Lord of the Rings is better than Harry Potter

I thank Con for this debate. I would just like to clear somethings up. "To ensure proper debate of the topic, we will look to ONLY the original novels, not the movie adaptations." Sorry Con, but I already said, "All aspects can be used in the debate e.g movies, books etc..." Since I am the instigator, I get to make the rules. R1: THE HARRY POTTER FRANCHISE IS MORE ACCESSIBLE TO A BROADER AUDIENCE. Con says, "The Harry Potter series is more user-friendly than Tolkien's series.The sheer length of the Lord of the Rings novels discourages more casual readers and non-fantasy fanatics. I think it is important to know the timeline of when these books were written. The Sorcerers Stone was releasesd on 1997, while the Fellowship was released on 1954. Back then, grammar was much different, which is why people today think the grammar is advanced. For a 15 year old in the 50's, the grammar wouldn't seem difficult, compared to a 15 year old in 2015. Con says, "The sheer length of the Lord of the Rings novels discourages more casual readers and non-fantasy fanatics" If I count the total amount of pages of the 3 LOTR books, it totals to 1008 pages. t's 398 pages for The Fellowship of the Ring, 327 pages for The Two Towers, and 412 pages for The Return of the King. For Harry Potter, SS - 223 (UK) 309 (US) CoS - 251 (UK) 341 (US) PoA - 317 (UK) 435 (US) GoF - 636 (UK) 734 (US) OOTP - 766 (UK) 870 (US) HBP - 607 (UK) 652 (US) DH - 607 (UK) 759 (US) Books 4 to 7 are longer than the LOTR books, so this proves Con's arguments wrong.(Im only using the U.K version). "This is evidenced by the fact that 400 Million copies of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone have been sold, whereas only 150 Million of the Lord of the Rings have been sold." I do not know where Con got his information, but according to http://www.cesnur.org..., both series sold about the same. With the Harry Potter slightly edging out Lord of the Rings. Keep in mind though, its 7 books to 3 books. R2:HARRY POTTER IS A BETTER PROTAGONIST THAN FRODO BAGGINS "The narrative of Harry Potter supersedes that of a common man story, and includes a coming-of-age element that allows more relatability to the character."Well, what about Frodo? both of their characters are very similar, and kids are very unlikely to relate to a coming-of-age situtation. both being young men set up by the actions of their fathers to vanquish evil, both overcoming various trials, and both being supported by their friendsFrodo's father had nothing to do with the ring, so your statement is false. R3:THE STORY OF HARRY POTTER CONTAINS A THEME, WHILE LOTR IS SIMPLY A NARRATIVE"The persistent theme throughout the Harry Potter franchise is, coincidentally, persistence. Harry Potter teaches the moral that you can lose absolutely everything, but never give up hope"Both books teach good morals, "Every darkness must pass, a new day will come". This is bascially applies to the whole story line.Why I think Lord of Rings is better.A1: The rich literatureTolkien spent numerous hours writing on perfecting all of his work. Nearly everything in Lord of the Rings has immense detail, provided with illstrations. Most importantly, his work was authentic. Unlike Rowling, who said she was inspired by Tolkien, Tolkien was the first of his kind to write such rich and powering stories. His work was still popular, even though fantasy based stories weren't as popular in the 50's. Also, if you notice that both story lines are very parallel and similar. Both storylines involve wizards guiding two young lads to destroy evil socerershttp://greenbooks.theonering.net...A2: Badass VilliansThe Lord of the Rings had some of the coolest villians out there. All of them were immensefully powerful, and it took quite a bit of effort for the heroes to beat them. Examples are Sauron, Witch King, Saruman, Balrog etc.. All of them wear armed with powerful weapons and had very cool looking attaire. In Harry Potter, the only real villain was Tom Riddle, and a bunch of his supporters who really weren't that powerful.A3: Peter Jackson and his squadThe Lord the Rings probably wouldn't be as famous without him. Jackson took this long epic book, and turned it into a thirlling trilogy. Every aspect of the film was praised. The Editing, Acting, Soundtrack, you name it. So much detail went into making the trilogy feel so thirlling and real, and It certainly paid off at the Oscars. Out of 30 nominations, the LOTR trilogy won 17 oscars. The Harry Potter series won 0 oscars. All of the Lord of the Rings movies got 90 or higher in Rotten Tomatoes, while only one Harry Potter movie (the last one) received a 96%. I'm saving some of my arguments for the next round, so I'm curious to see what Con has to say.