Harry Potter is better than the Twilight saga.

It seems as though you are explaining that the fact that Twilight has weak characters make it a better book than Harry Potter, which is a poorer book. (I deduce this as this is a comparison debate and not an attack at either series) Having a weak character in a book can definitely create friction which makes for a great story, as you expressed with you George Orwell example. The Noughts and Crosses series, however, has weak characters such as Jude McGreggor who is racist and violent- but what makes Noughts and Crosses a great series is that he is juxtaposed with good characters, as every series should be. You have, weak characters and strong characters- who, when placed together in a story create conflict- but having more weak characters than strong ones just gives you the impression that the weak ones were intended to be good. This is true in Stephanie Meyer's case, as she describes Edward as chivalrous and the perfect boyfriend, and, like I mentioned before, she clearly has no idea that her "perfect boyfriend" is sexist and disrespectful. I fully understand when a character is created to be weak, (who wants a whole book of princesses and princes?) obviously weak characters make the book- but when the "strong character" is actually extremely weak- there's something wrong. Your next point is regarding protection "So relying on men for "protection" automatically makes a girl "[un]equal"? Everyone needs protection sometimes" I fully agree that protecting someone does not make them unequal, but when Bella never protects herself and she is constantly protected by either Edward or his family, it does seem a little sexist and unequal. You have also attacked Hermione as being almost "too stubborn" and how it should be more of a hindrance throughout the series. " NEVER is the Harry Potter series does Hermione get in trouble for being what can only be described as disgustingly stubborn, which is very unrealistic. In fact, Rowling always depicts this stubbornness as being a wonderful virtue and ensures Hermione's lines are witty (and as a result, very attractive). There is a fine line between being independent and stubborn, and Hermione constantly barges her foot over the line in apparent ‘role-model success" Firstly I'd like to rebut your point that she "Never.... gets in trouble for being... stubborn". This is blatantly untrue. In the very first book, Hermione goes looking for the troll in the dungeon under the belief she could handle it herself- and she nearly gets killed. This is an example of her getting in trouble for her stubbornness, another is when Gryffindor has points deducted from it when Hermione shouts out during a lesson regarding were-wolves. (1) She also gets in trouble with her friend Luna Lovegood, when she blatantly and quite rudely criticise her father's magazine, the Quibbler. These are a mere three examples of her getting in trouble for her stubbornness, and because of these it is evident that being stubborn and gabby is not something Rowling promotes, but rather places as a fault of Hermione's. Thank you for your well structured debate. As we proceed I'd like to urge you to give some more arguments as to why Twilight is better than Harry Potter. http://en.wikipedia.org...