The Instigator
lord_megatron
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
dtien400
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Hydra's idealogy in Captain America Winter Soldier

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 1 vote the winner is...
dtien400
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/2/2016 Category: Movies
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 377 times Debate No: 92217
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)

 

lord_megatron

Pro

"Kill 20 million to secure the lives of 7 billion." Why not? Hydra would kill potential criminals and make a safer and better world. It is only due to distrust of Hydra and the misconception that they want global domination that Shield was fighting against Hydra. Hail Hydra.
dtien400

Con

HYDRA is run by humans, and many humans are ruled by prejudice. HYDRA never once specified a program to ensure bias based on race, religion, nationality, gender, class, sexuality, disability, skin color, etc would be put in place. Who's to say Hydra would pull the trigger on someone not because of their potential to be a criminal but because of the color of their skin? Furthermore, even with much of former SHIELD and the Winter Soldier on their side, HYDRA could not protect their helicarriers from a single attack; it's easy to see a villain like Loki, Ultron, or even a weaker antagonist like Aldrich Killian take over the program with ease and target innocent civilians - or politicians, secret agents, law enforcement, and/or military who stood in the way of their twisted evil plans.

In summary, HYDRA had no way or desire to fight prejudice and corruption within their system, and had horribly weak defenses guarding a program that could kill all of mankind. They were not making the world safer or better; they were simply putting all of mankind, especially minority groups, at risk. SHIELD was right to destroy HYDRA and forsake their ideology - they did it not because of misconceptions about HYDRA but for the safety of the global population.
Debate Round No. 1
lord_megatron

Pro

Exactly, you all distrust Hydra so much. But I didn't see evidence of racism or such in what glimpses we had of the organization of Hydra. Plus, Hydra wanted control, and that's why they had to kill potential 20 million threats. They even had former SHIELD on their side, which reduces prejudice. As for protection from the attack, Hydra had not expected Captain America and his team to turn up, and they had to rush their hand. Also, Hydra manage to take down SHIELD as well, for SHIELD was shut down after that. Hydra and SHIELD forces were evenly matched, but when you have a super-soldier with a vibranium shield charging through your heli-carriers, it is hard to defend your territory. The winter-soldier took out all the SHIELD pilots and downed Falcon, but Captain America beat him with his super-strength. Hydra's encryption seems rather weak though, for out of 100's of chips surely one can't make the helicarriers target each other. But then originally it was supposed to be inaccessible by anyone, and take down invaders come in from space as well as threats on the ground. Hydra couldn't send many operatives on the ship while it was launching for they wouldn't have survived in space, and after the ships were off the ground, it was hard to reach for the normal soldiers.
dtien400

Con

For this round I will have 4 points rebutting Pro's arguments, in a format where I quote some of Pro's argument and then refute it.

MY REBUTTALS:

1. Pro: "Exactly, you all distrust Hydra so much. But I didn't see evidence of racism or such in what glimpses we had of the organization of Hydra. Plus, Hydra wanted control, and that's why they had to kill potential 20 million threats. They even had former SHIELD on their side, which reduces prejudice."

-Racism was not seen in HYDRA because racism often a subtle, barely-detected force. Implicit bias is "the bias in judgment and/or behavior that results from subtle cognitive processes (e.g., implicit attitudes and implicit stereotypes) that often operate at a level below conscious awareness and without intentional control." (1) Discovering racism is not as easy asking a potential HYDRA candidate, "are you racist?"

-According to research, "the majority of white people who take the implicit association test (IAT) for racial bias do demonstrate biases against dark-skinned people. In a 2007 study of over 2.5 million IAT responses, University of Virginia psychology professor Brian Nosek and colleagues reported that 68% of participants demonstrated negative implicit attitudes toward black people, dark skin, and black children." (2)

-Even more disturbingly, implicit biases also control your actions the most when stress is occurring in the brain, as, "when we are afraid or stressed, stereotypes reign." (2) It is very obvious that those who work in many sections of HYDRA will undertake duties that involves quick and risky decision-making, and unfortunately, "our brains have to override our initial responses (in order to overcome implicit bias), which requires both time and cognitive capacity." (2) As HYDRA agents would work in a job that requires quick decisions and a high amount of stress and fear, implicit biases could control as little as 12% of HYDRA***, leading to the deaths of minority groups or even those in the majority who were unfairly seem as potential threats. The number is most likely significantly higher when you factor in implicit biases held by people who aren't white and/or the implicit biases that are not about dark skin/black people.

-Pro's statement that HYDRA should be somewhat less prejudiced because it has former SHIELD agents has the presupposition that the average HYDRA agent is more prejudiced than the average SHIELD agent; a quasi-concession from the Pro side that HYDRA is not completely to be trusted.

2. Pro: "As for protection from the attack, Hydra had not expected Captain America and his team to turn up, and they had to rush their hand. Also, Hydra manage to take down SHIELD as well, for SHIELD was shut down after that."

-HYDRA should have been prepared for every single eventuality to occur; a group with the lives of billions held in their hands cannot afford to be blindsided even once - yet HYDRA was blindsided in a series of mistakes that were so negligent they should be considered criminal.

-Yes, HYDRA was able to succeed in temporarily disabling SHIELD; however, that is not a qualification for having control over a computer program that could kill any person in the world in an instant. This only proves that HYDRA would be better served as a SHIELD-esque program that would infiltrate and, if needed, bring down organizations with suspicious activities.

3. Pro: "Hydra and SHIELD forces were evenly matched, but when you have a super-soldier with a vibranium shield charging through your heli-carriers, it is hard to defend your territory. The winter-soldier took out all the SHIELD pilots and downed Falcon, but Captain America beat him with his super-strength."

-HYDRA was simply not powerful enough to take down the forces of about half of SHIELD, Falcon, and Captain America, despite the fact that far more powerful and malignant forces exist in the MCU - Loki and any brainwashed minions he may have, Thanos and his 'daughters,' etc. If HYDRA can't defend a program that could cause human extinction, HYDRA has no right to be responsible for that program.

4. Pro: "Hydra's encryption seems rather weak though, for out of 100's of chips surely one can't make the helicarriers target each other. But then originally it was supposed to be inaccessible by anyone, and take down invaders come in from space as well as threats on the ground. Hydra couldn't send many operatives on the ship while it was launching for they wouldn't have survived in space, and after the ships were off the ground, it was hard to reach for the normal soldiers."

-HYDRA's encryption certainly was weak, another mistake that shows they shouldn't hold the fate of mankind in their hands.

-HYDRA should have had hundreds of operatives on their helicarriers to protect it from internal and external threats, shuttling agents back and forth in a way similar to the International Space Station. The fact that they didn't shows extreme naivete. If some soldiers die shuttling to or from the helicarriers, so be it: certainly an organization that wants to sacrifice the lives of 20 million to ensure the safety of 7 billion wouldn't mind losing an extra dozen, hundred, or even thousand human lives in the 'effort' to safeguard mankind.

Sources:
1) http://www.ncsc.org...
2) http://qz.com...
3) http://www.census.gov...
4) http://usnews.nbcnews.com...

***
1. During the events that this debate centers around, HYDRA was a U.S.-based corporation. There are about 323,720,000 people in the U.S. (keep in mind this number is consistently rising so if you check my source there is a chance it may be insignificantly higher as the source shows not a fixed number of the population but the projected population at any given time). (3)
2. 63% of people in the U.S. are white (Hispanics do not count). (4)
3. 68% of white people have implicit biases. (2)
4. When you do the calculations, this means about 38,328,448 white Americans have implicit biases, or almost 12% of the population (11.84% to be exact).
5. This means at least 12% of HYDRA has implicit biases. The percentage is probably higher when you calculate implicit biases not held by white people and/or implicit biases that are not about black people/dark skin but about religion, sexuality, class, etc.
Debate Round No. 2
lord_megatron

Pro

Racism- During the firefight with Shield, I didn't see a Hydra agent shooting a black man before a white man. Also, the Insight helicarriers targeting was automated and computerized, meaning it wasn't going to fall prey to bias. And as time was of essence, Hydra wouldn't have wasted time choosing black targets over white.
Defense- Hydra was an undercover organization and hadn't expected their cover to be blown so soon. Hydra planned to launch the Insight carriers into space, and when the time is right activate its weapons. But the time wasn't right, and their forces were weak. Lastly, it was a Captain America movie, and in the MCU universe they never let the villain win, even despite overwhelming odds.
Once the Insight helicarriers would be in space, their weapons could be fully deployed. They wouldn't be vulnerable to close range attacks. The helicarrier was designed by SHIELD anyways, blame them, and so was the weak encryption.
Suppose if Insight helicarriers had been deployed in other movies of Marvel. The villain would be easily took down before even the fight began. No, I think the directors realized this bug wouldn't let them continue future movies, and therefore they took it down. And of course, the oh-so righteous Captain America.
Lastly, coming back to the resolution, I think Hydra's ideology is correct as the sacrifice of a few would ensure a better tomorrow. There could have been other means such as an engineered plague, simple weapons assault, turret development, but whatever it may be, it will result in a world that will be safe. I would like to quote Alexander Pierce here "It's a matter of time a dirty bomb goes off in Moscow, or an EMP fries Chicago. Suppose if your daughter were being dragged to an execution stadium by Pakistani militants, and you could stop it with a flick of a switch, wouldn't you? Wouldn't you all??"
dtien400

Con

I am going to do the same format as my last argument.

1. Pro: "Racism- During the firefight with Shield, I didn't see a Hydra agent shooting a black man before a white man. Also, the Insight helicarriers targeting was automated and computerized, meaning it wasn't going to fall prey to bias."

- It was true that HYDRA wasn't visibly racist, however as I stated before, racism can be "the bias in judgment and/or behavior that results from subtle cognitive processes (e.g., implicit attitudes and implicit stereotypes) that often operate at a level below conscious awareness and without intentional control" (source in last round). So racism often manifests in our subconscious, where it is hard to identify and harder to control.

-Yes the targeting system was "automated and computerized," but somebody still has to give the "okay" to pull the trigger - and how do we know that the HYDRA agent in charge would pull the trigger with complete and total objectivity?

2. Pro: "Defense- Hydra was an undercover organization and hadn't expected their cover to be blown so soon. Hydra planned to launch the Insight carriers into space, and when the time is right activate its weapons. But the time wasn't right, and their forces were weak. Lastly, it was a Captain America movie, and in the MCU universe they never let the villain win, even despite overwhelming odds."

-An undercover organization's #1 concern should be ensuring their cover isn't blown.

-Yes, HYDRA wasn't ready to launch, but that was only due to their own negligence and lack of skill. They were clearly not properly prepared for an attack on the helicarriers, and they were clearly not equipped to take down SHIELD, Black Widow, Falcon, and Captain America.

-"...their forces were weak." Exactly! Their forces did not have the ability to fend off any serious attack and should not be in control of the fate of the global population.

-If you break our 'fourth wall' and argue that HYDRA only lost because they were villains, I'll do the same and argue that HYDRA had evil intentions because they were the villain.

3. Pro: "Once the Insight helicarriers would be in space, their weapons could be fully deployed. They wouldn't be vulnerable to close range attacks. The helicarrier was designed by SHIELD anyways, blame them, and so was the weak encryption.
Suppose if Insight helicarriers had been deployed in other movies of Marvel. The villain would be easily took down before even the fight began. No, I think the directors realized this bug wouldn't let them continue future movies, and therefore they took it down. And of course, the oh-so righteous Captain America."

-What about far range attacks? Or attacks from Asgardians, a fleet of Iron Man's armor, the Hulk, etc?

-HYDRA should have improved SHIELD's technology. To not upgrade obvious weaknesses in the targeting system was negligence.

-Actually the helicarrier would be ineffective in taking down Loki and Ultron - the villains who could and did wreak the most havoc on the Earth. And if we're truly talking about potential threats, we need to consider the Hulk and Thor - the targeting system would do nothing but enrage them.

-The directors had the helicarriers destroyed because Captain America and those who worked alongside him were able to overpower HYDRA. Yes, the movie was "written that way": this is exactly why we're dealing in HYPOTHETICALS. If we invoke 'real life,' as I said before, I can just argue HYDRA was evil because HYDRA was the villains.

4. Pro: "Lastly, coming back to the resolution, I think Hydra's ideology is correct as the sacrifice of a few would ensure a better tomorrow. There could have been other means such as an engineered plague, simple weapons assault, turret development, but whatever it may be, it will result in a world that will be safe. "

-I think HYDRA's ideology was idiotic because they didn't have the skills, tactics, critical thinking, and objectivity necessary to launch, safeguard, and control a program that could kill you with just a flip of a switch.

5. Pro: "I would like to quote Alexander Pierce here "It's a matter of time a dirty bomb goes off in Moscow, or an EMP fries Chicago. Suppose if your daughter were being dragged to an execution stadium by Pakistani militants, and you could stop it with a flick of a switch, wouldn't you? Wouldn't you all??""

-Yes, the majority of people would flick the switch - and that's exactly why the option shouldn't be available. Say there's a misunderstanding and instead of killing a potential criminal, you kill members of a military, a police force, a government, a royal family, on their own soil - you would have committed a war crime.

HYDRA's ideology was flawed not because eliminating potential criminals would have made the world a better place, but because eliminating potential criminals makes you, in essence, a potential criminal. Anybody who has the power to kill everybody on this Earth with HYDRA's program is a potential criminal - and, by HYDRA's logic, should be killed. Therefore, HYDRA's insanely hypocritical targeting system program should be abandoned for a solution that won't enable prejudice, that won't have any potential to fall into unsavory hands, and that won't allow people to commit war crimes.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Ragnar 10 months ago
Ragnar
One thing I will say, is I believe pro wanted this to be a simple utilitarian comparison akin to the classic Trolley Problem (if so, he failed to contain it to that). Were this debate done again, material from Captain America 3 covering the horror unleashed by these superhumans, would be greatly to his benefit, however such was not present in this debate for consideration.
Posted by lord_megatron 10 months ago
lord_megatron
no votes still....this is sad
Posted by Wylted 11 months ago
Wylted
Coming back to this
Posted by lord_megatron 11 months ago
lord_megatron
thanks for helping me out
Posted by Ragnar 11 months ago
Ragnar
Small note, Hydra was founded hundreds of years ago as a rescue organization, with specific goals of harmony across racial lines.
Posted by lord_megatron 11 months ago
lord_megatron
Yeah marvel cinematic universe basically
Posted by Ragnar 11 months ago
Ragnar
Exclusively as seen in Winter Soldier, or are links to the main Marvel Cinematic allowed?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 10 months ago
Ragnar
lord_megatrondtien400Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: This debate went off topic quickly, at one point pro even tried to blame SHIELD for Hydra failing (without doing a comparative analysis of their ideologies to infer Hydra's were better than the trusted organization). As con hinted at, their ideologies failed them because they believed themselves so righteous they could not fail, and half-assed their semi-religious plot to sacrifice 0.003% of the population. They did not end up saving anyone, merely killed a lot of hard working government employees. Bearing in mind, pro had the burden to prove Hydra's ideologies to be favorable, which against con's rebuttals he simply did not, con even turned pro's own replies back on him to cast strong doubt "Pro's statement that HYDRA should be somewhat less prejudiced because it has former SHIELD agents has the presupposition that the average HYDRA agent is more prejudiced than the average SHIELD agent."