The battle between Peter Jackson's two trilogies The Lord of the Rings movie trilogy and The Hobbit movie trilogy has been clashing for decades! Even the books!
 RULES:
YOU MAY ONLY VOTE ONCE
YOU MUST HAVE WATCHED ALL THE MOVIES AND READ ALL THE BOOKS
WARNING: THERE IS SPOILERS AHEAD!
My opinion
 I think the Lord of the Rings is better because of the astonishing music composed by Howard Shore. From sad moments to battles, the music truly motivates the audience and makes them as if they are in fact...in Middle-Earth! The battles were big and the movies ACTUALLY connects to the book. Even though Tom Bombadil was not there, and Saruman gets killed earlier...it was actually some good changes! 
  The battles were vast and fierce...and the CGI was PERFECT! The monsters and Orcs, the smelly trolls, they looked so real!
   HOWEVER, The Hobbit did CGI TOO MUCH! Gandalf looks so fake and weird with all the extra CGI make up. And the battles were not as good as the ones in The Lord of the Rings! The monsters looked fake and not that scary, but more UGLY! Although the score for the movie was good...The Hobbit still had A LOT of problems. 
 THE HOBBIT
The movies were really different from the books! Tauriel was NEVER there! And they made Kili and Tauriel fall in love and all but she was not even in the books! Now...in the third and final movie: The Battle of the Five Armies, SAURON was never even supposed to be there! In the movie he goes to Dol Guldor...but he was supposed to be gone by now! In the books, Sauron left the Hill of Sorcery at the SAME time as Bilbo Baggins, even found the Ring! 
WOW! That was a MOUTHFUL! 

I've only watched every movie multiple times ( haven't read the books ), but I am going to say that The Hobbit is better in my opinion, solely because it comes first in the series, and I can not stand watching series out of story order, at all. 

There's no question in my mind that The Lord of the Rings is so much better than the Hobbit trilogy. There's no comparing them. The Lord of the Rings trilogy is one of the best sets of movies based off books you'll ever see, while the Hobbit trilogy failed to follow the books very well.

Sauron422416 : Lord of the Rings is one of the greatest movie trilogies ever made, the Hobbit trilogy  is more like the Star Wars Prequel Trilogy. Not to mention the character Tauriel was a complete waste.

To be fair, it should be kind of like comparing the books. The huge epic that is one of the greatest literature masterpieces of our time vs. its shorter awkward prequel. But the case between the movies is even more insane. Peter Jackson didn't even want to direct The Hobbit trilogy and seemed to hate it when he had to do so. Also they had to add so much unnecessary stuff just to make it more "epic" and whatnot. When I went to see the last Hobbit - movie, whatever it name was, my thoughts where after the first hour  "This is so boring. When will it end? Just kill each other already! I have to go pee!"

So yeah, my vote goes for the Lord of the rings. But I have to say I loved the first Hobbit movie.

Brigand : Yes...I will have to agree with you. The Hobbit did add some unnecessary things such as parts about Gandalf exploring Dol Guldor and Tauriel. Originally, Peter Jackson would make 2 movies and merge The Desolation of Smaug and The Battle of the Five Armies. But he wanted to make it the "final" trilogy. So he added all that things I did not want to see...

JonXMasterZZMan : Yes, it is like comparing Star Wars and the (awful) yet good prequel trilogy. And I agree the original trilogy was WAY more better!

gamerforlifeforever2 : Yeah! The Hobbit failed to follow the plot of the books. I mean they actually took 5 PAGES (just so you know this is a FACT) of a children's book, and turned it into a 2 hour feature-length film full of CGI-armies crashing into each other! The Battle of the Five Armies?!! MORE LIKE THE BLOATING OF THE FIVE PAGES!! For example, TAURIEL is not in the books, Sauron is not supposed to be there (long story so please read the books) and more!

thing1 : You should read the books! Especially The Lord of the Rings one of the most popular and most best literature ever! But read The Hobbit first to understand what is happening...and it may be confusing at first (SO many names!).

This is so one-sided, it's ridiculous. But then,the original trilogy in movies for the most part have been better than the prequels. I saw this in Star Wars as well.

I'm going to go with the Hobbit but that's because I don't know too much about the other trilogy. I only saw the first of the LOTR movies and that was only about two years ago. On the other hand, I saw all three of the Hobbit movies in theaters and I really liked all of them, especially when they were in 3D. Couldn't really follow what was going to in the first LOTR movie.

I like most prefer the original LoTR trilogy. While I did still enjoy the hobbit trilogy (well I've only seen the first 2 movies in the trilogy) somewhat I don't really think it can stand up to the original critically and the hobbit even at times even felt a bit like a cahs in. Though really I'm not a huge LoTR fan even if I've seen most of the movies, though I do find it enjoyable at times.

It's not like the star wars prequel trilogy at least.

I probably would have liked The Hobbit a bit more if Peter Jackson had condensed the three movies into one simple, 2 hour long movie. I think a shorter run time would have been beneficial to the nature of the story: The Hobbit, as it was written, wasn't supposed to be a huge, grand epic so much as it was supposed to be a fun, short children's tale. 

I did enjoy the Hobbit much more. It had a better, "Homey" feel to it, and I felt that one hobbit was better than the four we had in the first trilogy. I really liked Bilbo as a character over Sam and Frodo. Plus the dwarves. It seems like a much better, less serious tale than Lord of the Rings, which I somehow liked more. Also, The Hobbit had greater character development in my humble opinion. The Lord of the Rings tried to fit way too much into a three part movie and it just. . . couldn't. The Hobbit was actually done justice. Oh yeah, and no more of those. . . pointless. . .constant, Aragorn X Elf girl scenes. (My brother says her name was. . . Tauriel. . .?) Yeah, the Hobbit forced a romance into it as well. But it wasn't near the level of garbage they pulled with Aragorn.

I personally prefer The Hobbit over Lord of the Rings. Both are really good movie series' and I've seen both plenty of times. But really, both trilogies had the opposite problems.
The Hobbit had too little to fit into three movies; so they went off the book for a lot of parts. While Lord of the Rings introduced us to the rest of Middle Earth. And frenkly that's way too much for the movies. So the pacing was actually too quick in comparison to the books. Although in their defense cutting out about 20 chapters of describing scenery, and nothing but walking was a good route to take...
Another big part is the characters. There's a lot in both trilogies. There are more main characters in The Hobbit, but you get to know the Dwarves of Erebor more than you ever did The Fellowship. You learn about their history, motives, and you get some decent character development from all of them. While as to The Fellowship from LOTR; there aren't as many. But you know next to nothing about any of them. You learn more in the books, but in the movies there's very little development to any of them. They just kind of show up one day, and never really change at all during the story. You only know their names, but next to nothing else about them personally.

There was really forced romance in both trilogies. Both were...kind of painful really. Neither of them felt natural at all. But since we also don't get a Elf that just cries in all her scenes, The Hobbit wins in my opinion. The comfiest of books, settings, and overall...a bit more charming than LOTR.

I love them all. Both go through fantastic journeys! 

I have to say the Hobbit, it was so much better. I have read all the books and seen all the movies, and the hobbit was just better. The thing I loved most about the hobbit was the fact that Bilbo was a tough as nails badass whereas, Frodo throughout the whole LOTR trilogy was a little wimp, nothing but running and hiding. Heck, while Frodo was hiding from an orc, Bilbo was killing a giant spider or stealing something from a 10 story high dragon. I actually kinda liked the extras they added to the hobbit, the Tauriel love story wasn't too bad and I think they added to the movie to make it better. Hobbit just felt smoother in my opinion. The only thing that I missed in the Hobbit from LOTR was Mr. gollum

 Both were great movies, iIm not hating on LotR