Resolved: Lord Voldemort is a better villain than The Joker

"hat 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" Trying to tell the judges what they should think is a poor choice of strategy. "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." Already answered for this, the Joker in his original form was closer to the Joker we see in TDK than in any other incantation anywhere. Not only does this mean that this incantation is the best easily accessable example, but it also means the likelihood of your familiarity with the Joker that I'm referring to skyrockets. "fallen into a chemical bath)" Which would add...what, to his character? Every Batman villain at one point or another has fallen into a chemical bath of some kind. Two-face, Mr Freeze, Bane, Poison Ivy, hell I'm pretty sure in the super-camp TV series of e 90's that Batman himself fell into a sodding chemical bath at least once. ""the quality of having gag weapons that distinguishes the Joker from the other villains" So you're criticising TDK's version of the joker for not being child friendly? "This is something in the general image of the Joker that makes him distinct," No. http://batman.wikia.com... Quoth the wiki: "The Joker is a master criminal with a clown-like appearance. Initially portrayed as a violent sociopath who murders people for his own amusement, the Joker later in the 1940s began to be written as a goofy trickster-thief." Your Joker is not THE Joker. "traditional" HA! "it contradicts his own point that it only took Harry to bring down The Dark Lord." Irrelevant to the discussion, as it goes. "My opponent's argument is faulty at best if he's trying to argue that Harry alone could've beaten him. " Again, irrelevant, if we're going to gauge the quality of a villain by how many people have to help the hero to beat him then the greatest villain in the world is probably Shao Khan. "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" Pay attention folks, this bit's important. "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." In the same way that if a pie is small enough to be eaten by one person then it must taste worse than a pie that can feed several people. "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? " Well there's all the bombs, every single bomb, in fact, the bombs on the boat, bomb in the hospital (fun fact, the delayed hospital explosion was actually a pyrotechnics error and not in the original script, Ledger ad-libbed that scene), bombs meant for Rachel and Harvey, bombs in that fat guy's stomach, the bomb jacket towards the beginning. Not to mention using the law enforcement of Gotham AS a weapon, you know, the sniper scene, the fake guards, the taking of hostages, and so on. "false" HA. ""When we move on to Lord Voldemort's performance in the attempts to kill Harry Potter" There's something that troubles me greatly in the revelations about Harry's parents in the first book/film. Harry's parents died protecting baby Harry, yes? That wou sort of imply that Voldemort killed them, yes? Which would in turn imply that Voldemort had a clear shot at Harry (a point boosted by the, you know, scar that's painted on his face) So...why couldn't Voldemort kill a baby, precisely? "Between Lord Voldemort and The Joker at my level." Pay attention folks, "at my level" means looking at the Joker like the only criminal with down syndrome that hasn't yet given up and gone to play legos. "a sadistic lust for the torment of other human beings;" Actually Voldemort by his supremacist ideology would be a genocidal villain, which makes him about as special and unique as Duke Nukem Forever. "an extremely violent " Voldemort-only when it suits him Joker-more akin to Monty Python's Black Knight in his lust for violence. "ruthless execution for desires" "a strong degree of intellect" "an ability to install fear in the populations" Worse than Yoda's, your grammar is. "What we realize, though, is that Joker is more of a representation of insanity in contrast to Lord Voldemort" Because a man who wants to wipe out all human life in the name of some pathetic supremacist agenda and is willing to employ everything from giant snakes to flying grim reapers couldn't POSSIBLY be insane. "who is more of a representation of pure evil." Because pure evil gets chicks, or so I'm told. "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" Actually a snake typically represents subtlety and deception rather than outright evil, but snakes in general have been used as symbolism for everything from eternity (the famous snake eating it's own tail image) to the Rod of Asclepius, the image of which formed the basis for the modern day Caduceus symbol, present in most U.S Hospitals in one form or aother. "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" Who definitely wasn't insane, nope, despite going through Trench Warfare, immense economic difficulties and prison, who wanted to exterminate Blacks, Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals, Marxists, Jehoah's Witnesses, disabled people, Slavs fro Eastern Europe, Poles, and Freemasons and that would make the world one big happy family. Nope, definitely not insane. "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. " Because destroying a bridge is WAY worse than destroying a hospital. Oh, take note, apparantely, terrorists: Not insane. "Not to mention that Lord Voldemort has been pretty much successful in all of his feats except killing Harry Potter." Which is like being a world champion bodybuilder with a three inch dick, you can lift boulders but every single woman you bed is going to laugh at you. "meaning that he's brought terror at such a larger scale" See this is what bothers me about people's perceptions of the Joker, how quickly they link him to someone who wants others to be afraid, but that's never the point. Not even in TDK. The Joker wants us all to become more...unrestrained, more feral. If you want a non-Joker antagonist to compare the Joker to, then you should compare the Joker to Tyler Durden. Both think mankind is less human for it's collective attitude, and that we should seek to see what we can accomplish in life rather than settling for a Semi in the suburbs, a dog named "Jack"and a holiday every few years. "it doesn't really matter who made the weapons" It does, it really really does. Sun Tzu said that all warfare is based on deception. The Joker deceives everyone, now imagine someone was walking towards you holding a potato peeler. Would you think they were going to attack you? Hell no, you'd be deceived, and you'd die. You'll note that I didn't answer for many points here, but then many points are a variation of the ones I did answer, repetition, or just downright stupid. So roll on the next round.