Lord of the Rings Trilogy is Better than the Harry Potter Trilogy

Notice at the end of his last round my opponent says he will only tell us what is out of place in Lord of the Rings in his final round, which means I won"t get a chance to rebut him so the readers can see that he was wrong. Why he is waiting till the end of the debate to introduce these new arguments I won"t get a chance to respond to is beyond me. Con then claims he didn"t address my opening arguments in round two because that round was only for presenting his opening arguments, but the rules laid out at the beginning said he was supposed to present his opening arguments in round 1, which he failed to do. Since he forfeited his right to present opening arguments in round 1, and had enough space rebut at least some of my arguments in round two, he has no good excuse for avoiding them till now. He then claims that I didn"t define what "better" means, and that he was going by his own definition of "better." Mirriam-Websters dictionary defines "better" as: "higher in quality, more skillful, more attractive, appealing, effective, useful, etc." http://www.google.com... I have focused on Lord of the Rings being a higher quality book and film series as well as being more skillful for the actual content. These are the two primary definitions. Con choose to go with the third, less obvious definition, by claiming Harry Potter is more attractive to people and more useful in schools, etc. I will now show reasons why such a definition isn"t even reasonable when applied to movies or books, which will also address his argument from cultural influence. If a book is better because of how many people like it, then this would mean that when people loose interest in a book that it has become bad. Public interest in books, movies, styles of clothing and music tends to fluctuate, but this doesn't change the quality of the book, film, song or dress. Shakespeare's writings were not as well accepted in his own lifetime as the are today, does that mean his writings became better? And what if Lord of the Rings eventually outsells Harry Potter, will that make it better? Yet the content of the films and books doesn't change, so you can't judge it based on popularity or sales. We don't buy what we don't like, true, and many people buy porn and music which promotes violence and abusive language, and we see immorality, violence and abusive speech rampant in society, so isn't this cultural influence too? If the acceptance of a thing by the public makes it better, then porn must be "better" than science fiction because more people watch porn; in that case, slavery was once better than giving blacks equal rights because more white people favored slavery at the time. Con's argument comes down to deciding truth by majority vote, so that if most people right now don't accept gay marriage, that means it isn't better than heterosexual marriage, but then if the tide turns and most people agree to gay marriage, that somehow makes it better. What will Con say when the tide turns against Harry Potter? Does it change the quality and content of the films or books? No, so public preference in general isn't a good way of measuring quality or skill. Instead, I focused on the experts in their fields who reviews the movies for the content, as well as the actual content of the books for evidence of creativity, character development, and other specific things that makes a book great. After all, you don't ask as the public for medical advice, you go to a doctor, and you don't ask the public to make laws and policies, you appoint people who have qualifications in law, business and economic to run the country, make the law and so forth. I rather judge a book by what expert reviews have said than on public preference. Consider that "White Christmas" by Bing Crosby is the best-selling single worldwide http://www.google.com..., does that necessarily make it a "better" song than "We Are the World" by USA for Africa, which actually has a lot more positive messages? When "White Christmas" looses first place to the song in second place, what then? Does that mean the other song suddenly became better? How could it when the content remained the same? "Kung Fu Fighting" by Carl Douglas outsold "Amazing Grace," "I'll Be There," "I Believe I Can Fly," "Umbrella" and "We Belong Together." Its simply foolish to say its better than all these despite the actual content, just because the public taste in entertainment fluctuates. Just look at how many gangster music albums sell for the catchy beat alone, but the lyrics are bogus. 3D Sex and Zen: Extreme Ecstasy sold more than Avatar in Hong Kong where it was aired, so had it been aired worldwide who knows, it might be the same result. People have an appetite for immoral stuff, just look at how much promiscuity there actually is in the world - all the one night stands and multiple partners. Con seems to think cultural influence can only be positive, but porn having a negative influence doesn't change the fact that it has just as powerful an influence as any Harry Potter film. The average person who watches a porn an a HP film will definitely remember the porn more and be more influenced by it. They will fantasize about sex, they won't be fantasizing about being a wizard. And Con's argument about choosing a music concert is simply his preference, but doesn't refute the statistic I provided which shows porn outsells music and sports events combined, so you can't judge something as being better because it sells more. Con says Albus' isn't gay, as if he knows the characters better than the author the book. If the author says Dumbledore is gay, then she would know. Since she didn't do a good job of portraying his gayness in her book, it was poor character development. Con's excuse for the unseen deaths in HP is that we shouldn't show graphic mortality to kids, and yet HP showed these same kids how Dumbledore died - being blown off a balcony by his own friend! Pot meets kettle. Get this madness: Con says the reason the kids were in the forest so long was character development. He says, "Ron, who overcomes his glum attitude about being the 3rd Wheel among Harry & Hermione," but this implies something romantic was going on between Harry and Hermoine. Yet, she ends up with Ron in the end, and Potter has no struggle letting her go because nothing was going on. Poor character development again. Con describes Ginny as "talkative," "mischievous," "gossipy," and that's the best the author could give Harry for a mate in the end? He says she stands up to all these people, hmmm, how about some proof? Con says, "woman! Have you gone mad!" I am a male, so I wonder who he means? And calling me "mad" just because you can't handle my arguments is poor debating. Con says compares Ginny to Arwen, what? Arwen gave up immortality for Aragon, what did Ginny sacrifice for Harry? Arwen controlled the river to save Frdo from the black riders, she rived Aragon when he was injured, and she's not even a main character. http://www.google.com... What did Frodo get? Immortality. Sam got married and was rich and famous. Con thinks Ginny is perfect for Harry, the author thinks Hermoine was a better fit, who do you think knows best? Con or the author? Oscars, reviews, character development and originality, LotR wins in all these ares over HP. Lots more arguments to come, thanks