The Dark Knight is not oscar-worthy.

"The instigator's one and only argument is that Harvey Dent's transformation into a villain was awful." -Actually no, that's not my one and only argument. I stated these words in my opener: "I'll start with its most crucial flaw, but will be happy to elaborate on other flaws when and if anyone accepts my debate challenge." Had no one accepted my challenge, then identifying each of the film's flaws would be a waste of time. Therefore, I focused on its most crucial, which is Dent's crossover. Now that someone has accepted, however, I will happily address other flaws. And I will do so after I counter CON's argument about Dent. "Rachael Dawes. Her death was more of a heavy blow than PRO has suggested." -Really? Holy cow. I guess my saying "Rachael Dawes, his only love, his girlfriend, his bride-to-be, his whole life...is murdered. So, of course, it's only natural that Harvey is a little upset, a little angry, a little sad, a little depressed, and now a little insane" somehow falls short of addressing that it was a "heavy blow," though I don't see how. "In the film, it was made clear that Harvey clinged to Rachel for support moreso than one could fathom." -Neither "clinged" nor "moreso" are words, but that's beside the point. Here's the point: the way CON depicts Harvey Dent's love for Rachael implies that she basically breast feeds the man. She's his "pillar of support"? Then how do you explain the fact that Harvey established his career as a lawyer (at IA) before even knowing who Rachael Dawes was? If she is indeed his almighty "pillar of support," then he wouldn't be much of a lawyer...I'm sorry, but in desperate, desperate times, and in one of the world's most famous cities (as Gotham is a metaphor for NYC), you aren't much of a district attorney whose chief "pillar of support" is your girlfriend. Harvey Dent's integrity and willingness to lock up criminals doesn't stem from Rachael Dawes. "ANYONE COULD BE CORRUPTED IF WHAT THEY VALUED THE MOST WAS UTTERLY COMPROMISED!" -Not true. Batman is incorruptible. And also, a grammatically correct statement would read: "anyone could be corrupted if what HE (or SHE) valued the most was utterly compromised." The word "they" is plural, and does not represent agreement with the noun "anyone," which is singular. "Thus, over the course of the film, we saw the Joker's plots and plans to effect Harvey's two ingredients for his life." -"Effect" is a noun. "Affect" would be the correct term. "Essentially, this gives him the idea that everyone has been corrupted (hence, why he nearly kills a man, only to be stopped by Batman) (incidentally, contrary to what PRO says, this is Nolan's way of demonstrating Dent's main character flaw so early in the film)." -Early in the film? That scene did not take place early in the film. It was after the parade. And also, during this very scene, Dent did not "nearly kill a man." He was threatening to kill the mobster so the mobster would reveal information about the joker. Thus, it was not a character flaw. He wasn't actually going to shoot the guy. Also, CON addresses the hospital scene in which Harvey crosses over to evil. He also implies that Dent was so disturbed by Rachael's death, along with corruption in Gotham, that he decides to leave everything to chance...which is correct. I'm not debating that. What I'm debating is the incredibly quick amount of time it took him to do so. Experiencing your loved on die on the phone and then NOT taking the chance to punish the person responsible for it? OK, that's possible...but the film did not elaborate on this whatsoever. It would take an odd man not to avenge his loved one's death...and the movie does not address why this is an oddity, or even that it is an oddity. Instead, it simply portrays a white knight one second and a villain who is obsessed with coins and chance the next. In order to pull something off like that, the process must be gradual. WHY did Harvey care more about a system of chance more so than he cared about avenging his loved one's death? That's the question the film should have asked, but failed to do so. And as for the Star Wars comparison, I'm fully aware that Vader is the focus point and Dent isn't. But that's no excuse for his transition into evil being a sloppy choppy one. In the comics, 2-Face was one of the major villains...yet in the film, he lasts for 20 minutes and then he's gone! Just like Spider-Man 3...Venom was Spider-Man's arch enemy in the comics, yet appeared in the saga for no more than 12 or 15 minutes in the film. I was stupid and set the limit to 5k characters, so I'm about out of room. But I do have room to say this: the debate topic was whether or not The Dark Knight is worthy of an Oscar. I say no; my opponent says yes. But I haven't seen one convincing piece of information that supports why and how TDK could win an Academy Award.