Resolved: Lord Voldemort is a better villain than The Joker

Alright judges, I don't know about my opponent, but I feel that I've asked enough questions in a cross-examination to make a statement of my own as well as a counterargument to my opponent's statement. My opponent can ask me as many questions as he feels is required because he has allowed me to make questions of his argument. Now, to the rebuttal: In this debate, you will notice, judges, that my opponent only makes an analysis on the Joker's performance when it comes to the opposition to the hero and other forces that try to stop him. There's so much more that goes into making a good villain than that, and to think that this is the only analysis that my opponent makes, it make his entire case inherently shallow in depth of the analysis of the debate in entirety. The judges wil also see that my opponent's representative for his debate when it comes to the analysis of the Joker is the Joker from Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight (2008). To make an analysis on the entirety of a general character merely through one example is faulty because there are aspects in the Joker from the film that do not correlate entirely with the general image of the Joker. For instance, the Joker from the Nolan film does not have the Joker's background, general image (fallen into a chemical bath), the quality of having gag weapons that distinguishes the Joker from the other villains known in the comic universe, etc. This is something in the general image of the Joker that makes him distinct, and the fact that the Nolan film eschews so many distinguishing characteristics in the traditional, general image of the Joker, this makes it faulty to base the entirety of the character on this single character when he's only a fraction of the whole (let alone a very small fraction). Therefore, that makes his entire case pretty much easy to trump. When we move on to his points and his general responses in the cross-examination. What he really tries to show us is that Lord Voldemort is not a good villain because he is thwarted by Harry so many times, doesn't make his own weapons, and apparently has had so many opportunities to attack Hogwarts and didn't really do it. However, when we look at the answers that he made in his cross, where he tells us that Harry won because he had the help of Ron and Hermione, it contradicts his own point that it only took Harry to bring down The Dark Lord. In addition to that, my opponent isn't entirely correct on that because Harry required the assistance of Albus Dumbledore as well in order to ensure that the Elder Wand (the most powerful wand in creation) didn't end up in Voldemort's hands and the assistance of Severus Snape infiltrating Voldemort's organization in order to be able to carry the process out. Let's not forget the required assistance from the parts of both Dumbledore's Army and the Order of the Phoenix in order to be able to vanquish Voldemort's forces. What does that prove? My opponent's argument is faulty at best if he's trying to argue that Harry alone could've beaten him. Harry Potter and Goblet of Fire shows us exactly how Harry couldn't have beaten Voldemort by himself when he had no one for his aid to fight Voldemort and just barely came out alive from the battle. Also, my opponent acknowledges that it takes only one man to bring down the Joker, which only shows us the Joker isn't that efficient of a villain. Also, I'd like to ask my opponent that if he is really using the Joker from the Nolan film, when does the Joker EVER make any of his own weapons? That never occurred anywhere in the film, and for him to be bringing that kind of point on the table is nothing more than false. When we move on to Lord Voldemort's performance in the attempts to kill Harry Potter, we have to realize that 1) Voldemort was never at his strongest and had so many objectives to fufill, including making himself strong enough to battle Harry, conquering the wizarding and muggle worlds, etc. 2) Sending out someone to kill Potter would've been contradictory to the book's plot because as we learned in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, no one else was meant to kill Harry Potter directly other than Lord Voldemort himself. Now, we make an analysis between Lord Voldemort and The Joker at my level. When you analyze both characters, you will realize there's not much difference between their personalities: a sadistic lust for the torment of other human beings; an extremely violent and ruthless execution for desires; a strong degree of intellect and an ability to install fear in the populations. What we realize, though, is that Joker is more of a representation of insanity in contrast to Lord Voldemort, who is more of a representation of pure evil. We know this about Lord Voldemort simply through his symbolism. Lord Voldemort has been designed to look like a snake, has a snake with him at all times, and came from a house in Hogwarts that had a snake for its symbol. The snake is known to be a symbol of evil according to any symbolism dictionary, stemming from the story of Adam and Eve in the Bible. Not to mention that JK Rowling herself has told in interviews that she based the character from actual persons in history, most notably Adolf Hitler with his idealisms of ethnic cleansing. Voldemort has also been associated with the images of terrorism, especialy in the scene from the sixth film where his Deatheaters destroy a bridge. This shows us that Lord Voldemort is more symbolically significant than The Joker with all of the background that he has. Not to mention that Lord Voldemort has been pretty much successful in all of his feats except killing Harry Potter. Regardless of the actions of Severus Snape, he had acquired the Elder Wand. He had taken over the Wizarding government and installed terror in the muggle world, meaning that he's brought terror at such a larger scale. He was able to become powerful again. He was able to attack Hogwarts. Lord Voldemort has been such an efficient villain, and he has been able to do so much more than the Joker. The Joker terrorized Gotham. Voldemort terrorized two worlds. Bringing my argument back to the weapons ordeal, it doesn't really matter who made the weapons. What matters is the potency of them and the amount of resources that each villain has. Not only is Lord Voldemort's weapon more dangerous than the Joker's based on the amount of things it can do, but Lord Voldemort has so much access to resources, including his Deatheaters and Horcruxes, making him a very difficult villain to defeat indeed. Then, of course, is the cultural impact of both characters. Lord Voldemort has been used for so many references for evil in the world, including Osama bin Laden and George W. Bush. A particular joke showed the words "Republicans for Lord Voldemort" because Voldemort was such a symbol for evil. This is not limited to the culture of the US, but also for the UK. This shows us that Lord Voldemort has made more of a cultural impact than the Joker has. So, why should my judges vote PRO? I've shown you the many holes of my opponent's argument; I've shown you an objective and subjective analysis of Lord Voldemort as well as the appeals of both in two cultures; I've shown you that Voldemort has been able to accomplish much more than the Joker has. I've shown you that Lord Voldemort has more potency as a villain than Joker has.