "Tolkien created a whole NEW mythology, which I WOULD NEVER CLAIM TO HAVE DONE." "Tolkienian scholar Tom Shippey has maintained that "no modern writer of epic fantasy has managed to escape the mark of Tolkien, no matter how hard many of them have tried." So she admits LotR mythology was new, original, inventive, but she did no such thing, she just piggy-backed on the work of greater minds like Tolkien. This is why Voldemort had to use horcruxes to transcend death, because Sauron did it first with the One Ring. LotR had a greater impact on the whole history of fantasy writing than HP, even influencing HP itself - how"s that for cultural influence?

This is why LotR Mirkwood Forest became HP"s Forbidden Forest, Gurthang"s Wand of Death became HP"s The Elder Death Wand, Tolkien"s Mirkwood Spiders became Rowling"s Forbidden Forest Spiders, Longshanks became Crookshanks, Longbottom Village became Longbottom Neville, Tolkien"s Mordor became Rowling"s Morsmordre, LotR"s Mirror of Galadriel became HP"s Mirror of Erised, Tolkien had Butterbur - the Prancing Pony Landlord, so Rowling had to put a Butterbeer in HP too. Gollum betrayed Frodo and was pitied by Bilbo, Kreacher betrayed Sirius and was pitied by Dumbledore. There was a hound in LotR named Fang so HP had to have Hagrid"s hound with the same name. Green Dragon Hobbiton in LotR became Green Dragon Pub in HP, Carcharoth became Karkeroff, and Tolkien"s Old Man Willow was watered down to Rowling"s Whomping Willow. This is HP"s lack of originality and creativity in having to borrow so much from LotR.

LotR is a far more staggering achievement than Harry Potter. Tolkien went to great lengths to tell his story, creating languages, cultures into which those languages developed, and histories from which the cultures and peoples were formed. Elvish is a complete language with rules of grammar and everything which you could learn if you so desired. Harry Potter can never measure up to the sheer expanse of Tolkien's mythology, the depth of his symbology, nor the beauty of his prose. LotR was original and has tremendouly influenced fantasy as a genre of literature whereas Harry Potter is hugely derivative. Rowling patched together already existing mythology, already existing fiction, and set in England, whereas Tolkien created his entire world. Middle Earth is one of the greatest constructions in modern fiction.

Effective advertising can make anything sell, even junk food, so sales don't make HP better. Rowling didn't have to please a gay community, the book is already a best-seller. Gays didn't criticize it. She says the reason Albus doesn't have a woman in the book is because he is gay, but we don't get that idea reading the book = poor character development.

The Ring was plain like normal rings, its words only revealed by fire, and the very day Gandalf found out Bilbo had a ring of invisibility he went investigating; he didn't know before, and certainly not for 60 yrs. Counter: since a time travel device was available in HP, why didn"t they go back in time to stop Voldemort when he was young? Sauron did guard Mt. Doom with legions of orcs, it was Aragon's plan that drew them out so Frodo could enter. HP films suffer the same kind of production errors Con alleges for LotR Where did the pony in LotR go? Well, where did the book in Ron's hand go? Or the dirt on the floor? Sauron wasn't easy to get to to cut off his finger. The ring was almost indestructible, seeking its master. Sauron beats Gandalf in the Hobbit without a physical body, so this plan didn't make him vulnerable, it kept him alive in spirit form, still powerful enough to fight and rebuild his empire.

LotR won 17 oscars, HP won none, and LotR got more good reviews. Thank you


LotR Errors, Contradictions & Inconsistencies, Pt. 3
Cinema Sins calculated dozens of "sins" per LotR film.
Movie Mistakes says there are 212 continuity mistakes in the LotR trilogy. Here are a few to show LotR isn't a flawless masterpiece as claimed.

As Boromir and Aragorn talk right before Boromir dies, you can see Boromir's right hand gripping Aragorn's left shoulder in the shot from behind Aragorn's right shoulder, but when the camera view changes to Boromir's perspective, looking up at Aragorn, his hand is not there.

When the hobbits are hiding under the tree trunk from the Ringwraith in the beginning, you can see space to the left and right of the tree above them. Logically when the Ringwraith walks past the tree you would see it on the right side of the tree first, then on the left, but you don't - it looks like it walks out of the tree instead of behind it. [Confirmed on the commentaries - Elijah Wood asks his fellow actors if anyone spotted the mistake: 'It kind of magically comes out of the tree'. Sean Astin: 'You mean it doesn't pass from the other side?' Wood: 'No, it comes out from the centre.']

When the Fellowship meets in Rivendell, and Gimli tries to break the Ring with his axe, the axe breaks into many pieces on the platform upon which the Ring is laid. At first, the pieces are there in the close-up view. When the camera pans back for a long range view of the Fellowship, the pieces of the axe on the platform are gone. In the following close-up, the pieces magically reappear.

Aragorn's mouth is badly bloodied when he is headbutted by Lurtz, but the blood disappears almost immediately.

The Hobbit: 20 Blunders That Ruined An Unexpected Journey
(Some excerpts. See original article for full criticism.)
20. The Tone Is All Wrong
18. Too Much CGI, Not Enough Acting
15. Bilbo Is A Passenger, Not A Protagonist
13. Azog's Role (This one annoyed me the whole time I was watching the movie)
Azog the Defiler as the main antagonist of An Unexpected Journey is a beguiling choice to anyone who has read the book, ...[in the novel] he is killed during a war between the Orcs and the Dwarves, with his head being removed from his body.
12. The Dwarves
The Dwarves are easily one of the most disappointing aspects of The Hobbit, not because they're Dwarves, but because they're not developed in any fashion whatsoever....
7. Rivendell
[In] Rivendell...we get cameo appearances from Saruman (Christopher Lee) and Galadriel (Cate Blanchett). However, neither of these cameos occur in the novel...Jackson decides to throw them in just for the sake of it, another cheap way of milking the Rings' iconography...
4. Thorin Is Too Sexy
Jackson alters one of the Dwarves in order to make him a little more appealing...Thorin. Despite sharing much in common with his Dwarven brethren, he appears to have gotten the good share of the gene pool, given that his hair is better-conditioned, and his nose is a regular shape. Add to this a calming voice and handsome face, and it makes for a dreamboat anti-hero that will appeal to many women. In the novel, it's a different story; Thorin is a bumbling oaf who couldn't lead kids to an ice cream van. Also, Jackson makes him out to be less greedy and more honourable than he was in the novel.
2. Bilbo & Gollum Riddle Game
1. Recycled Score
The awards for laziest film score of the year goes to Howard Shore for his work on The Hobbit, given how much of the music was pretty much exactly the same as what we"d heard in The Lord of the Rings films, other than the main theme.

Top 11 Dumbest Lord of the Rings Moments
(Please see video commentary for proof LotR had major flaws in them.)
10. Those Bajillion Endings
9. Gimli's Idiot Moments (A Must See to see how terrible Jackson portraits a "hero")
8. Legolas' Perfect Moments (A Must See to see how awful VFX killed physical believability)
5. I'm Not Dead (Too many fake death scenes for the heros)
3. Sam & Frodo's Gayness (This one is a classic film f**k up of a book)
1. Those Eagles Could've Stopped Everything (The best logical criticism concerning the eagles).

Pro wrote that "Around 2009, the U.S. porn industry's revenue of $10-15 billion dollars a year was more than the combined revenue of professional sports and live music combined and roughly on par or above Hollywood's box office revenue." This was his quoted source to use the $10 billion dollar revenue of porn as a device to discredit the higher financial success of HP franchise. However, upon deeper investigation we find that he used an erred source to trumpet a false dollar amount. According "The idea that pornography is a $10 billion business is often credited to a study by Forrester Research . This figure gets repeated over and over. The only problem is that there is no such study. In 1998, Forrester did publish a report on the online "adult content" industry, which it pegged at $750 million to $1 billion in annual revenue. The $10 billion aggregate figure was unsourced and mentioned in passing. For the $10 billion figure to be accurate, you have to add in adult video networks and pay-per-view movies on cable and satellite, Web sites, in-room hotel movies, phone sex, sex toys and magazines"and still you can"t get there. According to Adult Video News (AVN)...Americans spent just over $4 billion to buy and rent adult videos last year. This figure is baseless and wildly inflated. From there, the numbers get even more obscure." It further reveals the net revenues of all pornographic venues to be about $2.6-$3 billion. Pro has not used a "reliable source."

'[Harry Potter & the] Goblet [of Fire]' is as long as 'Chamber' and 'Prisoner' combined. Is it more textured than the first three? More thought-provoking? Sorry, no. Are such things necessary in a fantasy-adventure aimed primarily at children and published in the lush green heart of summer vacation? Of course not. What kids on summer vacation want -- and probably deserve -- is simple, uncomplicated fun. 'Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire' brings the fun, and not just in stingy little buckets. At 734 pages, 'Goblet' brings it by the lorry load.
"The most remarkable thing about this book is that Rowling's punning, one-eyebrow-cocked sense of humor goes the distance. At 700-plus pages, one should eventually tire of Blast-Ended Skrewts [etc.]... but one never does. At the least this reader did not. Perhaps that's because Rowling doesn't dwell for long on such amusing inventions as the Quill, which floats in midair and bursts out with florid bits of tabloid prose at odd moments. She gives the reader a quick wink and a giggle before hustling him or her along again, all the while telling her tale at top speed. We go with this willingly enough, smiling bemusedly and waiting for the next nudge, wink and raised eyebrow. ... Rowling's books are better natured, better plotted and better written."

LotR is not better than HP because the two series are written (and were filmed) in completely opposite languages of human maturity. One is for adults & young adults. One is for preteens & teenagers. Is a Ninja motocycle better than a Mongoose bike for a 12 year old? Is a toy lightsaber better than a katana sword for a veteran martial arts warrior? People aged 9 & up can better understand the HP series versus the same age range can understand the LotR series. This scenario makes HP better literary & cinematic devices for "easily understandable entertainment" than the LotR series.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by daley 7 years ago
Hey, check this out, you might like it. I could use the support. It will be available in paperback in two-three days

I also have two others in paperback here
Posted by JasperFrancisShickadance 7 years ago
Are we talking about movies, here?
Posted by shreeji 7 years ago
It's difficult to compare the two seeing as, while they are both fantasy, the two stories take place in very different contexts. Lord of the Rings is a fictionalized history of Earth whereas Harry Potter is set in present day England. Lord of the Rings involves a single running narrative that flows over all three volumes while Harry Potter is a a series of seven individual stories with narrative threads that carry over. And so on and so forth. Both series are excellent, and both have been hugely influential in pop culture to heights that few stories ever reach. That being said, to look at them purely from a linguistic standpoint, The Lord of the Rings is a far more staggering achievement than Harry Potter. The lengths through which Tolkien went to tell his story is a lifetime of creating languages, cultures into which those languages developed, and histories from which the cultures and peoples were formed. It's as wide a story as it is long, and Harry Potter can never measure up to the sheer expanse of Tolkien's mythology, or the fluid beauty of his prose.
Posted by roark555 7 years ago
Ummmm. ..... Harry potter isn't a trilogy dude.
Posted by oculus_de_logica 7 years ago
Harry potter isn't a trilogy.. it's a Heptalogy
Trilogy is a literary series composed of three disctinct works. A Heptalogy is a series composed of seven distinct works.

So, The LOTR are a trilogy, but Harry potter can not be referred to as a trilogy as it has more than three books. Right shall be right.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Artur 7 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO in round 1 showed so many fantasy fruits which are not present in HP but present in LotR. Up to this debate, I never knew that one language is invented/created just for a film but PRO showed that just for LotR there is an invented language and just this is enough to show that LotR has something which HP has no. More than that, PRO asserted several things which are copied/plagirsed from LotR to HP, CON didnt answer, PRO showed that even the author of HP is not satisfied with her own scenario. However, debate was very interesting, very ding-dong. PRO showed more inconsistencies of HP than Con showed of LotR. As I said, debate was ding-dong, CON also replied well to the arguements of PRO e.g about the wife of Harry. PRO used more reliable references than CON, for ex: number of Oscars/prizes won, percentages of the films while CON just was using polls which are not reliable. Debate was good, CON was good but PRO was better.
Vote Placed by ShadowKingStudios 7 years ago
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: Pro is right about Lord having a high quality to it. But Con is right about the imbalanced comparing of the two. I personally didn't like the Lord books except the Hobbit, loved the movies. I hated the Harry movies (except Deadly Hallows) but loved the books. Con trumps with sources. I give him Convincing arg. for exposing huge errors in Pro's arguments. I found it odd Pro expected Con to have read & seen the Lord books & movies but didn't recognize the gibe Con used that Ron said at least 3 times to Hermione about being "mad". Since Lord is considered a classic people will subconsciously be bias and deem it infallible. More people have read the Da Vinci Code than Gone with the Wind. Gone is a classic, but it isn't better the Code when it comes to the quality of its storytelling, yet those same people will vote Gone better (simply because its a classic novel). Odd.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con broke the rules of round one, so conduct to pro. Pro offered evidence concerning ratings which were not refuted.
Vote Placed by JasperFrancisShickadance 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources to Con because he had more variety (Pro used google and nothing else). Arguments to Pro because Con kept focusing on only minor mistakes in LotR and did not follow the rules of providing arguments in R1. Overall I'd say it was a close debate. But Harry Potter would never beat J.R.R Toklien's Lord of the Rings.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.