The Harry Potter book series is better than the Twilight book series.

====My Case====1. Even the good guys die.Con claims that the reason that JK kills off the good guys is to invoke an emotional response. I completely disagree, and this point will be left to the voters. My entire point revolved around this having to do with being more truthful to the real world. In a society where all the good guys live, no one can learn the inevitable truth of death, no matter how it occurs. However, Con continues to argue why Meyer is better at invoking the emotional response in readers anyway, so I will debate that side too. "The entire [Twilight] story revolves around a sad love story between two people who live in polar opposite worlds" is the reason that Con claims Meyer to be superior in invoking an emotional response from the readers. However, I would like to point out that death is more common that two love-struck "teenagers" living in different worlds. Everyone dies, and is related to those who have died. This brings up the point, again that it is more real and truthful to the modern day world. More people will be able to learn from the books if they have experienced the pain of the other characters in the sense of learning other solutions to the same problems or even just viewing how other people react in general. 2. JK knows her history.Con claims that the mythical creatures in Harry Potter are basically not as good as those in Twilight. In Twilight there are only two different types, whereas in Harry Potter there are so many it's hard to count. From Mountain Trolls, to Cornish Pixies, to Basilisks, to Werewolves, to Animagi, the creatures in the Harry Potter series are described as much if not more than those in Twilight. The only reason Meyer is able to include to much about the two types of creatures in her own story, is that she was the room next to all the other crap she thinks is important. Her constant description of Edward as being as cold as granite, does not help us define the vampire as much as JK helps the readers learn about the Animagi. Also, just because Twilight takes place in a real location, does not make it any more imaginative. If anything, it tells us how unimaginative she is, and that she is unable to create her own locations, other than an island, maybe, that is named only after Edward's mother.3. Harry Potter is more imaginative, still.Con obviously misunderstands this point (maybe because he lacks the imagination from reading as much Twilight as he seems to do). My point is that there are books that relate directly to Harry Potter written by JK. Meyer has written other books, sure. And they might be able the same subject, great. But the two are not related. JK has taken the base story of Harry Potter and has gone into so much detail that she was able to write up two textbooks from the series, and a story book that was mentioned. Because she is able to do this, we can see the much more creative side of the Harry Potter series because it is able to be researched so much more because it provides us with more material. The only books by Meyer that involve Twilight directly are the initial 3 books. Publishing a book about vampires and a similar story is not creative, it's boring.4. I am not a hater, but Twilight's text is hard to read without losing brain-cells.First I would like to point out that in my point, "we" means everyone that has read the two books and is on my side of the argument. The idea of the point is to prove it, as Con seems to misunderstand anyway. Then again, if I had decided that I enjoyed reading Twilight more than Harry Potter, I doubt I'd understand any of this either. Con asks for my reasons that Twilight is poorly written but I already have. Con misunderstands the idea of this point, however, which is why I will 'rebuild' it. In third person, you can get inside the head of all characters. Maybe just a little bit less, and you may not learn everything than most books in first person. However, with Twilight, this case is destroyed. Getting inside the head of Bella Swan is not something most readers even want to do. She is a one dimensional character, and there is nothing more than her seeming lust for Edward and the controversy of Edward and Jacob. In every book you relearn her character, whereas in Harry Potter you can see how the mindset of every character changes, the main advantage of third person.5. Harry Potter is much more unpredictable.Actually, refuting Cons point here, Twilight is an "I saw that coming" kinda book, to many readers. Any readers with a bit of logic can tell that Edward and Bella end up together in the end. Why do they know? Because in the first book they make this epic connection. Because of my previous point that Meyer in unimaginative, we can already tell that they will have that same obsession love for each other in the end. If Con "[bites his] toenails" wondering what will happen later in the series, I worry for him in even more ways. I, personally, like most readers, did not expect Bella or another character to die when they met the Volturi. Sure, it was interesting that Meyer decided a totalitarianism society of vampires would be cool, but other than that, I didn't wonder what would happen, because I knew that Meyer wouldn't kill off the main character of the series, or any of the good guys, as I have stated earlier in this debate.====Con's Case====I would like to start off by pointing out that Con seemed not to know what genre the two series were classified as. Non fiction is a genre about things that have been proven as facts. Fiction is what's made up. Seeing as there is no proof that there are sparkling vampires running around, or a magical wizarding school in another dimension, these are classified as fiction, and sometimes fantasy.1. Wands are more powerful than fireballs.Fighting scenes are not "clearly" important in fiction books. There are many successful fiction books that have no fighting, so this initial point will be thrown out. Con claims that there were only bits of light shot out of stick between the good guys and bad guy in the Harry Potter series, however this is both not true, and an unimportant point to this debate. First of all, this is not true. The dementors can be seen as the bad guys in that they "fight" the good guys in the end, and are used as weapons. They are not bits of light. They feed off of the happiness of their victims, and suck their soul out. This is by far more imaginative and intense than fire balls that are so typical. Fire in the form of a ball, big whoop. This is uncreative, again. In the Harry Potter series, the spells are so much more powerful than Con seems to understand. They are the ultimate weapon, and you can only see the light, but they are so much more important. Being able to have such amazing power in a "stick" is so much more interesting and creative than the physical violence that takes place in Meyer's books. Ripping off heads, sure, it's pretty cool sometimes. Con wants to argue entertainment purposes, yes? Ripping off someone's head because they are made of basically rock limits the effects. The effect that the spells have in the books are so much more complex. Maybe it's cool to rip off someone's head, but it's Meyer's easy way out of being imaginative. JK creates the spells and effects of them herself.2. Love or obsession?Harry Potter's inability to find a girlfriend quickly is more realistic than this automatic mutual obsession with each other that occurs in Twilight. Meyer did not create a modern-day Romeo and Juliet, she created two hormone driven 'teens' obsessed with each other. Besides, "one sloppy kiss" between Harry and Ginny is by far more satisfactory than realizing Edward stalks Bella while she sleeps, and Jacob is basically a pedophile and falls in love with a newborn. The simple thing is, that when trying to compare the love in each series, Harry Potter is much more original and realistic than that of Twilight. I welcome Con's refutations, as I have run out of characters.