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

My opponent ignore my arguments regarding the reviews, academy awards, character development, originality, odds to overcome and drama in Lord of the Rings, despite the fact that he had more than 6, 500 character spaces left to rebut my arguments. I can only assume therefore that either he can't, or that these facts were so strong he is still trying to think up an argument against them. We'll see how he does in round 2. He shifted from the movies to the books, and argues that Harry Potter is better because it made more money. I don't see how making more money proves a book is better, because "Around 2009, the U.S. porn industry's revenue of $10"15 billion dollars a year was more than the combined revenue of professional sports and live music combined and roughly on par or above Hollywood's box office revenue." http://www.google.com... Does that make pornography better than music, sports and possibly box office movies just because it makes more money? We tend to frown on porn, as its part of a very immoral sex industry. "More than 70% of male internet users from 18 to 34 visit a pornographic site in a typical month." http://www.google.com... Obviously, being popular doesn't make it better, so even if Harry Potter was more popular that wouldn't make it better than Lord of the Rings. Furthermore, Harry Potter books tend to be cheaper than Lord of the Rings books, just go to amazon.com and see. But more than that, the marketing of products has a large effect on how many will buy, so even if Harry Potter books are not better, if they are marketed well enough they might sell better. We all know the power of advertising gets people to buy all kinds of junk. http://www.google.com... "3D Sex and Zen: Extreme Ecstasy took in US $351,000 (HK $2,790,000) on the first day alone in Hong Kong,[20] beating Avatar's HK$2.5 million opening gross in the country in 2009.[21] It earned HK$13,104,982 in the first four days after opening." http://www.google.com... So Con's argument from sales and profit is simply bogus. To be consistent, he would have to argue that porn is generally better than sports, music, and most types of movies, since it beats drama and sci-fi in terms of sales. Now J.K. Rowling, author of Harry Potter, told the fans that Dulbledore is gay, even though there isn't any evidence of this in her books. If the man was gay, write him as being gay. The fact that she wrote about a gay man as though he were straight suggests poor character development again. There is so much more wrong with the Harry Potter series. The author herself doesn't like her own ending, and says that Hermoine should have ended up with Harry instead of Ron. "Author JK Rowling, the woman who dreamed up the pair and turned them into two of the most recognized figures in literature, is now throwing cold water on the central romance in the gazillion-selling Harry Potter series. Rowling now says she should have paired Hermoine Granger with Harry Potter, instead of his bud Ron Weasley. And then she delivers this punch to the gut of Ron fans everywhere: Ron and Hermione would have needed relationship counseling." http://www.google.com... When an author throws cold water on her own book, it doesn't even need my criticism. Even the woman who played Hermoine agrees with the fans that Ron can't make Hermoine happy over time. http://www.google.com... Lord of the Rings has no such silly ending, with Aragon ending up with the right woman, Arwen. (I apologize for mistakenly calling her Lady Ariel in round 1). They were also unseen deaths in Harry Potter books, such as Mad Eye Moody, Tonks and Lupin, and their deaths are just briefly mentioned, treated as so trivial in the books and movies that we don't know if to mourn them or wait for their surprize return. The circumstances of their deaths were vague, whereas in Lord of the Rings in both movie and book, we are given details into the demise of all the important characters such as Theoden, Boromir, Denethor and Gollum. The seventh Harry Potter books has them in the forest doing absolutely nothing but being silly teenagers for an entire third of the book, what a waste of space. Tolkien knew how to use his word space in Lord of the Rings, where important stuff happens page after page so you don't get frustrated trying to get to the meat. Harry Potter actually ended up with Ginny, a girl with absolutely no personality. Aside from being "nice," or having red hair, I dare Con to tell us something about this girl's behavior. What mannerisms or traits sets her apart from others? In Lord of the Rings, Frodo is innocent, has a favorite food, a best friend, faces his fears and has a joyous side to him. Pippin and Merry are the comedians, good at singing, entertaining, but courageous in battle. What did Ginny actually do in the Harry Potter series? She was the most undeveloped character in the story, and fans were not happy about her getting Harry in the end. Harry Potter was unrealistic in terms of its own context, for firstly, Fred and George could see everyone's location on the Marauder's map, so how could they not see Peter Pettigrew sleeping in Ron's bed every night for all the years they had the map? Even if they didn't knew Pettigrew was Serius Black, would it not be strange to see a stranger following their brother around on the map all the time? Voldemort could have had the Half-blood Prince take Harry prisoner at any time, and bring him to his death. The bad guys had so many chances to get at Harry that they didn't take it was unrealistic. Sauron wasted no time hunting Frodo in Lord of the Rings. We aren't told in the books or movies what wizards even learn at that stupid magic school. They didn't learn much magic at all in the films. We never see a Math or English class in the books, so how do they write newspaper articles and organize tournaments? The time turner was used to go back in time and save Buckbeak, so why didn't anyone think to go back in time and stop Voldemort when he was a young kid? If, in The Prison of Azkaban, they can go back in time to save Sirius, why couldn't Dumbledore have gone back to save Lily and James Potter? Doesn't make sense. The series is set between 1991 and 1998, so why doesn't anyone in the book have a cell phone? This doesn't fit the time in which the novel is set. Lord of the Rings has nothing out of place, and I challenge Con to tell me whats wrong with the story. I will respond to Con's argument about influence on culture and add more arguments why Lord of the Rings is better next round, I'm out of space.