Harry Potter is better than Star Wars

THIS IS REBUTTAL ROUND! NO CONSTRUCTIVE ARGUMENTS ARE MADE AND SOURCES SHOULDN'T BE NEEDED (PURE REFUTATION).Firstly, Contender referred to first and second source when they literally had no context with what he was talking about. For the record, I did go to the liberty of looking to the sources to find the ones he was talking about. I think it should be noted, viewers, that the Contender only started to use sources in his arguments after I had twice. I obviously didn’t invent the concept of a bibliography, but I believe that this is no coincidence (however, make of it what you will).Next, my opponent’s argument is completely hypocritical. He legitimately just mentioned that Rick Riordan’s input did not matter as it was simply an opinion. Newsflash; so was Pierce’s. The contender ignorantly assumed that I didn’t fully read the source (which, by the way, is exactly what he did with the muggle definition in the earlier round). However, I had, and disagreed because she admitted herself that she was jealous and I believe her decision was partly made in spite. I quoted the source because I had used information from there; not because I agreed with the entire site. Just another assumption that abps has made.However, let’s say that I did, in fact, acknowledge her point. Either way, JK Rowling still deserves credit. As stated, ‘she’d used known elements of children’s literature to write the right books at the right time for the right readers.’ To be honest, this just proves how smart she is. Why punish her for capitalizing on her target audience? This leads me to restate my point; if it was so easy, why was it not done by another series in the same time period? Like the source later on says, as well as what I mentioned, she still had major success in the child fiction and YA lit genre.I assume that it’s common sense as to why an endorsement is an opinion. Anyways, if you don’t want to accept the combined opinions of the most successful YA authors, even those who envy her, that’s purely your belligerence. In an argument like this, it’s mostly opinion that can be used debate style. However, I’ll give you the book stats, as you claim I haven’t used facts in my debate rounds so far (which, by the way, is completely false). Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone sold over 120 million copies, which is one of the highest individual books sales of all time. What’s even more awesome is that, even though Harry Potter was fifth on this list, it had the most recent publishing date. Make of that what you will, but if it isn’t clear, it means that it had the least amount of time but still did amazingly well. The fourth book, Le Petit Prince, beats the Philosopher’s Stone by 20 million copies but was made over fifty years ago. This concept of time also connect to my refutation towards your constructive point about the Star Wars franchise.To be honest, I still don’t understand what you mean about the YA cultural impact. If it paved the way for books to be authored as well as saved a genre, that’s cultural impact. As my point was that it’s massive cultural impact makes it better, in my view, it makes it better. It doesn’t matter if it was written ‘at the right time’, there’s literally nothing wrong with that. Either way, it led to the publication of several popular books. And, again, you underestimate the caliber of JK Rowling’s skill when it came to HP. Even if she simply hit a goldmine for the time she published the books, she still knowingly used elements of children’s literature to gain attention from her audience. In my opinion, there aren’t many modern YA authors capable of this; nullifying your point again, of any series being equally able of such an achievement. Your SW theater point also lacks sense. By the right time, the source meant that JK Rowling published the series at a time where children lacked interesting, modern-day serial fiction to read. It doesn’t mean that HP was made when every child was in a bookstore. A much more accurate comparison would be that Star Wars came out when movies weren’t entertaining enough for their audience, such and such, which actually would not be a bad argument.Your muggle point is also essentially baseless. Those definitions of the word muggle were used as slang for marijuana and more. The definition that is in Google right now came from JK Rowling. No matter the uses before HP, ‘a person who is not conversant with a particular activity or skill.’ is completely from JK Rowling, as you can see in the etymology. If the definition was ‘slang for marijuana’, then it obviously wouldn’t have originally come from JK Rowling. But the muggle we all refer to is completely from HP. I need to comment on how incessantly bad this was on an argument, for debate purposes. That’s like finding a word that was defined, not created by, let’s say Thomas Jefferson (idk), and then saying that the definition and that word isn’t his because of slang used centuries ago. Sure, the words may be the same spelling-wise, but if the definition is different, the word is different. Of course I read your Smithsonian point, and I was merely refuting it with amusement parks. I hope you’re aware that the Smithsonian is a museum...Furthermore, though Disney ran, your arguments do not take place in an amusement park. You may say, oh, Disney has an amusement park, but this would simply be illogical. Disney would obviously run at least one of the events considering they own the franchise.Lastly, I can easily refute this point. Have you ever considered it stupid to compare to movie franchises when one started in 1976, and when one started in 2001? Have you ever considered it illogical to compare an ongoing movie franchise to one that’s ended (we’re talking about the original HP movies here)? The fact that Star Wars started 25 years before Harry Potter and only has 3 billion more dollars is actually pretty sad; and in my view, that doesn’t seem to be too popular when you consider all factors. (Remember, I’m talking about movies as you were).