The Instigator
Zaradi
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Maikuru
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Choose

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 2 votes the winner is...
Maikuru
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/21/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,588 times Debate No: 23034
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (37)
Votes (2)

 

Zaradi

Pro

I've seen a few of these around before. Figured I could hold my own on a lot of things that could get thrown my way (barring whatever Imabench can pull out of his a.ss, that I might not be prepared for). Regardless, I will let my opponent pick the topic and the side they will be (pro or con) and I will debate as such.

Please keep the resolution all of these things.

1. Debatable.
2. Fair
3. Interesting

Ready....GO!
Maikuru

Con

I gave Zaradi flak for picking a lame topic for his last Choose debate (a comment I stand by), only to accept this debate without any topic in mind. So now I’ve given up trying to be original and decided to use this as an opportunity to finish a debate I tried a few months ago. Zaradi will attempt to affirm the following resolution:


Batman is, on balance, a positive role model.


For the sake of consistency, this discussion will focus on the most common and longstanding representation of Batman (a.k.a. Bruce Wayne) [1]. Other incarnations (e.g. cartoons, movies) are free for inclusion insofar as they accurately represent the spirit of the comic book canon.

The first round of this debate is for definitions and acceptance. Rounds 2, 3, and 4 are for arguments and rebuttals. No new arguments are to be introduced in the final round. Also, unless otherwise specified, all words are taken at their common, appropriate definition. The intent of this debate is clear and word meanings and interpretations of the resolution are to be consistent with that intent.

Definitions

- positive: tending to emphasize what is good or laudable; constructive [2]

- role model: a person whose behavior, example, or success is or can be emulated by others, especially by younger people [3]

With that, I turn the debate over to Zaradi.

References

1. http://tinyurl.com...
2. http://dictionary.reference.com...
3. http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Zaradi

Pro

Of course, he picks a) an unoriginal topic after giving me flak for taking THEBOMB's debate and using an LD topic, and b) picks a topic I know next to nothing about. Figures. Since the only knowledge of Batman I have is from The Dark Knight, that is what I shall be drawing from to make my case for Batman being a positive role-model. I could draw from the link my opponent gave (the first one), but I'm far too lazy to read through all of that :D But anyway, here I go with my reasoning for Batman being a positive role model.

A few quick observations before I begin. As the resolution is specifically targeting younger people (I define younger as ages 10 and below, just for simplicity) because of my opponent's defintion of role model, we can discard the basic downfalls of vigilantism and other things that Batman is criminally known for, as the average 10 year old doesn't grasp the fact that vigilante justice is outside of the law. This observation will come into play in my contentional arguments, but we'll get to that later.

Also, again, since the resolution specifically targets younger people, we must look at this issue from their eyes, to see if to younger people, would Batman be or not be a good role model. This is going to exclude a few arguments my opponent could make against my contentional arguments, but, again, we will get to that later. For now, though, let's start with my contention level arguments.

C1: Batman is a good guy

This contention is simple enough. Batman is a good guy, he fights against bad guys, and protects innocent people to the best of his ability. All of these are admirable qualities that one would want to model themselves after. He's selfless, and see's things through the big picture while still being able to focus on the present. When, in The Dark Knight, The Joker had kidnapped Harvey Dent and Rachel, Batman knew that without Harvey, the city would not be able to stand on it's own against the criminal underworld that was threatening to consume Gotham. He was able to look past his personal emotions and abandon Rachel for the sake of the bigger picture. This self-sacrifice is a highly admirable quality that one ought to aspire to have, and modeling oneself after Batman would be a positive choice. The final act of self-sacrifice Batman made in The Dark Knight was realizing that, after Harvey Dent had died as Two-Face, that Gotham could not operate without some sort of evil to pursue and attempt to bring to justice. As Batman had already put away all of the evil in Gotham, including the Joker, there was no one else that would be remotely as noteworthy, except for him. He sacrificed his good image and heroic status to ensure that Gotham could continue to strive and grow as it had before, while still continuing to work for Gotham. This final stoic act of selflessness is the ultimate act of admirability.

C2: Batman works where normal police can't

This is where my first observation really plays in, as this is about Batman's vigilante style of justice. While the police are tied down by protocol and regulations that dictate what they can and can't do, and where they can and can't operate, Batman operates outside of the legal system, while still working FOR the legal system. This allows him to respond to and stop crimes that the police may have overlooked or been unable to respond to themselves, which, on average, helps more people in the long run. As helping people is universally considered a good action, it would be on balance good to model oneself after Batman.

As this is all I can think about at the moment, I will call it quits for now. I reserve the right to bring up additional points in later rounds, barring the last round, of course. And as no good debate about Batman is complete without it, I shall go ahead and say it. Yes, ladies and gentlemen,

I'm Batman.

I now turn the floor over to my opponent.
Maikuru

Con

I thank Pro for his response.

Before I begin, I must reject all of this “10 and below” talk. Young is defined as “youthful” or “not old” [1]; Pro clearly hoped to limit his culpability in this debate by reducing the population in question to a ridiculously small subset. That was a pointless exercise anyway, as the definition of role model explains that young people are especially impacted, not exclusively impacted. As such, I am free to discuss Batman’s influence on any age range.

My Case

Gotham’s Biggest Criminal

Batman commits more crime on a given night than any of the petty crooks he hunts. That doesn’t seem possible, but let’s do the math. How many laws does Batman break during an investigation? At the very least, there are...
  • Trespassing
  • Breaking and entering
  • Tampering with a crime scene
  • Tampering with and/or theft of evidence
  • Concealing and use of deadly weapons
  • Public endangerment
  • Assault and battery
  • Kidnapping
...not to mention things like destruction of property, stalking, illegal surveillance, evading and resisting arrest, wiretapping, accessing confidential government and medical files, and innumerable violations for the illegal use of his specialized car, plane, motorcycle, and boat within city limits. Believe it or not, that’s the petty stuff! He’s also committed multiple cases of child endangerment, criminal negligence, attempted murder, and has been involved in multiple deaths.

Thus, in his single-minded, violent, self-indulgent crusade to end crime, Batman has instead become its biggest spokesperson. He is the epitome of the ends not justifying the means, and to say that he and his methods should be applauded, even emulated, is hypocrisy. It is also incredibly dangerous, as an endorsement for Batman is an endorsement for vigilantism, violence, and vengeance.

Why So Sociopathic?

Imagine two orphans. After losing his entire family, the first was taken in by a couple of meager means. His poor upbringing instilled in him a strong work ethic, while his compassion for life taught him to value honesty, fairness, and altruism. Despite having lost his home to tragedy and evil, he learned to trust the good in people and would grow up to bring peace and hope to others.

The second orphan takes a different path. He also loses everything, but his thoughts festered on revenge and retribution for what he lost. Despite being born of privilege to kind-hearted parents, he learned to see only darkness in others. He later grows up to a world of self-imposed isolation and mistrust, bringing fear and violence to others.

Aside from being portraits of Superman and Batman, respectively, these are also snapshots of a stable and unstable mindset. Batman is obsessive, antisocial, sociopathic, and extremely aggressive. He lost any semblance of normalcy and sanity the day his parents died. Now, rather than working through his issues calmly or using philanthropic means to fight crime, he literally lives in a cave, hides behind a mask, and beats up people who make him mad. There are few worse role models for emotional development than Batman.

Worst. Babysitter. Ever.

Since Pro emphasized children so much in his round, let’s talk for a bit about Batman and kids. During his tenure, Batman has employed no less than 6 teens and pre-teens to work as side-kicks and allies, with at least three of which being his own biological or adopted children! You may be wondering why the number is so high when there is usually only one Robin. That’s because most of them got messed up...bad [2]:
  • Robin #1: Dick Grayson - Became obsessed with crime fighting; became Nightwing
  • Robin #2: Jason Todd - Beaten with a crowbar by Joker, then killed in an explosion
  • Robin #3: Tim Drake - Watched his father be murdered by super villains
  • Robin #4: Stephanie Brown - Murdered by Black Mask
  • Robin #5: Damian Wayne - Trained assassin; multiple murderer
  • Batgirl #1: Barbara Gordon - Paralyzed by Joker
  • Batgirl #2: Cassandra Cain - Trained assassin; multiple murderer
Considering their ages ranged from 10-18 years old when their lives were ended, crippled, or forever changed by Batman’s influence, Batman is personally responsible for each of these outcomes. He taught children to fight against murderers and madman and, of course, their lives were destroyed. This sends a very dangerous message to youths and paints a very clear picture about the kind of psychopath we’re dealing with here.


Counter-Arguments

Batman is...a good guy?

Pro’s entire case can be summarized in one sentence: Batman is a good role model because he fights bad guys and sacrifices himself.

Well, remember in The Dark Knight when Joker kills all those mobsters and bank robbers? Does that make him a good guy? How about at the end of the movie, when there are bombs strapped to a ferry full of criminals and one full of civilians. When that tattoo-faced murderer throws the detonator out the window to save the civilians, does that make him a good guy? Pro is confusing doing good with being good. Batman is a criminal who fights other criminals. This does not make him admirable.

Batman vs. the Police

Batman obviously works outside the law; that is the problem. The “protocol and regulations” Pro believes hinder police investigations are not arbitrary. They are in place to prevent reckless, insane, and criminally dangerous vigilantism the likes of which Batman practices on a daily basis. I agree that helping people can be considered an act of good. However, as enforcing and maintaining societal good is the work of the police force and Batman routinely and flippantly interferes with their operations, any independent good he does in the process becomes a double-edged sword.


References

1. http://dictionary.reference.com...
2. http://tinyurl.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Zaradi

Pro

As I don't have as long as I would like, I will make this quick and go down my opponent's points and defend my own.

His argument to reject the talk of 10 and under is flawed. Even if you're not buying the restrictions I place, I'm still going to be outweighing in terms of impact on younger society than he is on older society. We can warrant this through his own defnition, as it says that role models "especially impact younger kids". Thus, more kids of younger ages are going to be impacted, thus the argument still holds ground and ought to be considered.

Batman, a criminal?

The one flaw that my opponent makes is that he claims that the ends never justify the means, but doesn't back it up at all. The ends do justify the means, as we can clearly see from laws such as the law of self-defense, where it becomes legal for us to kill in order to defend ourself or our property from illegal attack. Without it, we wouldn't be justified in defending ourselves if a robber were to break into our homes, which is clearly false. I can go into further explanation if needed, but this is a basic justification for it. Let's go down his list of supposed crimes and see what Batman should really be held criminally responsible for:

Tresspassing - Ends justifying the means. If tresspassing lets him stop a major criminal, then it would be permissible.

Breaking an entering - Same as above.

Tampering with a crime scene - Would it matter if he tampered with the crime scene if he still brought the criminal responsible to justice? If anything, he's saving time for the Police to work on other cases.

Tampering with and/or theft of evidence - As this is basically the same thing as the above, I'll just refer you to the above answer.

Concealing and use of deadly weapons - When did concealing a deadly weapon become illegal? Last I checked, it was perfectly legal, supposing you have the proper licensing. And a deadly weapon only truly becomes deadly if the wound it inflicts causes the person to die. I.e. if I shoot you in the foot, I did not cause you to die, thus the gun I shot you with cannot be classified as a deadly weapon, as it did not inflict a deadly wound. The potential to inflict a deadly wound doesn't apply because anything has the potential to do x action. I potentially can kill someone with a toothpick, but that would not classify it as a deadly weapon, unless I actually used it to kill someone. The wound/damage it inflicts classifies it as deadly. And since Batman's sole creed is that he never will kill, he can never use a 'deadly weapon', as any wound he inflicts is not deadly.

Public Endangerment - Ends justifying the means. If he has to drive recklessly on a sidewalk in order to catch up and apprehend a major criminal, it would be justified and permissible.

Assault and Battery - So police officers are allowed to beat up criminals, but Batman isn't? Talk about hypocracy. Moreover, even if it weren't, the ends would still justify the means. If Batman had to beat up a criminal in order to apprehend him and turn him in to the police, it would be justified and permissible.

Kidnapping - Really? A) When? B) If the kidnapee was a criminal, then the ends would justify the means, if the intent of the kidnapping was to discover the location of a larger criminal, and turn in the kidnapee afterwards.

Moreover, he claims that endorsing vigilantism is actually bad, but never warrants why it's bad, other than "it's vigilantism. 'Nuff said". This isn't an actual warrant.

Batman's mental!

You can TURN this argument in my favor. The fact that he has this unstable mind and is still able to act in the public's benefit (i.e. taking down major criminals and trying to clean up the streets) proves that he's trying to be a good person and get past his past and move on in the only way he knows how. This proves that he would be an admirable role model for the effort he displays.

His side-kicks are dying! Woe be ye!

There really isn't any offense for my opponent to leverage here, as Batman never forced any of them into becoming his sidekick. Their choice of becoming such a thing makes the end result of it, whether it be serious physical trauma or death, is on their hands, not Batman's. The fact that he tried to train them and teach them how to survive is a testament to his attempt to make sure they stayed safe in the line of work he participated in, not his recklessness or his lack of care.

Now to defend my arguments.

Batman IS a good guy!

No, as the Joker's intended end was to commit more crimes with the increased power he would gain by removing other major criminals. The end being bad makes the means not good. And there was nothing the movie to suggest that the tatto'd man was a murderer. He could simply be in there for some minor offense, and was just physically imposing. His act of allowing the civilians to live would classify him as a good guy. The fact that Batman is doing good, via the ends justifying the means, makes him good.

Batman v. Police

Again, the 'vigilantism bad' argument without an actual warrant why vigilantism IS bad.
However, you can also extend my argument of in the Dark Knight, when the end of the movie came about and Batman turned himself into secrecy in order to give the city a person to hunt for and a person to hate, it is an atonement for the 'crimes' that he had done, and it was bettering societal good and helped maintain order. So his argument there doesn't stand.

All arguments against my case have been refuted. Extend my case. His case has been refuted. Vote pro.
Maikuru

Con

My initial complaint was with Pro arbitrarily defining the term ‘young people’ to mean 10 and under and then arguing that only their opinions matter. He seems to have dropped these points. His new trick is to suggest that my contentions only apply to certain age groups, which is ridiculous. My arguments - Batman is a criminal, emotionally unstable, and abusive to children - are all straightforward and universally understood.

My Case

Gotham’s Biggest Criminal

Pro’s argument is a non-starter; he cannot both praise Batman for stopping crime and then condone Batman’s crimes. By claiming Batman’s actions as just a means to an end, Pro renders law, and thus Batman’s entire mission, meaningless. Even Batman doesn’t pretend what he’s doing is right or legal. He runs from the police and only works with Commissioner Gordon in secret. He was relieved when Harvey Dent, an “honest” crime fighter, came to town. He doesn’t work with the public or even make himself or his goals known. He clearly knows what he’s doing is wrong and self-defeating, he just can’t help himself.

Pro tries to go line by line and explain why Batman’s crimes are exceptions to the rule (though he conveniently leaves out the more serious charges), but he misses the whole point. There is a reason we don’t see police officers breaking into homes without warrants, hanging criminals off balconies, or driving their cars through buildings. Vigilantism puts the public in danger, disregards the rights of the accused, undermines our justice system, and destroys civilized society. No results Batman could ever attain would erase the damage of his renegade antics and the fact that his irresponsibility is the antithesis of everything he claims to defend.

Why So Sociopathic?

Pro concedes the crux of my argument: Batman is insane. He goes on to say that he is still admirable because he continues to “move on in the only way he knows how.” But...he’s not moving on, is he? In fact, he is as emotionally and psychologically stunted as a person could ever be. He modeled his entire adult life around a single childhood trauma and it has ended him as a person. He isn’t Bruce Wayne anymore. He’s a husk of vengeance and loneliness, hiding his face and sitting alone in the dark.

What message does this send to readers? That when faced with pain, repay the world in kind? That when adversity strikes, dwell on it, make it the center of your world, and forsake all others in the process? That is about as unhealthy and unhero-like as it gets. Generally, heroes use personal loss as a source of inspiration, not obsession. That’s why, in the pantheon of superheroes, only Batman has no friends, no love, no life of any kind. He only has the mask. Batman’s story isn’t admirable, it’s pitiable.

Worst. Babysitter. Ever.

Let me get this straight...Batman trains children to fight murderers, physically takes the children to the murderers, watches as they are murdered, and he bares no responsibility? Seriously, it’s like a karate instructor taking a van full of his 12 year old students to a crack house and telling them to go make some citizens arrests. I’m sorry but I respect Pro too much as a debater to think that he believes his argument.

What Batman has done - providing children with weapons, instructing them to fight, teaching them to break the law, etc. - isn’t just bad parenting. It is the very definition of child abuse, neglect, and endangerment [1][2]. Even if we used the perspective of a child, as Pro would like us to do, the sight of the heroic Caped Crusader leading his own biological and adopted children to their eventual brutal deaths is hard to admire. Well, at least he doesn't actually physically assault them himself or anything...








...and my personal favorite:




Counter-Arguments

Batman is...a good guy?

Pro seems to concede my point here by agreeing that there is a difference between doing a “good” act and being, on balance, a “good” role model. He states that the Joker’s crime fighting doesn’t change his negative nature. Similarly, Batman’s crime fighting does not change his sociopathic criminality. The difference is that I, like our criminal justice system and society at large, do not believe that good intentions alleviate someone of their wrongdoing. There is a reason manslaughter is a crime; intentionality of a bad deed may influence the extent of one's punishment but it doesn’t erase it and it certainly doesn’t make the perpetrator a good person.

Batman vs. the Police

Pro seems to think it is my burden to prove why recklessly and dangerously taking the law into your own hands is wrong. By this point I have made that reason abundantly clear, but that demand still strikes me as odd. In any case, Pro concedes that it is the responsibility of the police, not Batman, to maintain and enforce societal good. Batman’s actions, which rest completely outside the law and forces him to interfere with their operations constantly, serves largely to obstruct their mission and waste their resources.

A perfect example of Batman hindering justice is Pro’s example of supposed selflessness. At the end of The Dark Knight, Batman takes the blame for Harvey Dent’s murders. Pro wrongly attributes this to Gotham City’s need for “a person to hate.” As I explained previously, Batman admired Dent because Dent's motives were pure and his actions legal, as opposed to his own psychotic lawbreaking. Now, Batman decides to lie to the entire city and use countless governmental resources and manpower hunting him down for the one crime he didn’t commit. Once again he gets in the way of the actual law enforcers and takes them away from solving actual crimes. This “sacrifice” is actually making Gotham less safe.

I look forward to my opponent’s final round.


References

1. http://www.childwelfare.gov...
2. http://www.legalmatch.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Zaradi

Pro

As it is the last round, and no new arguments can be made, it seems I am down to my last chance to show you all that Batman is a positive role model, on balance. To do this, I will end up relying on a sole argument that my opponent seems to consider insignificant, and on the wording of the resolution (no, this is not semantics. It is how the way the round is supposed to be weighed).

As we are looking at whether or not, on balance, Batman is a positive role model or not, we must look to the weighing of opinion. Which denomination dominates society more: those that find batman a positive role model or a negative role model. Once we find that, we find who is the winner of this debate.

Now let's go back to where my opponent defined role model. His definition states, through the words "especially by younger people", that younger people are more influenced by role models than those of older people. So to find the majority opinion on Batman, we must look to the younger generation in order for this round to be decidable.

At this point is where my opponent's arguments fail. My opponent's arguments are all hingent on the fact that Batman practices vigilante justice, which is a bad idea, and that he's a sociopath, which is generally bad. But I'll refer the audience back to my first observation I made in my case, where I point out that the average youngster doesn't grasp these concepts. No six year old is going to understand the downfalls of vigilantism in comparison to the way in which our law enforcement system operates. Moreover, no six year old is going to understand what the characteristics of a sociopath are and how Batman meets those characteristics. What a six year old see's when they watch a cartoon of Batman is a guy in a cape with weird pointy ears sticking out from his head who beats up bad guys and helps the good guys. While the costume might be a little strange, who wears underwear on the outside?, the general principle of what a kid see's is a guy beating up bad guys and helping good guys. When it comes down to superheroes, that is the absolute base reason why superheroes are good role models, and Batman shows this just as much as any other superhero. The methods, while maybe more important to older viewers, are not important to the younger viewers, who are more likely to model their actions after someone they view as a role model.

So, at this point, the debate breaks down pretty simply. While my opponent has a well constructed case for why Batman a bad superhero, through vigilante justice and being a sociopath, he's not fulfilling the "on balance" part of the resolution, as he is only supporting the view of the minority of Batman viewers. My views appeal to the majority of viewers, and the very base action of what Batman does, beats up bad guys and helps good guys, is what ultimately makes Batman a positive role model.
Maikuru

Con

I thank Zaradi for participating in this debate, especially considering he wasn't very familiar with Batman at the start. I hope this has made him a bigger fan!

Why Pro Can’t Win

Before I recap my case and address Pro’s new argument, allow me to briefly explain how Pro has sabotaged himself in this debate.

In Round 1, Pro laid out two contentions meant to prove Batman is a positive role model: Batman is a good guy and he works where the police can't. Last round, however, he dropped both of these contentions and focused only on attacking my case. In doing so, perhaps unintentionally or perhaps as a result of my rebuttals, Pro just conceded the only affirmative arguments in favor of the resolution. Without these arguments, Pro cannot prove Batman to be a positive role model, he can only hope to negate my case. In other words, Pro made it impossible to affirm the resolution. He can’t win.

What Pro Has Conceded

The following list compiles the points that Pro conceded to in this debate. Combined or separate, they clearly paint the picture of what society would deem a “bad” role model. Not only are his motives and actions not to be applauded, but if they were emulated, the physical, emotional, social, and legal ramifications would be devastating:
  • Batman is a career criminal, committing literally thousands of offences, ranging from theft to attempted murder.
  • Batman exhibits an extremely aggressive, sociopathic, self-destructive mentality.
  • Batman has raised and trained a half-dozen teens and pre-teens for battle, leading many to death, disability, and/or serious psychological trauma.
  • Batman’s so-called “good deeds” are always the result of illegal and highly dangerous methods.
  • Batman regularly interferes with and inhibits police operations in his own city.
Pro’s New Argument

Pro makes two claims here. First, he states that my arguments cannot be understood by youths and thus should not be considered. However, as I explained last round, my arguments - Batman breaks the law, is crazy, and hurts kids - could not be more straightforward and universally understood. One does not need to understand the sociological implications of renegade justice to know that it’s not okay to beat people up or run from the police, nor does one need a masters in psychology to know that it’s not normal to live in a cave all alone for the rest of your life. Also, notice that Pro doesn’t mention Batman’s child abuse AT ALL. Could it be because there is nothing more obviously bad to kids than ABUSING KIDS?

Pro’s second claim is really his downfall. He states that because kids think Batman is a positive role model, he is a positive role model. However, Pro already conceded that Batman’s crimes, sociopathy, and child abuse make him a negative role model. He just proved those kids wrong! Batman is a role model alright, but simply being admired does not mean he is worthy of admiration. Kids might also think bullies are popular and strong or killers are cool and powerful, but that doesn’t make their deeds positive. Pro says as much himself:

“The methods, while maybe more important to older viewers, are not important to the younger viewers, who are more likely to model their actions after someone they view as a role model.”

Those old enough to understand Batman’s negative traits do not consider him a role model, and those too young to understand these traits are modeling negative actions without yet realizing it. That doesn’t somehow make him a positive role model, it simply means the children have a bad role model.

Summation

So that’s it. Pro conceded my entire case, his entire case, and presented a new and completely faulty argument in the last round. Batman is a negative role model. The resolution is negated. There’s really nothing more to say, except...

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Debate Round No. 4
37 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
The sad part is I have tons of pictures of Batman beating up Robin. I had to cut it down for space lol.
Posted by WMdebate 4 years ago
WMdebate
Lol at Batman slapping Robin around... wtf! haha. "My parents are DEAAAAAD!"
Posted by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
I agree. On balance, Batman very likely is a positive role model in his own world. I probably wouldn't take that debate lol.
Posted by Mirza 4 years ago
Mirza
Yep, because from our PoV we know what Batman does, and we consider some of his acts unethical, hence he might be a bad role-model in that regard. However, in his own world, most people who look up to him (and not the villains) only see the end results of Batman's actions, which are mostly positive. Hence he seems to be a very good role model.

If you do a debate with someone on those grounds, I'd be happy to follow.
Posted by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
That is a very interesting question, Mirza. I argued from a real-world perspective and never considered the alternative. If I had, I can imagine new contentions for both debaters. On the one hand, Batman is a known hero and has certainly positively influenced his team mates. On the other hand, a number of villains have attributed their misdeeds to Batman's example. That sounds like grounds for an entirely different debate.
Posted by Mirza 4 years ago
Mirza
Maikuru, Are you arguing from the PoV of the people in Batman's world, or from our PoV?
Posted by Korashk 4 years ago
Korashk
DC seems to be worse about character death than Marvel. At least Marvel characters tend to come back right away if they aren't written to stay dead.
Posted by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
True, though considering how he turned out, he might have preferred to stay dead. Seriously, though, are no deaths sacred anymore? They brought Barry Allen back, too. Once Uncle Ben comes back, I'm done.
Posted by Korashk 4 years ago
Korashk
Jason Todd did get resurrected.
Posted by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
lol of course I like Batman, it's just fun to argue about him being a douche. Most of those Robins had it coming, though haha.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by tvellalott 4 years ago
tvellalott
ZaradiMaikuruTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
ZaradiMaikuruTied
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: Cool debate. I think the most important point was introduced by con: crime. Batman has broken the law many a time, not something you want to copy.He also showed his bayby sitting skills, well, ruin those kids. So bad role model for teenagers. He then showed (pros c2) that the "good" was a double edged sword. Then pros c1 was refuted as doing and being aren't the same, and con tgen proves vatmans not really "good". Con wins.