DC Comics: At their prime, Batman is a better vigilante than Green Arrow PART II
Once again I apologize for the forfeit of the last two rounds of the first part of this debate. My opponent has been kind enough to let the fun continue with a Part two debate that simply will begin where the last one left off.
The first part of this debate can be found hear and if your going to vote on this one you must first read this debate all the way through (of course set aside the forfeit rules for your votes on this Part two debate unless I forfeit in Part two) http://www.debate.org...
So the last thing left off was my need to give a response to the cross examination round.
Now just to be weird and to try it, I"m going to mix up my own cross examination questions with answering my opponents questions. It will make sense once I do it"
Con"s 1st question: Who wins a war faster or better, a perfect soldier, or a great General?
You might be asking "what"s that got to do with any of this?" well just ponder that question for now while I address some of your questions and Ill get back to this one.
Pro"s Q: What did I define vigilante as in the 2nd round?
Con A: Taking the law into their own hands. And to quickly answer the follow ups in order: Out of Context, Semantics, Yes, and Yes.
Look I"ve already connected the dots for you as to how his public life affects and helps his alter ego life. And no amount of semantic retreat to pointing out the wording of the definitions in round 2 is going to nullify my point because it fits fine within the definition. In fact being the Mayor is probably a better fit for your specific definition of vigilante than anything else since it"s the very definition of taking the law into your own hands when you become the law.
The book about jobs was to illustrate a point from an example of a real life topic about the connectedness of seemingly separate careers in our life. Can working at a convenience store give me skills ill use one day teaching? Yes. By the same extension, can being the Mayor of the City that your vigilante of give you benefits that aid the vigilante job? Ultra Yes!
Keep pondering about that question I gave while I press on to your next one
Pro"s Q: How does being married help you take the law in your own hands?
Con"s A: Prevents early burnout = longer vigilante career = better amount of vigilante-ing done. And to the follow ups: No not will but emotional stamina, I find I have more incentive when I don"t hate my life, the same way having a second mule helps the first haul a wagon, to the degree batman does Yes, when you have half the time you used to have available to fight crime because the other half is now spent fighting the OMAC"s that are out of control as a direct result of your distrust, and there hurting your allies/assets in fighting crime then distrust does not make batman a better vigilante
Hears my 2nd Q (keep thinking about the 1st though): Would admit Batman would be better fighting crime than he is now if he were married to Zatanna for example or Wonderwoman?
By all means having a Robin is fine on your vigilante team but a sidekick Robin just cant pull the same weight a Zatanna would for Batman if she were his spouse. Batmans physical "needs" could be met on a regular basis, emotional needs as well, and of course magic wielding partner with different skills than his would broaden what he can take care of in Gothem. Lets not forget giving Damien a Stable Batcave to come home to would no doubt make him grow to be a more stable sidekick, cause the broken home cant help him much.
Pro"s Q: How does cleaning up make Green Arrow the superior vigilante?
I'm not going to acknowledge the follow ups to this one there the same question. Look if you cant pick up your own trash, your hardly cleaning up the streets cleaning up other peoples trash. Both Batman"s and his own vigilante career would be permanently damaged if there identities got out, and that would have happened without Green Arrow taking the extra steps Batman doesn"t to keep that kind of thing from happening.
Back to my 1st question I gave
You have been arguing for batman as better like you would argue one soldier is better on the battlefield from another. You make points about skill sets, fitness, personal discipline. And if "taking the law into your own hands" was just about being the best in any one on one showdown then you"d have a point.
But I"ve been arguing for Green Arrow as better like I would argue Washington was a better general than Cornwallis. Bats may have a special trained platoon of sidekicks at his disposal, but Arrow has a platoon like that AND an army of swat team cops. If your president which general would you send to attack the enemy forces?
A general needs certain infrastructure to fight a war better. Better number of troops, better trained troops, better supply amount, better train lines to supplies, better strongholds, ect.
I have made a case for all the infrastructure a vigilante could ever want beyond his personal skill strength. From rocking the infrastructure that supports what he fights like political moves that reduce crime, to things that can support his entire life in general like a crime fighting super spouse. If the makers of sim city had a game to simulate a vigilante career, Arrows on it would have more infrastructure making him work and maintaining him
with that I'm just going to drop my other points about his archer skills and Conners combat skills. they really arnt adding that much to my overlying theme in my case about Infastructure and good Generals over good Soldiers.
oh but I will adress the sourceing ones
Pro's Q: How did I put a huge focus on the sourcing in this debate?
Follow-Up - I asked for more sources because you only gave two sources, so is asking for a few more sources naively putting a huge foucus on the sourcing in the debate?
To both of these, fair enough.I guess you didnt really put a huge focus on it, my exageration was kind of a lame segway into the point I wanted to start making about comic contradictions and my non-comic sources. I retract saying you put a huge focus on anything.
Follow-Up - We're not getting any details of what happened, we're bringing up individual events that can prove his talent so how is it that it can be contradicted?
It can be contradicted by in one comic he can be incredably amazing and borderline godlike awsome, and in another he could be quite helpless though put in a simalar situation to the first comic. a different auther writes for batman and he's got a different take on how awsome he is, or how evil catwoman is, or how vital a robin is to him.
As soon as a green arrow fan gets a hold of writing one batman comic he can retroactively write batman telling green arrow he has better results if he wants to.
Follow-Up - How did your two non-comic sources have more weight compared than my eleven comic and non-comic sources?
Because all comic sources prove a flimsy point at best; that one comic auther wrote it that way once. the 2 non-comic sources though support proving something else, and thats the reasoning and the validatly of the argument I was making, about the connection between seperate jobs, and the positive impact of a wife on every aspect of ones life.
So I dont have to show Dinah coming in handy at one time to Green Arrow, I just have to prove its established he's married her and the other sources prove my point as to what that naturally should mean for him.
with that I end my cross examination round and ask my opponent not post anything round 2 since his closing round would have been directly after the cross examination wich do to our change up in who issued the challenge Pro will now be giving that in round 1
First off, I'd like to say that this is a wonderful debate.
I would first like to state that I will be answering the cross-examination points, I'll give somewhat of a summary, and then I'll give the conclusion.
Cross-Examination Answers -
Con's 1st Question - I would like to argue that this is an invalid question. A general or a soldier doesn't win the war. Their team wins the war. They can't win the war themselves.
Con's 2nd Question - I will say that Batman doesn't need anyone as a spouse or partner because of his willpower. His willpower drives him to metahuman levels while Green Arrow-like heroes rely on spouses to make them have a will. What you're essentially arguing is that Green Arrow has more of a will because of his spouse. However, I've already proven that Batman has an amazing willpower which trumps this point.
My opponent unfortunately only had two questions. Now I'll give a summary of what my opponent is essentially arguing.
My opponent is basically saying that Green Arrow is taking the laws in his own hands by politically influencing the government. However, this is not what a vigilante does but my opponent attempts to make the case that somehow being a vigilante equals being a person using political power to help the city. We are not arguing who benefits the universe more nor who is the better leader.
We are arguing who the better vigilante is and a vigilante is someone who takes the law into their own hands. His public life does not affect who he is as a vigilante. It just affects who he is as a person or "hero." Taking the law in the person's own hands is not becoming the lawmaker.
Taking the law into the person's own hands is doing what the law can't do instead of changing the law. I've already explained why Batman does not need a spouse and can handle his willpower perfectly fine. Also "cleaning up" doesn't make any person a better vigilante. Cleaning up just trains you for bigger tasks and since Batman has already been trained past that extent, the contention proves that Batman is more trained than Green Arrow. Batman is a better vigilante and having people working with you doesn't make you the better vigilante. Batman has demonstrated the authority and ability to lead the Justice League, as I've proven, and has trained himself to the most impressive bodily strength. As I've said, having a larger base doesn't make you personally a better vigilante. It makes you better at fighting crime.
I think it can be realized that my opponent has been making one main argument. This main argument is that being politically invested into Star City makes Green Arrow a better vigilante because he can change the law that's not working and make the city a much better place with more infrastructure and more troops with him as the commander to make sure everything is of quality. However, this is not being the better vigilante in which how my opponent agreed to the definition of "vigilante." This is being the better politician, better commander/leader, better crimefighter, etc. This doesn't prove that he is the better vigilante and I have shown that Batman's conditioning allows him to be possibly the most dangerous human alive because of his capabilities. My opponent has tried to claim that the sourcing should be discounted but I willl state that all this is is to distract the voters from the main issue in which Batman has amazing feats which makes him more capable of taking the law into his own hands. Comic sources are much more valuable and of better quality because it gives in detail what these vigilantes are capable of doing and what they've accomplished. Also my opponent has brought up as a secondary argument of having a spouse. What he truly means is that a spouse gives him more will to do what he does basically. We can see how powerful Batman's willpower is through my first argument and how his willpower is essentially his only power.
Vote for Pro.
My opponent concedes all of my arguments.
I dispute my opponent's arguments in which we are both arguing about.
Not only that, but my opponent has dropped two of his main arguments which are Green Arrow's archery skills and Conner Hawke's martial arts skills.
Therefore, the winner is the one who's arguments stand and my arguments stand strong as my opponent has conceded them.
My opponent I have conceded his arguments. I have not. I have acknowledge the presented stats about the character he defends, I have not conceded any of my opponents arguments though that they make batman the better vigilante.
And his arguments at the very most in response to when I have laid out a case for Green Arrows public political life strengthening his vigilante life have been “no it doesn’t”. I have even sourced my argument to a real life non-fictional source to show I did not just make up this school of thought that one job of ours helps and aids our ability to do the other. And I did not just leave you to explore Jon Acuff’s website forever in his blogs or go buy and read his book or try and get tickets to a Quitters Conference he might be speaking at near you in order to understand the case I was laying out for the Green Arrow. I explained it with very easy to understand examples of how being a mayor during the daylight makes the longbow hunters job in the moonlight a million times easier and more effective. A Vigilante’s secret control over the police department dwarfs any amount of effectiveness Batman can hope to do with a few well trained sidekicks.
And I believe my opponent knows with that case made I have this debate in the bag because he has shown to be so desperate to try and label my case as supporting Green Arrow as better at anything other than what is in the resolution that he has made some statements that boarder on absurdity. Making this one I feel was essentially him conceding the debate to me.
“As I've said, having a larger base doesn't make you personally a better vigilante. It makes you better at fighting crime.”
He’s not better at being a vigilante, just at fighting crime? That’s like saying he’s not a better a being a doctor, just better at saving and healing patients. Or he’s not a better mechanic, just better at fixing cars, or he’s not a better boxer, he just is better at knocking other boxers out, he’s not a better teacher, just better at educating kids and adults.
That last paragraph alone is where I should rest my summary case and leave it because it shows that my opponent has acknowledged I made a successfully case for Green Arrow as a better crime fighter, not just a better hero, but a crime fighter. No amount of legalist retreat to the phrase ‘taking the law into there own hands’ is going to change vigilante into not equaling fighting crime.
And I really want you to vote after considering just that statement from opponent right now. But below I will for you pleasure so it doesn’t look like I just dropped the rest of whats been discussed this debate from my summary.
I repeat my case about the wife is not about Green Arrows willpower. Its about viger/gusto. Willpower is making yourself do something. Gusto is being happy and energized in doing the something.
Saying becoming the lawmaker is not taking the law into your own hands is self contradictory. Just who’s hands do you think the law is left to when Oliver becomes the lawmaker? Or the Law enforcer? The costumed hero’s on the street at night…..or wait he’s there doing that to ;)
My opponent did not give a real rebuttal to my minor point about comic source weakness because he did not address the dilemma from my sourced example of Batman’s impossible age. Lack of ability to trust what is current comic cannon is a huge problem for debates about the comics which is why an argued point is stronger when its source is actually not reliant on what might still be comic cannon but rather just has to do with the argued concept.
My opponent made a complete dodge of my 1st cross-examination question to try and make you ignore the details to my main point. I did not ask ‘can a general win a war by himself’ or a soldier, I asked who wins it better/faster. This phrasing did not leave room to think about solo acts winning a war, it was about effectiveness at accomplishing a task which in this debate is being a vigilante, taking the law into their own hands, fighting a war against the criminal underworld the law without them cant be counted on to reach. And my opponent like I said conceded Green Arrow was better at fighting crime.
My opponent tried to dodge my other question as well, hoping to leave the thought unanswered by you the voters, trying to redirect rhetoric to his talking points for batman’s willpower. He did not actually say if he’d do better with wife or not, he just said he doesn’t ‘need’ one. Maybe a man doest ‘need’ a bazooka to destroy a car if he’s got a sledgehammer but he probably does it much faster with the bazooka. I don’t care if Bruce’s willpower puts Hal Jordan to shame, would he get better at fighting crime with Zatanna as his spouse? The answer is he would become even more dangerous to criminal world; the answer is I have a valid case for the spouse making a vigilante better, and the answer is I made a valid case for Green Arrow made better by something Batman doesn’t have.
My opponent dodged my questions cause acknowledging them would bring light to the validity of my arguments
My opponent completely ignored my charge about comic continuity problems
I actually managed to make arguments in a comic debate that did not need proven by a comic source but a regular source. Thus not leaving the backing of my case to change with a change of Brad Metzler to Grant Morrison.
The points I did drop were not ultimately relevant to my main point so its not relevant to who’s main arguments stand at the end of this debate.
My opponent really only argued for batman being better at bench pressing, looking in microscopes, and using a green lantern ring, but not really taking the law into his own hands.
My opponent even came to conceded I argued (conceded without rebuttal to the point itself, just contended its relevance) Green Arrow was better at being a leader, political force, hero, and most importantly…. crime fighter.
And with that I urge you all to vote Con
And I urge you next time before you say to “Batman duuh…” to a debate comparing these two heroes ask yourself this, “would I rather be Batman or Green Arrow given what they each got?” or in the case of this debate “if I were a billionaire trying to take the law into my hands, remove crime from my city, would I try and copy what batman does or what green arrow does?”
I thank my opponent for this excellent debate. I’m pretty sure I refrained from giving new arguments this round but sometimes I know I do and don’t realize it, if you feel I have please go ahead and take your chance to use the extra round to respond to it. consider this an apology for my accidental forfeit with the first part of this debate.
Well, this was a fantastic debate. I feel my opponent just reiterated his former points with more passion and enthusiasm but did not make anynew arguments. As my opponent was supposed to have the ending, all I can say is that this was a great debate. Thank you.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||0|