The Dark Knight is not oscar-worthy.

RE: "that's not my one and only argument." Promising to make an argument and actually making an argument are by no means the same course of action. In fact, if you shall pay special attention to this round, you shall note that PRO brings up no other flaw which concerns the film in question. RE: "Really? Holy cow. I guess my saying . . ." I'm not sure why PRO chooses to be so condescending in terms of his conduct here . . . especially considering that he clearly states that "Harvey has a right to be a LITTLE upset, a LITTLE angry and perhaps a LITTLE insane." In addition, I find it rather strange that PRO would agree that Ms Dawes meant the world to this character, yet complains that we have little to no reason to believe that he'd go over the edge. RE: "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? " Given that I have yet to dictate anything along the lines of Harvey having relied on Rachel his entire life (or at least to establish his career as a lawyer), I find this question which my opponent makes as being irrelevant. I insist nothing more than the notion that she became his pillar of support upon him falling in love with her. RE: " Batman is incorruptible" Not true. Batman as a symbol in incorruptible. On the other hand, Bruce Wayne had been corrupted when had lost his parents. In fact, he nearly murdered his parents' killer during the events of the first film in attempt get revenge. Furthermore, we know that the actual person is corrupt in that he is regularly depicted as one who breaks the law (being a vigilante, embezzling money from his company to fuel his operations, kidnapping, monitoring all of the cell phones in the city, etc) in order to stop others who are breaking the law. Of course, this is all besides the point. The point I was getting at was that the Joker knew that Harvey Dent could be corrupted through utterly compromising what he valued. My opponent responds to the actual point I am making with nothing more than a grammatical correction. RE: Early in the film? That scene did not take place early in the film . . . he was threatening to kill the mobster so the mobster would reveal information about the joker . . ..He wasn't actually going to shoot the guy." Yes, I consider that early. Fortunately, our connotations of early is not what this debate concerns. In addition, holding someone at gunpoint only to determine whether or not the trigger should be pulled based on the outcome of a coin toss (a coin toss which Batman felt the need to PREVENT) seems to constitute as nearly committing the act ( as in being close, yet only being prevented by something quite meager). PRO's idea that Harvey had no intention of shooting the guy is baseless conjecture at best. RE: NOT taking the chance to punish the person responsible for it? OK, that's possible...but the film did not elaborate on this whatsoever." The film elaborated on this several times. In fact, during the climatic showdown with Batman and Gordon at the end of the film, Harvey states the following: Harvey Dent: It's not about what I want. It's about what's fair. You thought we could be decent men in an indecent world. You thought we could lead by example. You thought we could break the rules . . . you were wrong. The world is cruel. And the only morality in a cruel world is chance. Unbiased. Unprejudiced. Fair. The guy is out of his mind and bases his morality on chance. We see him rely on a coin flipping to make decisions even before becoming Two face and have sufficient opportunity to note this as being one of Dent's flaws (refer back to the example of Dent coming close to killing one of the Joker's thugs). PRO suggesting that there is not an attempt to explain Dent's motivations as well as why he did not bring himself to kill the Joker is like suggesting there is no sun in the sky on a cloudless day. RE:"WHY did Harvey care more about a system of chance more so than he cared about avenging his loved one's death?" See above quote. RE: StarWars comparison. PRO's counters my previous claims on this matter by citing the fact the TwoFace was a major villain in the comics. Indeed, Dent was a major villain IN THE COMICS, but the film is NOT the comics and works within a different continuity. Just as Batman is trained by Ras Al Ghul for the film universe alone, Harvey isn't treated as a primary antagonist but rather an extension of the Joker as well as a means of developing Batman enough to make the sacrifice he does at the end of the film. As for the debate topic: If I recall correctly, PRO instigated the debate, thus has the burden or proof. As the contender, I need only counter his reasons for affirming the topic in order to win. As for grammatical errors: If PRO insist, then . . . http://img409.imageshack.us...