The Instigator
bp_1138
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
lefillegal
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Batman's Moral Code makes him just as harmful as the villains he pursues.

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...
lefillegal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/6/2012 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,360 times Debate No: 24107
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)

 

bp_1138

Pro

By disallowing himself to kill, Batman is actually harming Gotham city by allowing Villains to live and/or escape.

I will be taking the Pro side.
Use movies, comics, and television shows as your guidelines.

Round 1: Opening Argument
Round 2: Rebuttals
Round 3: Rebuttals/conclusion

Please feel free to compare and contrast to other Heroes in any Universe.

Here is my source for this "rule":
--He refrains from killing, as he feels this would not make him any better than the criminals he fights--
http://dc.wikia.com...(Bruce_Wayne)#PersonalityEdit

Please bear with me, as this is my first actual debate and I am still learning.

Thank you to whoever accepts my challenge.
lefillegal

Con

First id like to thank my opponent for this debate. Now, my arguement.

The point most people must remember about Batman is, although a hero, he regards himself as a "crime fighter" first. Hence the reason for not wanting to kill. Batman will not kill, nor allow will he allow anyone to kill in his presence. My opponent questions this moral code and others not mentioned. He even goes further to say this moral code is actually "just as" harmful as the criminals he pursues. I would have to assume he means equally harmful. Well, I beg to differ.

First, the fact alone, that he let's his enemies live, shows he is not equally harmful as they are. Using the most simple logic, for every person a villian kills, Batman hasn't.
Villians = 1oo+ kills
Batman = o kills(its possible that my opponent is aware of the 2 kills Batman has under his belt)

So far, according to kill statistics alone, Batman is far less harmful then the villians won't kill.

Let's assume the villian Batman doesn't kill, goes on to kill 50 people, wouldn't that make Batman just as harmful?
Stated as above, Id be tempted to agree with you, but, your statement was "by disallowing himself to kill, Batman is actually harming Gotham city by allowing Villians to live\escape". The problem with your statement is twofolds.
1. Its more than eveident that those Villians, which Batman do let live are, either detained until the police arrive(taking them off the streets away from public) or they fall victoms to their own devices which they intended to use on Batman or the public.
2. It is also known that if Batman let's a villian escape, its with good reason. Usually he faced with capturing the villian or letting an innocent person die. The point is its always for the "greater good" when this occurs.

Again in both those scenarios, Batman is less harmful than the Villians he pursues.

"To do nothing against it, is just as harmful as doing it, when one witnesses any wrong doing." But this is not a characteristic of Batman. He fights. He subdues. Heck he even scares Villians straight!. Not to mention saves lives. But most of all Batman is a morally good, crime fighting vigilante(I know, an oxymoron). "Without the likes of which, Gotham City would most certainly perish"
Commisioner Gordon and every Batman Villian agrees to that!
Debate Round No. 1
bp_1138

Pro


First off, I am going to define some words that have been used thus far:

1: Harm - Physical or Psychological injury or damage.

2:Villain - A wicked or evil person - Used here to describe unique, and recurring characters such as the Joker, Penguin, Riddler, etc.

Secondly, I will prove the validity of my first statement, "By disallowing himself to kill, Batman is actually harming Gotham city by allowing Villains to live and/or escape."

Gotham city and it's occupants have been attacked multiple times by the Villain known as the Joker. It is known that Batman has been more than capable of ending the Joker's life multiple times, saving the citizens of Gotham from possible attacks in the future, and yet, he refuses to do so. Also, Batman has been directly responsible for certain actions of another Villain; The Red Hood

Jason Todd, formerly known as Robin, became the Red Hood after he was murdered by the Joker, and reappeared later on as the Red Hood. He goes about killing people in the name of Justice and eventually kidnaps the Joker and lures Batman to meet him. He then reveals himself, and asks Batman why he wouldn't seek revenge for Jason's death. Batman says, he was tempted to torture the Joker to death, but refused to go down that road. After a standoff, in which Jason Todd asked batman to kill the Joker and end his reign of murder, Batman refuses, and stuns Jason. The joker then escapes, and so does the Red Hood.

By refusing to kill the Joker, who escapes yet again, Batman also creates the vengeful Jason Todd. Thus two devious and dangerous killers now roam Gotham's Streets, instead of none.

Batman does not simply "do nothing"; He is actually letting these people continue to hurt Gotham city and it's Inhabitants.

Batman is simply a self-righteous villain, no better than the people he seeks to stop, for the sole reason that he never actually stops them. It may be the Local governments fault that violent prisoners are escaping, but after 10+ years of this catch and release lifestyle, he should know by now that the only way to protect Gotham and the rest of the world is simply by terminating those who have shown that they are truly evil. Allowing this cycle to continue is worse than actually killing them.

Many Heroes have killed in order to save the lives of others. Captain America and Superman, have both demonstrated that taking a life to save lives does not make you evil. Simply put, Batman has a very skewed and illogical moral compass, which seems to make Gotham city and it's citizens suffer. Killing is not wrong, per say, but Murder is. Batman seems to think they are one and the same, and treats them as such.

Also, Batman may have saved Gotham from quite a few different People, but most, if not all of them, were previously confronted by Batman and he let them walk. Saving a City because you allowed a maniac to try and blow it up is more covering up your mistake than actually doing good.


If it was you who was being terrorized by these Villains, and you witnessed their frequency of escape, would you blame them? Or instead put the blame where it belongs; On the Man who gives them the cause to escape? If you were the Joker, would you not use that to your advantage? It is an invitation for bad people to be openly evil without great risk.

lefillegal

Con

It seems my opponent wants to hold Batman responsible for other people's actions. As if Batmans presence is no presence at all. That Batman's moral code has a negative affect on Gotham City. That Batman is responsible because he "knows" the evil he won't destroy. The one factor my opponent MUST have overlooked is, how is life in Gotham City without Batman? Aahh the magic queation. Let's now take Batman out of the picture. Does crime rise? Do even more villians run rampant? Do the super villians even fear, knowing there's no one to stop them? Surely the, harmful moral code, that batman adheres to won't make it any better right? Or would it? Well according to the writer Fabian Nicieza, of the "Batman: Dead?" Comics life in Gotham without the bat is most definately different. While I could go into detail, I'll let you read over the interview yourself.

http://www.newsarama.com...

After reading the entire interview, I would find it hard for my opponent to argue that Batmans moral code is actually harmful to Gotham City, being that life is better with Batman around.
Debate Round No. 2
bp_1138

Pro

It has been seen in numerous movies, comics, and television shows, that batman actually does physically harm and/or destroy Gotham city and it's inhabitants. His repeated inaction to dispose of his rivals has cause the injuries of thousands of people, and in "re-pursuit" of several villains, namely The Joker, he himself has injured multiple civilians and Police Officers in his mission to re-capture said villain.

Had Batman properly disposed of these villains the first, or second, or maybe even third time, then Gotham would have been saved from millions of dollars in damage. Batman is not only despised by most of Gotham City's population, but is seen as another bad guy. So while he may essentially be a "good" guy, no-one really wants him there. Also, there are many other ways to help Gotham improve that he just completely and totally ignores.

Bruce Wayne is a Billionaire. Everyone knows that. And yet, instead of using his many massive corporations and nearly limitless supply of money to help rebuild Gotham, he runs around beating villains up, and throwing them in the same broken-down, unsecured, and pathetic excuse for a prison, known as Arkham asylum.

Bruce Wayne is the one who can fix Gotham, not his morally incompetent, sociopathic counterpart. Gotham needs their problems ELIMINATED, like a cockroach, not temporarily contained until it feels like strolling around again. Arming your police force properly, with the technology he hoards for his own selfish reasons, would be a much more logical and helpful decision for Gotham's benefit.

There are ways to help Gotham, and Batman simply is not the correct answer. He is ineffective and out-dated, and simply must go. His abuse of money and technology are ridiculous. The Crime rate of Gotham city IS improved with Batman's presence, but it is simply not enough. Villains escape on a weekly basis; even the Joker says he finds the asylum as more of a "break room". Robin has been quoted as saying "70th time he's escaped...' (Hush, volume 2).

70 Times, the Joker alone has escaped. All of the Bruce Wayne/Batman Story-line is said to take place in roughly a 10 year span, which means he Joker has been caught and sent to the Asylum a minimum of 7x a year. That is RIDICULOUS on every level. A mass murderer walks free on your streets, out in the open, and all because Batman refuses to put him down...

If you ask me, that's about 70 escapes too many. If you want to be a useful tool in he saving of Gotham city, then you need to know what has to be done. He can't just lock them up in there and hope that somehow it's more secure than last time. That's just ignorance, and it is causing harm to the city he claims to protect.

I urge you to see that on Batman's current path, he will never improve the terrible, crime-ridden streets of Gotham City. It is simply not possible, and clearly, it has not been working very well. 70 escapes by a single individual, one who is responsible for over 2000 known deaths; That is just unacceptable. There is a thin line between selfishness and selflessness, and batman has yet to show selflessness. He chose to be the "Hero Gotham deserves", not "The Hero I want to be for Gotham". He took up that mantle, and now it's time to grit his teeth and pull the trigger, or go back home and hang up the suit.

I urge you to vote Pro in this matter, as clearly you can see that Batman's Selfish Moral values are not progressive for Gotham, but harmful to it and all of it's citizens. His incompetence and ignorance are colossal, and the records of his enemies show that.

Thank you

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.quora.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...(comics)#Powers.2C_abilities.2C_and_equipment
http://dc.wikia.com...
http://dc.wikia.com...
lefillegal

Con

My opponent has failed to adress how life in Gotham is better with Batman around versus his non presence. I pointed out the fact,that the writers, and citizens of Gotham, all agree : Life in Gotham is "better" with Batman around. They are obviously comparing this to, a life in Gotham without Batman around. That alone shows how Batmans moral code can't be harming Gotham City, in the way which my opponent suggest. I won't even burden my opponent with providing evidence of a better life without Batman around, because clearly they cannot. If a city is in need of "help", no matter which form that help arrives as, it is still "help". Little or big the fact remains that it is help. On the lowest level of logic, heroes are here to help. Batman has not failed in doing so. Maybe not to the standards of my opponent, but to the inhabitants of Gotham City, Batman is all the help they need.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by bp_1138 5 years ago
bp_1138
Also, I would like to point out that I need not point out how better or worse Batman is for Gotham, only that his moral code makes him as harmful as any of the villains. That is what I argued, and proved.
Posted by bp_1138 5 years ago
bp_1138
I just thought it would be fun. And it was... Also I love hating on Batman... No offense to his fans, or writers. I think he's Over-Rated and Over-powered for being just a guy with a lot of money and martial arts training....

But thanks for the Argument ,and Votes...

@maikuru - Feel free to pick a topic and challenge me... I'm always up for comic debates...
Posted by Maikuru 5 years ago
Maikuru
I've done multiple debates on Batman's dubious moral code but I'd be happy to play devil's advocate on this or any other superhero topic, Pro.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by ScottyDouglas 5 years ago
ScottyDouglas
bp_1138lefillegalTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made some pretty good arguements that was not resolved.
Vote Placed by HonestDiscussioner 5 years ago
HonestDiscussioner
bp_1138lefillegalTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: While Con could have made some better arguments, such as the fact that Gotham itself could also have decided to execute Joker, and that in timelines where Batman does put people down it turns into an oppressive regime, or simply that killing isn't justice. Con's one source that says Gotham would be worse off without Batman undermines Pro's entire argument. Pro was literally defeated in a single link.
Vote Placed by TheOrator 5 years ago
TheOrator
bp_1138lefillegalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro needed to prove that Batman was as harmful as one of Gotham's villians (like the Joker), but he couldn't uphold his burden of proof. He proved that Batman isn't the most efficient guy around, but that doesn't make him as harmful as the villians.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
bp_1138lefillegalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's argument revolved around how he thought Batman could act better, or how he could act to more benefit the city of Gotham. While it would not be hard to show that Batman doesn't always help in the most optimal way (and Pro did a good job of showing this), Pro did not show that Batman causes any positive harm to Gotham. Con pointed this out clearly by showing that on balance, Gotham is better suited with Batman than without. The resolution mentioned actual harm, not not being good enough.