Resolved: Lord Voldemort is a better villain than The Joker

Alright, since this is the last round of the debate, I'm going to give the judges of this debate a quick recap of the debate itself and reply to my opponent's rebuttal. The fact that my opponent places a character bio of the Joker in general in his rebuttal, but tells us that the Joker from Nolan film was closest to the classic, general joker actually defeats his entire case because the character bio that he gives us upholds what I've been saying entirely. He uses that bio as evidence in his argument, and what it describes is the Joker that I've been describing this whole time as being the optimal Joker to look at: having a twisted sense of humor, using gag weapons, and all of that jazz. Not only that, but all of his arguments against what I'm saying goes against his own evidence, so you can clearly see where the contradiction lies in his case. Therefore, at this point, I wouldn't even need to debate the rest of his case because he was analyzing the wrong thing. He tells us the Nolan Joker is the best Joker to look at it from, but he doesn't give us a reason why, and I've explained to you why we shouldn't just use the Nolan Joker, but he doesn't make a real response to that. So, at that point, count off anything my opponent said about the character. Then, my opponent states that everything that I've said about the amount of people required to bring Voldemort down was heavy was essentially irrelevant, but this is also contradictory because my opponent talked about the very same thing in his original statement: how the Joker needed to have all of these organizations and Batman to take him down, to which I have explained that Lord Voldemort has not only been able to outsmart the organizations as the Joker has had, but he was able to directly take them over and cause more havoc to both worlds, in contrast to the Joker, who terrorizes only one city. Then, with the argument about the bombs, my opponent seems to be just making evidence up. There's no proof he made the bombs on the boat himself and rigged them. There's no proof that he made the bombs for Rachel and Harvey (which shows to be more of the actions of the Mafia rather than the Joker, so it shows just how little my opponent's evidence is in strength). There's no proof about the fat guy's stomach. I guess the two things would be the bomb jacket and the law enforcement makes a bit of sense in some way, but my opponent clearly says that the Joker makes ALL of his weapons, but when it's all questionable and has no real strong proof, it doesn't validate his point in any way. My opponent questions why Voldemort wasn't able to kill Harry. It was because of the magical spell that was placed on Harry: love. It tied in with the central theme of the story that love conquers all. Voldemort is bad, but there is always a force that is stronger, just like how the Joker is bad, but there is a force stronger than he is as well. My opponent tackles my point about the Joker being more of a representation of insanity by stating that Voldemort could be insane as well, but the main difference is that the Joker is legitimately insane as diagnosed by the doctors of his universe in the general image. Of course, we should analyze that, but my opponent doesn't in his case. My opponent also tackles the point about the snake symbolism. The snake symbolism can go in many ways, including the snake being the devil himself (the representation of evil). Any symbolism dictionary will tell you the exact same thing about the evil connotation. My opponent also argues about the accomplishments that Voldemort has made, but when he's making more accomplishment than the Joker, as I have explained in my case, it definately makes him a better villain because he's a more efficient one. My opponent doesn't really argue against many of my points as well. He's instead succumbing to just either insulting me or insulting my character directly, so you as well just hand me the points for conduct as well. He doesn't explain most of his arguments, as I have done, and the only reason that he pulls up to support his case over mine is that my arguments are stupid, which aren't very valid arguments. He even openly says that he's not going to argue against anything I said in my case, so that's the cue for the judges to extend everything I've said across the flow. Voldemort is more efficient. Voldemort is eviler. Voldemort represents much more.