The Instigator
MyDinosaurHands
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
SantaBeeds
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Batman Should Kill The Joker

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
MyDinosaurHands
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/21/2014 Category: Movies
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,866 times Debate No: 44373
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)

 

MyDinosaurHands

Pro

I believe Batman should kill the Joker after he realizes Joker will simply continue to escape from prison every time Batman puts him there.

Also arguments such as "Batman shouldn't kill the Joker because that wouldn't be in his character and wouldn't make sense." do not count. We're talking about what Batman should do according to logic and morals.

Also another loophole to close up, you can't provide the method Batman used to deal with Joker in The Dark Knight Returns Pt 2 as an alternative, sorry! I just feel this would take the spirit out of the debate.

First Round will be for Acceptance.
SantaBeeds

Con

I accept this debate
Thank you for hosting this round
Debate Round No. 1
MyDinosaurHands

Pro

Thanks for the quick acceptance sir! Batman debates are my favorite and I'm glad (currently) that someone disagrees with me.

My argument has nothing to do with the fact that the Joker 'deserves death'. I don't believe Batman should pass judgement on the Joker in that way.

So Why?
My position is that Batman should kill the Joker because if he doesn't, it's almost assured that more than one person will die, and these people are almost always more morally upright than the Joker. Batman became a vigilante to unleash his inner demons and prevent situations such as what happened to his family (murder)[1], and he is failing to achieve that purpose by letting Joker live and continue to kill.

If Batman were to kill the Joker, he'd save many, many more lives than he took. There is always of course the extremely slim chance that a prison will actually hold the Joker, but so far his criminal genius makes that a very small possibility, and those kind of odds are not acceptable to gamble on with the lives of hundreds.

There are no statistics for how many people the Joker has killed in canon, so I'm just going to use a clip from a Batman movie to illustrate Joker's killing abilities[2]. Here we learn the Joker has killed 600 people. If during the time that these killings were taking place the Batman had killed Joker, he could have saved people. Instead, through Batman's inaction, even after the deaths of 600, Batman didn't kill him, and he went on to kill everyone in the audience and then more later on in the movie.

Simply put, Batman is almost 100% guaranteed to be saving people if he kills the Joker.



Sources:
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] Joker Video
SantaBeeds

Con

First id would like to thank my opponent for hosting this round.
Ok, there is great speculation on this topic and ill be glad to end it...

1st.
I'd like to point out that batman is trying to prove things by not killing the joker, and also he is winning this way as illustrated in this info I will drag from:
http://www.neatorama.com...

"Because the Joker wins if Batman kills him. That's what the Joker wants. Everything he does is to taunt Batman into killing him. In fact, the interesting part of their relationship, the real conflict of each story, is not to see if Batman will stop him (he will), but to watch Batman struggle with not killing him, because anyone other than Batman would of course kill him. This self-control is Batman's superpower."

2nd
I'd just like to point out that you yourself stated in the rules that this debate is about what batman would do according to logic and morals, but its completely immoral to kill someone no matter the crime. This is a big issue, and I would look to this as a very important detail in this debate. Batman shouldn't kill for this very reason and you can cross apply my argument from point one, that states batman is winning by not killing the joker, by not giving him what he wants.

3rd
You look at this debate from a completely Utilitarianism point of view, this however is not a good idea. Util is based of the principle that as long as more good than bad come from the situation then its OK, but what you said is equivalent to saying that you can push somebody off a cliff for their life insurance because your going to use the money for your family and less people are hurt. Overall this isn't a very "Moral" point of view and that's a huge deal in a debate.
http://theophilogue.com...

These are overall some of the most important things for this debate so I strongly urge a con vote.
Debate Round No. 2
MyDinosaurHands

Pro

I will begin by refuting my opponent's arguments, then continue on with mine.

Contention 1
Here my opponent sources a blog that claims that Batman loses if he kills the Joker. As a long-time Batman fan, I definitely agree with that statement, however that is only half of what I agree with. The other half to this is that the Joker wins if Batman doesn't kill him, because Joker knows he's pulling Batman's strings and there's nothing he'll do about it. And even if my opponent and I can't agree on who loses and wins with Batman and Joker, certainly we can agree the 600 people the Joker has slain are the biggest losers in the 'game'. The kill/don't kill decision is a no win situation for Batman no matter what, the proper thing to do is take the loss that allows for the most people to win (survive).

Contention 2
Next my opponent makes it clear we have a disagreement on morality. I believe my rebuttal to contention one explains why this is the best choice morally. It's hundreds of lives vs one, and the life of a sadistic murderer at that. Anybody who believes it'd be wrong to kill the Joker is in self-denial of the fact that Batman is also a responsible party to the Joker's killings.

Contention 3
Lastly my opponent takes the debate into types of morality. He defines Utilitarianism and goes on to compare Batman killing Joker to a situation which doesn't match his definition of Utilitarianism. If Utilitarianism is having good be greater than the bad actions taken, pushing a guy of a cliff for your family may not fit that. Sure, more people are positively affected than there are people negatively affected, but the single person who is negatively affected receives a much stronger effect-much stronger than those who had a positive effect, even when combined. Perhaps if there were more details as to the people themselves and the circumstance, a determination could be made to see if the action was appropriate in the eyes of Utilitarianism.




Batman's Opinion After 29 Years
After 29 years[1][2] in the Frank Miller, DC sanctioned Batman storyline, Batman has this to say to the Joker.

"No more!"
"All the people I've murdered by letting you live!"[3]

Even Batman knows what he has done is wrong. If the man himself, at the end of his career, provides no defense and claims the guilt, we can more assuredly rest the case that Batman should kill the Joker.




Sources:
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...(soundtrack)#Part_1 (warning: spoilers)
[2] http://www.therealbatmanchronologyproject.com...
[3] Joker vs Batman Video (don't watch past 1:40 in order to avoid spoilers)
SantaBeeds

Con

SantaBeeds forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
MyDinosaurHands

Pro

I believe I have successfully refuted my opponents points, but there's a little more I'd like to add, for the voters who are still on the fence.

What is Batman's Function?
Batman is a unique 'superhero', which is probably a reason for his strong fan base and commercial success. Many heroes do what they do, simply out of the goodness of their heart, but for Batman, that is not the only motivation. Think, if Bruce Wayne's parents hadn't been killed, would there be a Batman? I'm beginning to digress however, so I'll get to the point. Batman is many things to the people of Gotham. Objectively he is of course a criminal, and for some that's all they see him as. Others see him as a hero, somebody who is finally taking Gotham back from the criminals. There's a division amongst the normal people as to what Batman is. But there is one group of people who has a unanimous agreement as to what Batman is, and those people are the criminals of Gotham.

The criminals of Gotham see Batman as fear. Is Batman a hero? To some, yes. To others he's a criminal. To the criminals he is fear. It is for that reason that I submit that Batman's primary function is to be a symbol of fear, because the only uniform consensus among any group of people is that he is fear. Batman agrees with me I believe. I mean, why did he choose to be the 'Bat' man? Because for him, due to his life experiences, bats symbolize fear.

Example of Batman talking about his role in terms of fear:
"When the mugger or the thief thinks twice--that is fear. That is what I am."[1]

Now I am aware that Batman does inspire people, and he is a hero to some. The reason I bring up the fact that Batman is also a symbol of fear is to show people that even if Joker was killed by the Batman, and suddenly less people revered him as a hero, and less people had a positive opinion of him, his function as a symbol of fear to the people who harm Gotham would not be degraded, in fact it would probably be enhanced. Since one of his more secondary functions is being slightly degraded, and his more primary function is being enhanced, and hundreds of lives are being saved, how is this a bad move for Batman?

And at the end of the Dark Knight, Batman says, "Because I'm not a hero, not like Dent. I killed those people. That's what I can be."[2]

Batman is willing to be seen as the villain if it's for the good of Gotham. So shouldn't Batman be willing to kill the Joker, since it's for the good of Gotham, and possibly suffer being seen as a villain by more people?
SantaBeeds

Con

SantaBeeds forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
Man, I'd be tempted to take this if it was done again. Not promising I would, but would be VERY tempted. My argument would focus on how this even considering this concentrates on Batman's job, but ignores society's.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
He should at least stop saving his life.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
MyDinosaurHandsSantaBeedsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gets conduct because of con's FF. Arguments easily go to pro also even without the extra rounds. If joker dies lives are saved.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
MyDinosaurHandsSantaBeedsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Dropped out.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
MyDinosaurHandsSantaBeedsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for the forfeits. Arguments for the lack of rebuttal to the points raised by Pro from Con. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 2 years ago
Krazzy_Player
MyDinosaurHandsSantaBeedsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF