The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
6 Points

Captain America: Civil War:Cap's team is better than Iron Man's team

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/28/2016 Category: Movies
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,335 times Debate No: 90177
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (2)




Just before I begin, I would like to inform everyone that this is just my opinion. If you believe opposite, I respect that because you are entitled to your opinion just as much as I am to mine. I only want to hear others views.

I think Cap's team is better than Iron Man's team. This being because I feel that superheroes should have the right to defend humanity whether the government wants them to or not. If the government or CIA come across something that they themselves could possibly not stop on their own, they need people who have had experience with these type of things: A.K.A the Avengers. I am 100% on Cap's side. His reason against Iron Man is very legitimate. I also think his team is better because he has the deadliest assassin on the planet (Winter Soldier), a tiny, invisible human being but can still retain their normal strength of a normal man (Ant Man), an archer who never EVER misses and not even Loki could avoid his shots (Hawkeye) and a super acrobatic bird (Falcon). What can top that?

I look forward to hearing contrary


So, it appears that this debate will be divided into two different sub-debates:
  • Who has the ideological high moral ground?
  • Whose team would win in a fight?
I will prove the Iron Man's team is superior in both aspects.

Subtopic #1: Who has the better ideology?

The Avengers would benifit more under the control of persumtivly the United States Federal Government and I'll explain why.

Under the United States Federal Government, the Avengers would have access to more complete intelligence with organizations such as the Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, Homeland Security and plenty more along with intelligence from foreign intelligence agencies allied with the United States. Ever since the break up of SHIELD in Captain America: The Winter Soldier, even with the new Avengers HQ, it is reasonable enough to say that they don't have access to the intelligence they used to.[1]

There are huge advantages to having vast amounts of intelligence whether combating evil Norse gods, Hydra, Ultron. In any war recorded in history, intelligence has played a vital role in winning battles and wars. It is also important in the fact that knowing about an event before it happens would put the Avengers in a better position to stop it before it happens. In addition, intelligence would also allow the Avengers to make more calculated manuvers to save more lives. If we were to have Captain America in charge, he would be more concerned with saving individuals when there could be an event that would cost many lives around the corner.

To get a better idea of the flawed ideology of Captain America, let's look at one of his statements in Avengers: Age of Ultron

"Every time someone tries to win a war before it starts, innocent people die. Every time." [2]

This argument is flawed in many aspects. First off, in either scenario, innocent people will die regardless. What the argument sums up to is an appeal to emotion fallacy [3]. If you have two scenarios where both innocent people die, the scenario where less people die would be preferable.

Most importantly: Captain America however has some legitmate concerns with being controlled by the government, but I will show how such concern can be put to rest. He is concerned that the governmnet can and will be corrupted and there is the chance that the government will try to make the Avengers do something bad or evil. If the government truly becomes corrupted and evil the Avengers can be united and assemble to topple such regimes. Captain America alone toppled the international organization SHIELD when Hydra infiltrated and with the complete Avengers, evil regimes can be toppled and began anew.

Subtopic #2:
Now this is where we put serious topics aside and have some fun. I will also prove that beyond reasonable doubt, Team Iron Man will prevail in battle. The only power that could stop them would be the whim of the screenwriter. Let's first look at the two teams. Although, the movie isn't out yet and characters can switch sides, I believe 2:07-2:10 and 2:14 -2:18 in this trailer can give an accurate representation

Team Captain America:

Captain America
Winter Soldier
Ant Man
Scarlet Witch

Team Iron Man:
Iron Man
War Machine
Black Panther
Black Widow

Let me point out a couple of innate advantages for Team Iron Man

Much larger resources:

Within any battle, logistics is a key resource. Having greater resources in any conflict gives an advantage to the person who has it [4]. Clearly Team Iron has the higher resources. Iron man is a self-made billionaire who formally ran an arms manufacturer [5]. Black Panther is also king of a sovergn nation [6]. In addition, Team Iron Man would have the backing of the United States Federal Government.

Air Superiority:

Within the history of warfare, no war has ever been won without one side first achieving air superiority. It allows one side to inflict blows on the ground with the ground in a disadvantaged position to respond as such [7].

Here are the characters on each side who can fly:

Team Iron Man (TIM):
Iron Man
War Machine

Team Captain America (TCA):
Scarlet Witch
Ant man (He can ride ants that can fly but in a battle, such force would be negligable)

Immediatly TCA is heavily outmatched in terms of firepower. Although the wings are cool, Falcon doesn't possess much in terms of actual weapons. While Scarlet Witch is probably the most powerful Avenger on TCA, her power pales in comparison to Vision who harnesses the power of an actual Infinity Stone, if lesser beings were exposed to such power, they could be destroyed [8]. Meanwhile Iron Man and War Machine tout lots and lots of guns.

Individual Team Members:

I'm going through each team member in TIM and how they could defeat various members of TCA

Iron Man:

With armour that held its ground against Thor, the god of thunder in Avengers 1 and a direct hit from a tank shell, Captain America's shield toss or Hawkeyes arrows would be useless against it. Not to mention the Air Superiority argument I made. The only people who could potentially be a threat to him are Ant Man and Scarlet Witch. However, Vision could deal with her. Ant Man however cannot get inside Iron Man's suit as it is made with a gold-titanium alloy and he can't shrink though titaninum as seen in his movie.

War Machine:

With all his guns and percision computers, he could easily shoot Falcon out of the sky. Not to mention that in the suit, he is probably stronger than Falcon.


Vision is the secret weapon that could potentially blow the entire TCA out of the water. I've already mentioned the power of the Infinity Stone that trumps the powers of Scarlet Witch and basically all of TCA. He has a synthetic body made from the fusion of organic tissue and vibranium, the metal that makes up Captain America's indestructable shield. Superhuman strength, energy blasts from an Infinity Stone, and flight would allow him to beat Scarlet Witch and the rest of the team. [9]

Black Panther: (Powers unknown in the Marvel Cinematic Universe)

Black Widow: She has already beaten Hawkeye in a fight during the first Avengers movie. She can hold her own against winter soldier and has certain advantages when fighting Captain America. Captain America has a sort of deep relationship with her (not in a romantic sense). He is rather emotional and that would make him hold back if he fights Black Widow. Meanwhile, Black Widow is an assassin, she has been trained to not let such feelings get in the way of her ability.

Although he doesn't technically have a movie made directly by Marvel, he has a fair amount of movies and tibits from trailers to get a good measure of his abilities. He is rather strong considering he was able to block a punch from the Winter Soldier's metal arm without any sign of pain as shown in this trailer.

He is rather agile and can entangle foes with his spider web. His attitude could also be used against the team in general getting on their nerves.

Conclusion: TIM has the better ideology and could easily win in a fight with TCA










Debate Round No. 1


While you give out some very good and legitimate arguments on why Iron Man's team is better, there are some things you completely disregard: The Civil War is about one thing and one thing only: freedom. No matter how you look at it, it all comes down to the personal freedom to help people or not help people. This is a debate about freedom versus government regulation, and I would encourage you not to allow my opponent to convince you that it is about anything else. He/she will try to tell you that it is a question of security, it is not. He/she will try to convince you that the regulation and registration of superheroes is to keep you safe, this is just simply not the case. He/she may even try to tell you that superheroes should be trained and that they deserve to be paid for their service, but I will point out that this is a red herring. The simple fact is that most superheroes have had extensive training and they don't do what they do for money. I will show you that this is only a question of freedom and how regulating superheroes will actually make society less safe.

1. The Government Has No Right To Demand Superheroes Identify Themselves

First and foremost, demanding that superheroes identify themselves is a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Fourth Amendment clearly protects "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects." This has been interpreted by the United States Supreme Court to include your identity. If law enforcement must have reasonable suspicion to demand the average citizen identify himself, shouldn't the federal government also produce such reasonable suspicion that a given hero is committing or has committed a crime before they can force them to identify themselves? Of course it does, so the Superhero Registration Act is Unconstitutional on its face.

2. Only Heroes Are Going to Adhere to the Registration. Villains Won't.

How, I ask you, will this Superhero Registration Act serve to keep the public safe if only law abiding super beings, those only interested in helping the common man, register? Do you really think people who live outside the law are suddenly going to turn themselves in and reveal their true identities? Of course they aren't. Is Mysterio going to suddenly show up at SHIELD headquarters and give them his real name? Absolutely not. He would be stupid to do that, and we are stupid to as that the heroes, who are a threat to no one and only want to help the public, place themselves and their loved ones in danger by registering under their real names. Forcing superheroes to register will do a lot of harm and absolutely no good.

3. The Last Time We Required an Entire Class of People to Register, They Were Soon After Rounded Up and Sent to Internment Camps

Remember the Japanese during World War II? Those internment camps that you would have to look really hard not to see as the same as the concentration camps the Germans, who were the bad guys in that war, were keeping their Jewish prisoners in? Remember those guys? Yeah, how about we not repeat that injustice with people who are literally risking their lives every day for the safety of us regular folk?

4. When Government Regulates Something, You Get Less of It

It is an often proven fact that when the government starts regulating stuff, the market shrinks due to excess red tape and hassle. Sometimes, regulations are put into place specifically to discourage people from entering a specific market. While the Superhero Registration Act may have good intentions, there will also be unintended consequences. How many superheroes do you think are going to just decide to hang up their capes rather than register. If the intention of the Superhero Registration Act really is to make us safer, then I must ask you how much safer are we really going to be when superheroes decide to stop superheroing?

The U.S. government has promised that all registered superhero identities would be kept secured in a server only accessible to the highest SHIELD operatives and authorized government officials. They have promised that there is no danger of identities falling into the wrong hands, thus placing the heroes and their families in undue risk. This sounds fair enough, except when has the government ever been able to keep their secrets. Edward Snowden did a great job of showing the American people, and the world, really, just how incompetent the government is when it comes to keeping their own secrets safe. How can we possibly trust them to keep the secrets of our superheroes safe?

6. Who Decides Who the Villains Are?

If every superhero in America is now a government agent, trained and paid by the state, how long until the government starts pulling their strings? Sure, they may be promising the heroes complete autonomy now, but how long before they are rolled into the greater military industrial complex? How long until the superheroes are being sent overseas to fight ISIS or whoever and the American people are once again left to fend for themselves? Many of these heroes do what they do to give back to their own communities, and not to be sent to foreign lands to do the bidding of the government.

7. Who watches the Watchers?

Or, in other words, who protects us from the protectors? We already have the police, and many police departments are rampant with corruption that doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Chicago has had a corrupt PD since forever. The NYPD is rampant with corruption, even after Serpico. The LAPD, while hunting down Christopher Dorner, opened fire on a vehicle containing two women, a vehicle that, by the way, in no way matched any description of a vehicle Dorner was suspected to be driving. So if the superheroes become part of the police, who will protect us from incompetence and corruption in various less than reputable police departments around the country?

8. Superheroes Can't Effectively Do Their Jobs As Government Agents

For superheroes to be truly effective, they oftentimes have to operate outside the law. They can get away with this because they have secret identities and they aren't bound by the same rules as law enforcement. Once you begin to regulate them and put them on payroll, you rob them of a useful tool in combating crime. And seriously, how can Daredevil effectively interrogate a criminal if he has to read him his Miranda Rights first?

9. The Superhero Registration Act Backdoors Mutant Registration, Which We Already Decided Was Bad, Right?

Yes, the X-Men are currently licensed out to Fox and there are no mutants in the MCU. That is, however, irrelevant. The fact remains that all super beings, whether they are actively engaged in superheroing or not will be required to register with the government, even if it is in an inactive capacity. Didn't we already decide that we don't license people to live? Will registered inactive super beings also be forced to put surveillance cameras in their homes and offices to ensure that they are not engaging in any undocumented superhero activity? I know, you think that's ludicrous, right? You're about to accuse me of perpetrating Reductio ad Absurdum, right? Well I would ask you to keep in mind that we are talking about a law that would require an entire class of people to register with the government like cattle. We've already moved beyond talking about human beings here, the government is already stripping them of their dignity and their autonomy.

I have other reasons but I am running out of characters so I will post them in my next debate. Good luck opponent!


While I probably don't have the character space to respond to Pro's many contentions, I will make several blanket responses that encompases several of his/her contentions.

The Issue of Superheroes registering:

Let me first state that the Avengers have provided many reasons as to why the United States Federal Government can consider them as potential villians. The sheer number of collateral damage they have been a part of shown below in 0:21-0:33. This alone is probable cause for the government to request that such superpowered beings identify themselves. Such easily refutes Pro's first contention with the Fourth Amendment.

The Superhero Registration Act isn't necessailry meant to punish the superheroes and nobody argues that this is meant to control the villians. It is meant to prevent superheroes from causing more damage.

Pro also asserts that asking people to register is the precedent to great injustice but there are plenty of instances where this does not occur.

    • You register before you can vote

    • You register before owning a gun

    • You register to become a naturalized citizen of the United States

In fact, in many cases registering grants rights instead of taking them away.

Another thing I might mention is the total hypocrisy of Captain America's stance. He believes that the government has no right to dictate what superheroes can do with their actions. Yet where did he get his powers? Through a government program, he has become a super soldier with amazing abilities and he argues that the gov't doesn't have a say in how he uses them. Hawkeye also belongs to this group as well. If he didn't want to be controlled by the USFG, then he shouldn't have signed up for the program in the first place.

The implications of government control:

The Avengers have made many short-sighted decisions:

The Avengers, while they do have noble intentions, they clearly made some really bad decisions to the point that we cannot trust them.

The Incredible Hulk:

The Incredible Hulk is probably the most dangerous of the Avengers to the United States. When enraged and transformed, he cannot be controlled with unparalled strength and the capacity to cause massive damage. Yet because of personal relations with Bruce Banner, they took his word that he has his anger under control. The result, the Hulk has wrecked a SHIELD helicarrier and rampaged through an entire city despite being stopped by Iron Man's Hulk Buster. Take a look at the fight and see how much damaged was done and in reality, many people would have died in that fight.

Even at the end of the movie after all that damage, the Avengers just let him go with the huge potential that he is going to do something like that again.

If the government had the Incredible Hulk under their jurisdiction, they would have put in better measures to prevent such happenings again. Off the top of my head, I can think of much better solutions to controlling the Hulk than build a giant Iron Man suit to do battle with the Hulk.

Don't put Bruce Banner in stressful situations where Hulk isn't required
Hook him up on sedatives to put him to sleep if he begins to lose grasp of himself
Don't let Bruce Banner freely wander the world where stressful situations can easily happen

The Whole Plot of Age of Ultron:

I think we are all familiar with Age of Ultron. Ultron tries to pull a Judgement Day and destroy all of man kind with a dinosaur-extinction sized meteor with his army of robots similar to him. No doubt, many people probably died throughout the entire ordeal if we look at the realistic scenario. What many people forget, is that this is entirely the Avengers fault. All of this happened because Tony Stark and Bruce Banner played around with Loki's sceptor in an attempt to help mankind.

The government would have been more long sighted in seeing the potential effects of playing with Loki's sceptor. If they were smart, they would have given it to Thor to return it to Asguard.

The Plot of Antman:

The villian in the film has perfected in essence super suits that allows humans to become indetectable super tiny soldiers and sell them to potential evil buyers. What is Ant Man's response? His response was to go alone with an army of ants, steal the prototype suit and blow up a crowded building to be rid of the plans and info regarding the suit. He was held back in due part because the police didn't know the whole story. If he went to the Avengers, CIA, NSA, they would have gotten the police out of his way and be a lot more methotical with destroying the suit and info.

Other things:

Pro states that if the government regulates superhero actions, you get less life saving. However, you also get a lot less collateral damage and deaths in due process of stopping evil.

With your contention that the government can become evil, I've already addressed this in the last round.

Also, part of your argument that TCA is better than TIM is that TCA can beat TIM in a fight because of members on the team. I've completely negated this argument last round and yet Pro hasn't even addressed my points at all.
Debate Round No. 2


Who cares if you have to register to vote? Who cares if you have to register to own a gun? Who cares if you have to register to be an American citizen (btw I am British). The thing is, without any of those things, you can still live and be safe, but without superheroes, the whole world would plummet into oblivion.

So the Avengers have caused collateral damage? What does that mean? What do you think is better: The world being predestined to extinction or a few million dollars worth of a city being torn down. Both are devastating but the most logic person would think that the former is a LOT worse. (I'm not saying you're not logic. You give very valid arguments by the way)

Although registration would PROBABLY help reduce the amount of damage, the government might take this for granted and deny the superheroes permission to defend the world/country. They do try to do the best for the country but they are fully as human as we are and can be arrogant and stubborn at some times and not listen to the citizens which can sometimes put their lives and well being at risk.

Captain America is not a Hypocrite- Iron man is. He says it is practical for superheroes to be required to be registered yet what does he do? Oh yeah- he fights without their permission. This can be shown in the first Avengers, Avengers Age of Ultron and even in Civil War he looks like he is fighting without their permission yet he says that superheroes should not be going about saving people without governmental consent. Yes Captain America got his powers from the government... BUT (yes there's a but) they gave him these powers so he could help defend humanity- NOT to stop him from doing so when they know that without him, they're screwed. They are also the hypocritical ones alongside Iron Man.

Of course, superheroes can make bad decisions. They are human. We are ALL human and all humans make and are capable of making mistakes So it looks like you are contradicting yourself there. Like I said above, the government are just as capable of making mistakes as superheroes are. When they screw up, we lose faith in them but we don't stop THEM from their continuation in leading the country. Why not the same for superheroes?

The Incredible Hulk:

"The Incredible Hulk is probably the most dangerous of the Avengers to the United States. When enraged and transformed, he cannot be controlled with unparalled strength and the capacity to cause massive damage. Yet because of personal relations with Bruce Banner, they took his word that he has his anger under control. The result, the Hulk has wrecked a SHIELD hellicarrier and rampaged through an entire city despite being stopped by Iron Man's Hulk Buster. Take a look at the fight and see how much damaged was done and in reality, many people would have died in that fight."

The Hulk can get out of control which no one can deny, BUT so can those controlling him i.e. the government. Maybe if they would treat him more humanely and friendlier and stop trying to perform life threatening and humiliating experiments on him, maybe he'd be a bit nicer. Besides, the only reason who went wack in Age of Ultron was because Scarlet Witch was messing with his mind. (Just needs somebody to calm him down)

The Whole Plot of Age of Ultron:

"I think we are all familiar with Age of Ultron. Ultron tries to pull a Judgement Day and destroy all of man kind with a dinosaur-extinction sized meteor with his army of robots similar to him. No doubt, many people probably died throughout the entire ordeal if we look at the realistic scenario. What many people forget, is that this is entirely the Avengers fault. All of this happened because Tony Stark and Bruce Banner played around with Loki's sceptor in an attempt to help mankind."

Wait a second... Iron Man was responsible for Ultron's creation. NOT Captain America. Cap even tried to stop him from doing so because it was a bad idea doomed to fail. See, Captain America can be VERY responsible. Maybe it's just Stark that needs to be controlled

The Whole Plot of Ant Man:

"The villian in the film has perfected in essence super suits that allows humans to become indetectable super tiny soldiers and sell them to potential evil buyers. What is Ant Man's response? His response was to go alone with an army of ants, steal the prototype suit and blow up a crowded building to be rid of the plans and info regarding the suit. He was held back in due part because the police didn't know the whole story. If he went to the Avengers, CIA, NSA, they would have gotten the police out of his way and be a lot more methodical with destroying the suit and info."

No one's methods are always efficient. Not even the government's.

"Pro states that if the government regulates superhero actions, you get less life saving. However, you also get a lot less collateral damage and deaths in due process of stopping evil."

Again, what is better: millions of dollars of collateral damage, thousands of deaths but millions of lives saved and the city still able to be rebuilt? OR an extraterrestrial species invading the Earth and the government not letting the heroes do their job, the whole world being destroyed before their very eyes with absolutely no life left when the heroes could have prevented this from happening? You choose!

"With your contention that the government can become evil, I've already addressed this in the last round."

True, but you view the government as being the Perfect Ones who are incapable of making mistakes that could threaten the lives of the citizens. NOBODY is perfect. NOBODY!

I look forward to hearing more.


"Although registration would PROBABLY help reduce the amount of damage"

What you see here is Pro's concession that government control over the Avengers would reduce collateral damage. Pro then goes further to exclaiming that the government might deny superheroes the right to "defend the world". However, it is safe to say that it is in the interest of no sovereign nation to have villians take over the world meaning the ultimate demise of their country.

Pro's counter rebuttal that Captain America is not a hypocrite is a bare assertion. Captain America became injected with the super soldier serum under the jurisdiction of Statregic Scientifc Research under the United States Federal Government. He was recruited for the program and he accepted and Pro gives no reason as to why the USFG doesn't still have control over Steve Rogers.

With your remark about Iron Man, it is not hypocrasy. He realizes that the Avengers needs to be controlled, even if he is part of the problem.

"So it looks like you are contradicting yourself there."

You have not backed up this accussation. If you were more specific in it, I would actually understand where you think I contradicted myself. Yes while I admit that the USFG is capable of making mistakes, as I pointed out in my beginning argument, the USFG and its allies have a lot more information and intelligence on hand than the Avengers have at this point especially with the disbandment of SHIELD. With more info and intelligence, you are less likely to make mistakes.

The Incredible Hulk:

However, it was a very ill decision by the Avengers to have Bruce Banner anywhere near the vincinity ofa stressful battle especially with the nearby city. And you haven't addressed the point that the Avengers just let Bruce Banner loose into the world with huge potential for another Hulk rampage.

Age of Ultron:

Again, we are focusing on the Avengers and any other potential superhero. If such actions are possible, the supers need to be controlled.

Ant Man:

"No one's methods are always efficient. Not even the government's."

My response: another bare assertion not backed up.

Pro seems to argue under the false assumption that government control would mean that the world would be destroyed. This case has been proven false in the first Avengers movie when they were under the control of SHIELD proving they are capable of working in harmony and saving the world.

I believe I have sufficiently refuted my opponents case although I had to rush this argument as I am low on time. I have also proven that Team Iron Man would win in a fight disproving Pro's inital argument in Round 1.

Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by NothingSpecial99 2 years ago
Looking back, I realized my arguments had a huge glaring Achilles' heel
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago

In R1 Pro starts off by introducing two reasons for why Cap"s team is better: 1) They defend humanity regardless of getting the go-ahead from the gov"t and 2) The members of his team are stronger than the other team.

Con starts his round with two subtopics: Con argues that working with the gov"t has benefits in the form of increased intelligence access, and that even with the new Avengers HQ they don"t have the access they once did. Con also points out Cap"s flawed ideology regarding his statement on war, concluding that he relies on emotional appeal. He also notes Cap"s legitimate concerns about being controlled by the gov"t. All of this seems to be a rebuttal against Pro, rather than a constructive case. In the second subtopic, Con presents a case for why Team Iron Man would prevail in battle against Team Cap. He does this by raising a few points " A) They have much larger resources, B) They have air superiority, and C) listing the strengths of each member of Team Iron Man. This is a good constructive case that concludes that Team Iron Man has the better ideology and could win a fight against Team Cap.
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
In R2 Pro argues that this debate is about freedom and how gov"t regulation of superheroes will make society less safe. Pro raises a few points in this regard: 1) Gov"t lacks the right to demand superheroes identify themselves, 2) Villains wouldn"t identify themselves, 3) This leads to a slippery slope (see: Jap internment camps after identification), 4) Regulation leads to a drop in supply, 5) who the villains are, 6) no oversight of superheroes, 7) Gov"t control restricts effectiveness, and lastly, 8) This is reminiscent of the x-men registration, which was bad. What is interesting about this 2nd round is that it provides no direct rebuttals to anything Con raised in the first round.

Con starts his 2nd round by negating Pro"s most recent string of claims. He shows the justification the government has with superhero identification based on the damages they cause. He shows that registration doesn"t always lead to injustices such as when we register to vote, own a gun, or become a citizen, and additionally how registration can lead to more rights rather than a lack of them. He also points to Cap"s hypocrisy of being against gov"t oversight when he himself gained his powers from the gov"t, stating how if he didn"t want it he shouldn"t have signed up. Con also argues that the poor decisions made by the Avengers necessitates government oversight. He does this by citing the damages caused by The Hulk, by showing the cause of the entire issue in the movie "Age of Ultron" to be because of a mistake, and how Antman would have had a much higher success rate had he been helped by the gov"t. Con ultimately concludes that we"d have much less collateral damage and deaths with gov"t oversight, directly negating Pro"s case from R2, while also pointing to Pro"s lack of response to all of his points.

In R3 Pro immediately dismisses Con"s negation of her safety claims by showing how registration for the things Con listed don"t affect life (?) but that without superheroes the w
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Pro rebuts the collateral damage point by presenting a question regarding "which is worse" " damage or death. Pro argues that while registration would probably help reduce damages, it"d lead to the potential of gov"t oversight stopping them from saving the world. Pro argues that Iron man is the hypocrite, not Cap, because even though Iron man supports registration he still fights whenever he wants to rather than when he"s told to. Lastly, Pro argues that superheroes are still human and are susceptible to mistakes too. Pro then defends the actions of the avengers that could have been avoided via government oversight. With Hulk, Pro argues that he should have been treated nicer. With Age of Ultron Pro argues that Iron man was responsible for Ultron"s creation, not cap. With Antman, Pro argues that gov"t oversight wouldn"t have necessarily helped.

Pro ultimately concludes that the government being involved would harm their abilities to prevent potential threats, and that the government isn"t perfect.

Con starts the final round by noting Pro"s concession that gov"t oversight would reduce damages. He then also tackles Pro"s assumption that the gov"t would stop them from saving the world by claiming that no sovereign nation would allow villains to take over. Con shows how Pro"s response to the hypocrisy point is just an assertion, holding no weight, and how Iron man isn"t a hypocrite since he realizes the avengers needs oversight, regardless of perpetuating the issue himself. Con responds to the point regarding gov"t perfection by acknowledging that the gov"t isn"t perfect but does allow for greater information gathering and intelligence resources which lead to more ideal outcomes. Con touches on the three points raised regarding damages (Hulk, Ultron, Antman) all of which he classifies as assumptions.
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Con concludes by reiterating that Pro"s case is grounded on false assumptions, and how that position has been proven false because of the first Avengers movie where they worked just fine with the government to achieve success, while also showing that Team Ironman is stronger fight-wise.

As a judge, I award the win to Con. Pro had the BoP to show that Team Cap is better and failed to uphold that burden based on two things: 1) Pro dropped several arguments raised by Con, and 2) Con effectively negated a majority of Pro"s claims by showing how they were merely assumptions, whereas his claims were backed by both supporting evidence and past cases of similar events. Pro didn"t touch on the strengths of the individual team members once, whereas Con showed how Team Iron Man would beat Team Cap in a fight. This additionally leads me to support Con here since he effectively showed that Team Iron Man is better in regard to fighting strength. I am also awarding sources to Con based on the grounds that Con utilized several sources to support his claims, whereas Pro utilized none whatsoever. The effectiveness of Con"s sources can be seen in R2 when he provides these sources to strengthen the claim that more resources = greater advantage, and in showing that air strength is vital for success. (4,7) He additionally uses fan sources to prove the strength and superiority of some of the team members, an additional step in proving the validity of his claims that Pro never takes.
Posted by SegBeg 2 years ago

So you were just doing that for argument's sake? I don't think i could of seen that coming. Your arguments were spot on!
Posted by NothingSpecial99 2 years ago

Just to let you know for the record I agree with you that Captain America is right. Just playing devils advocate
Posted by SegBeg 2 years ago
Even if my opponent wins this debate, i stand by my beliefs. Capt's team is simply better in my opinion and no one, not even my opponent can change this, no "Logical arguments" my opponent makes will EVER change my mind
Posted by kennykenkenken 2 years ago
Posted by RoyalDark 2 years ago
You are forgetting other members on Cap's team. Also I would debate you that Iron Man's team is better, but I believe Cap has the right ideology in saying the federal government should not have control over all superheroes. TAKE THAT YA LIBERALS!!!!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Adley104 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: I had to agree with con start to end becuase Team Iron man had more of an advantage becuase they had three flyers, a panther, a wed slinger and a widow. But I have to agree that they both had good spelling and convincing arguments and reliable sources they could use in their debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comment section.