Resolved: Lord Voldemort is a better villain than The Joker

I would instead ask the judges (assuming that anyone cares) to think for themselves rather than be swayed by the petty pleas of one side. I will summarise my opponent's points contrasted against my own in the hopes of achieving this end. My opponent claims that posting a biography containing a description of the original Joker is fruitless because it also includes later variants, as if later variants have any bearing whatsoever on the character's original design. My opponent claims that since it took so many people to bring down the Joker that he must be a worse villain than Voldemort...who was brought down by a child, his ginger friend, a nerdy girl, some teachers and an emo ghost. What bearing this has on how effective either villain is, frankly, is beyond me. My opponenty claims that because it took so many people to defeat the Joker, a point that's false in itself, that Voldemort must have been the greater threat. This is ignoring how the Joker manages to outwit an entire city. Twice. My opponent argues that since the Joker didn't "take over" the state funded and federally mandated institutions that tried and failed to take him down, that he must be ineffective, ignoring that such a method is totally antithetical to the Joker's ambitons. My opponent claims that love is the sort thing that can apparantely stop a great villain, ignoring how laughably ridiculous such a premise is, if that's the case then should that love not also have protected Harry's parents, you know, the people that died? My oppnent is committing hypocrisy in claiming that the Joker is insane as a point of discussion when he earlier attempted to use the Joker's insanity as a black mark against him, note also the complete lack of equivalently admitted insanity for Voldemort, you know, the man that my opponent has compared to terrorists, Hitler, and evil symbolism in general. My opponent attempts to claim that Voldemort is made better because he is efficient, while ignoring that the Harry Potter books span, what, seven years? The Joker brought Gotham City, the only city in the world protected by The (Goddamn) Batman to it's knees in the space of less than a month and he did it with seemingly very little pre-planning, he did it off his own back, and he did it by toying with the very fabric of people's humanity rather than trying to encourage some supremacist agenda. My opponent feels that his every argument requires validation for my resistance to be accurate, and yet my opponent has yet to begin to debate properly, choosing only to make points in the penultimate round and instead ask elusive questions beforehand, and acting as if my points have no merit purely because he believes so. I would argue that even if Voldemort truly were more vicious, more insane, more intelligent, more cunning, these things do not make a great villain. I wold argue that even if the Joker relied on minions and magic and other non-personal nonsense as much as Voldemort does, the fact that the Joker goes out of his way to put himself in the crosshairs makes him a much rarer breed of villain and the fact that he does this while effectively eschewing every single state attempt at his apprehension that doesn't involve Batman means that the Joker, a civilian, an ordinary guy, outwits the equivalent of every single armed policeman, criminologist, criminal psychologist, gangster, bank robber and even on at least two occasions the (goddamn) Batman himself. Whereas Voldemort's plans are figured out by two kids and a ginger. Repeatedly. Even if Voldemort had something that the Joker didn't in terms of his ruthlessness or tenacity, the Joker has one claim to fame that Voldemort will never have. It took the (goddamn) Batman to bring the Joker down. When everyone else had tried and failed, it took the (goddamn) Batman to defeat the Joker. Voldemort will never have that. Ladies and Gentlemen, on your marks, get set...VOTE!