The Instigator
DOB
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Zealous1
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Is Spider-Man Bad for New York City?

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 3 votes the winner is...
Zealous1
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/8/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,351 times Debate No: 15256
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

DOB

Pro

As Pro I will be arguing that, yes, Spider-man is bad for the city and Con will be arguing blah, blah, etc.-- you already know!

This first round will serve as acceptence and, if needed, clarifications. The second round I will present my case, then Con will follow suit and refute.

I expect a fun, enlightening debate!
Zealous1

Con

Thank you, opponent, for creating this debate. I trust this will be a fun, educational debate.

I hope you are familiar with "Cross-X" questions. Basically, I ask you a question or a few questions, and you answer them in your next post. I will ask a few right now.

Cross-X:

(1) Did the police succeed in taking out the enemies, or did Spider-Man have to do it?

(2) If spider-man hadn't been there, would the villains have killed more people?


Again, I look forward to this debate.

Debate Round No. 1
DOB

Pro

I assure you, both you're questions will be addressed in due time.

Thank you and good luck.

You want to believe Spider-man's good for the city, and, for the sake of my own mental stability, I need to believe he is, and the knee-jerk reaction is that Spider-man's a Godsend. He does the work of ten police officers and, as a vigilante, does so at no cost to the state. All of the work he does stopping criminals means other police officers will be free to focus on additional tasks, which would, if not double, certainly improve the NYPD's productivity. Further, Spider-man's advanced skill and superhuman abilities put him at a serious advantage over even the best of the NYPD. The average response time to a 911 call in New York City is 10.8 minutes but, Spider Sense, lightning-quick reflexes and the ability to avoid all non-bird traffic puts Spider-man's response time closer to the 2-3 minute range.

Simple math tells us that's a vast improvement, but let's take a closer look at those numbers.

A Closer Look at Those Numbers

Ignoring his results for a minute, let's study Spider-man's methods and, specifically, the webbing that he squirts all over the city and what kind of problems that may cause.

Contention 1: Web
At first glance, you'd think the problem facing New York would be " that's a lot of web to clean up." Your thoughts would be with the poor janitors and window-washers who would now be forced to scrape webbing off of every building in New York City. But as devotees will quickly point out, that's not a problem, as Spider-man's web, thanks to certain imbibed esters, will conveniently dissolve into a powder after about two hours.

The problem isn't the amount of web, necessarily, it's the quality. It's about as strong as high-tensile steel, certainly strong enough that we, as non-spidermen, can't move it or tear it apart. Now what does this mean? Well, Spider-man doesn't actually put anyone behind bars, he just leaves them tied up, scattered around the city; police officers still need to physically round up these criminals.

So every time there's a bank robber, thug or gang member that gets caught in Spider-man's web, this means the New York Police Department needs to send out one but probably two police officers to show up, stand guard and wait up to two hours for the web to dissolve before carting the criminal off to jail. The alternative is no cops wait, and the criminals just quietly walk away when the web dissolves. The cops can't move the crook; they'll get stuck to the web if they try to budge it, and they can't cut it down, it's too strong. They just have to stand there and wait.
We think that having Spidey around will free up some extra police officers, but if they have to show up to every single crime scene that he handles, New York is literally using the same amount of manpower to respond to emergencies as it did pre-Spider-man.
Contention 2: Mutant Criminals
And, of course, the original amount of manpower that NYPD required to keep crime down didn't factor in the additional superhero-specific crimes that naturally follow Spider-man wherever he goes, including but not limited to:

NY Crimes (Pre Spider-man)
Murder
Forcible Rape
Robbery
Aggravated Assualt
Burglary
Arson
Vehicle Theft
NY Crimes (with Spider-man)
Radiation Abuse
Rape (Giant Monster Division)
Aggravated Incredible Hulking
Sudden Infant Mutanism
Grand Theft Spaceship
Faking Death/ Status as Green Goblin

They will, understandably, need to make some special accommodations for all of the inevitable Spider-man-related crimes.

Contention 3:Response Time

That is, if they have time. Pre-Spider-Man response time is 10.8 minutes, and if all of New York's finest are wasting their time waiting two hours for webbing to dissolve at every single crime scene, that number will only grow. There are some crimes that the NYPD can't solve quickly, some criminals they can't catch, that's true. But with Spider-man on the case, every single thief they chase down comes with a two hour time-out period, guaranteed.

But manpower, while important, is by no means the full argument. We need also to ask if Spider-man is good for New York fiscally, or whatever. I will address this next round.
Zealous1

Con

Thank you for putting our your arguments, although I'd like to point out you didn't actually answer my Cross-X questions.

Moving on to the contentions.

Contention 1.

"They have to wait two hours". Not necessarily. They can stand by the web ten minutes before it dissolves. They don't HAVE to be there for two hours. Secondly, it would take the cops even longer to catch some of the criminals. Spider-man can easily chase them and take them out, but the cops are regular people. They would take longer to chase down the criminal. I will address the effects of this under my own points.

So basically the fact that the NYPD would take even longer to catch the criminal themselves means sitting around for a little bit until the web dissolves is much better. But wait, there's more! My opponent said "He does the work of ten officers" (I would say even more...) Then he said that the NYPD sends one or two officers to show up. So that means only two officers need to do the job. That saves 8 officers every single crime. Therefore no, pre-Spider-man meant more man power.

Contention 2.

My opponent for this whole argument was saying that these crimes were BECAUSE of spider man. How is that logical? These criminals arose by themselves, not because of spider-man.

Because of his misinterpretation of this list, he actually just listed the crimes that Spider-Man helped to solve. For some of these crimes he was saving even more than 8 officers. That means he was giving the officers MORE time to respond to other calls rather than deal with criminals they themselves can't handle.

Contention 3.

I already addressed this. Instead of sending 10 officers on a wild goose chase after some murderer that they can't even find, only two have to stand by waiting for the criminal to drop into their hands. Easy. Also, my opponent conceded that there are criminals the NYPD could not have caught with spider-man. That means more people will die. That leads me to my own point.


My own point...

1. Lives saved

This is simple. My opponent conceded that there are some criminals that the NYPD couldn't have caught without spider-man. That means there are lives saved. Of course, lives are more important than some money. I can almost guarantee that my opponent in the next round will talk about the wreckage possibly caused by spider-man. Remember, lives are more important than a couple hundred dollars to save some money.

Also consider all the times where Spider-Man was able to catch people who were falling. Even more, think about that train that was going to fall off the tracks. If spider-man hadn't been there to stop it, hundreds, probably THOUSANDS of people would have died. That is greater than ANY argument my opponent can bring up. Don't let him weigh NY's money over thousands of lives.



I've responded to my opponent's points mostly using his own words against him. He himself caught himself in a knot because he basically said that more manpower is needed WITH spider-man because people have to wait. But it only takes two police officers to stand there vs. ten or more chasing a criminal they can't catch for hours.

Also, I've brought up my own important point about lives saved. Although it seems compelling that Spider-Man might have actually been bad for NY (Controversy like this is always compelling), just take a step back and realize that more lives would have been ended without spider-man.

Debate Round No. 2
DOB

Pro

Thanks Zealous1.

As to your Cross-X questions:
I'm not presenting a specific instance where Spider-man is bad, I'm speaking overall.�So I cannot answer your questions.

Contention 1."They can stand by the web ten minutes before it dissolves."
I don't think the citizens would appreciate that very much. Leaving criminals, even under that condition, unsupervised would be lazy and irresponsible on the NYPD's part. What if the criminals, as a result of the fight, dropped their guns nearby? What's to stop someone from picking them up? Negligence like that will end up harming someone. This argument still stands.

Cotention 2."These criminals arose by themselves, not because of spider-man."
Without a Spider-man, isn't it fair to assume that most of these supervillains wouldn't be (e.g. Venom, Green Goblin, Dr. Octopus)?

Rebuttals

1. Lives Saved
At one point in your argument, you refer to Spiderman 2--specifically, the almost-train-wreck scene. If you consider the intention Dr. Octavius had in mind,(to aggravate Spider-man/wear him out), this renders your strongest point invalid. Simply put, no Spider-man, no problem. To take it even further, Dr. Octavius directly blames Spider-man for his wife's accident and takes it upon himself to exact revenge, meaning every bad thing Octavius does is indirectly Spider-man's fault.

Yes, we can consider all the situations Spider-man has saved many lives. But we can't forget all the lives he hisownself puts in jeorpady. Let's use your example-- the train reference. As I already stated, Dr. Octopus nearly derailed the train merely to draw out Spider-man. Had there been no Spider-man, no "hundreds, probably thousands" of lives endangered.

"He himself caught himself in a knot because he basically said that more manpower is needed WITH spider-man because people have to wait."
I never said that. I said with or without a Spiderman, ordinary crimes result in an equal amount of manpower from the NYPD.

I have countered all my opponents points.

Now to finish my argument:

Is Spider-man Good for New York Fiscally, or Whatever?

Contention 4: Spiderman is Discouraging
In a word, the damage spider-man would cause to the already cash-strapped NYPD is catastrophic. In several more words, according to the ABC, as it stands already, hundreds of city officers are leaving the NYPD every year for higher paying jobs because, even though New York City has the largest staff, it also has probably the worst pay, and its numbers are dwindling. In 1991, 159 officers left for nearby, better paying jobs and, in 2007, the number was 990. New York City police officers are tired, underpaid, overworked and surrounded by neighboring departments that pay officers as much as $15,000 a year more. The majority of them that do stay only stay because the NYPD has such a rich history; they appreciate the prestige of being associated with the force.

That prestige will lose its luster and the department will become less appealing if these officers have to add "Babysit milk-slime-covered criminals" to their list of responsibilities. No one signs up for the NYPD with that job in mind. Not to mention the fact that, in the eyes of the public, regular police officers look pretty lame compared to Spider-man. It is not unreasonable to conclude that Spider-man's presence in New York would, at the very least, raise the amount of police officers who leave the NYPD by 10% a year.

Contention 5: Spiderman Task Force Unit
Additionally the city has to spend $25,000 to recruit and train a replacement for every seasoned officer who leaves the NYPD. Further, we can't ignore that Spider-man is a vigilante. The NYPD has a special unit for everything; a Major Crimes Unit, a Mounted Unit, a Transit Bureau, a Scuba Team, an Aviation Unit- everything. You have to assume they'd create a special anti-Spider-man Task Force charged with bringing the web-slinger to justice, they wouldn't be doing their duty if they didn't. This means special training, more men, and highly advanced weaponry and body armor that can compete with Spider-man's superhuman abilities.

It all costs money, money the NYPD doesn't have.

Conclusion

So, in conclusion, Spider-man's isn't freeing up manpower, he's wasting it, and he's not saving the city money, he's costing it more. 5 years after Spider-man's reign and New York will be hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt and with 1/3 of the police force they require.
Zealous1

Con


"As to your Cross-X questions:
I'm not presenting a specific instance where Spider-man is bad, I'm speaking overall. So I cannot answer your questions."


I meant overall, but it is too late.

Contention 1. "I don't think the citizens would appreciate that very much. Leaving criminals, even under that condition, unsupervised would be lazy and irresponsible on the NYPD's part. What if the criminals, as a result of the fight, dropped their guns nearby? What's to stop someone from picking them up? Negligence like that will end up harming someone. This argument still stands."

If Spider-man saw them doing that, he would merely pick up the guns himself. Anyways, I'm saying that it doesn't always have to be 2 hours. That's the maximum.

Secondly, my opponent completely dropped my point about ten vs. two. This was an important point in the round because it basically refutes his whole position. Just to remind you of what that point was, my opponent in the introduction to his arguments stated that Spider-Man takes the man-power of around ten officers. (It would probably be even more because of his abilities of chasing that no number of officers can do). Then he stated that it would take two officers to stand by for the web. So therefore Spider-Man is saving tens of officers every single crime. That refutes my opponent's whole "manpower" contention.

Cotention 2."These criminals arose by themselves, not because of spider-man."
Without a Spider-man, isn't it fair to assume that most of these supervillains wouldn't be (e.g. Venom, Green Goblin, Dr. Octopus)?

Doc Oc would have come up with or without spider-man. It wasn't spider-man that caused him to create the machine, and it wasn't spider-man that broke the chip which embedded itself into Doctor Octavius. Green Goblin had nothing to do with Spider-Man. He was a villain without spider-man. In the first movie when he was shooting his explosives all over the place, if spider-man hadn't intervened hundreds could have been killed. So no, this point does not at all stand.

Contention 3. Dropped by my opponent. That flows to me.

If you consider the intention Dr. Octavius had in mind,(to aggravate Spider-man/wear him out), this renders your strongest point invalid. Simply put, no Spider-man, no problem. To take it even further, Dr. Octavius directly blames Spider-man for his wife's accident and takes it upon himself to exact revenge, meaning every bad thing Octavius does is indirectly Spider-man's fault.

1. What proof do you have that Octavius was trying to wear Spider-Man out? You need to prove he wouldn't have done it without spider-man.

2. No, it only means everything he does against Spider-Man is because of Spider-Man. Whoever he kills in the public has nothing to do with Spider-Man.

Also, when the chip broke, it made him evil, so he would have killed thousands without spider-man. Fortunately, spider-man saved several lives.


"He himself caught himself in a knot because he basically said that more manpower is needed WITH spider-man because people have to wait."
I never said that. I said with or without a Spiderman, ordinary crimes result in an equal amount of manpower from the NYPD.


What I meant with this point is that Spider-Man takes the place of tens of NYPD officers, and only two have to stand by a web to wait for it to dissolve. So he's saving more than ten officers each crime.

I have countered all my opponents points.

Not at all. My opponent actually dropped some of the most crucial points in this round. Because of those points alone I would urge you to vote for me.


That prestige will lose its luster and the department will become less appealing if these officers have to add "Babysit milk-slime-covered criminals" to their list of responsibilities. No one signs up for the NYPD with that job in mind. Not to mention the fact that, in the eyes of the public, regular police officers look pretty lame compared to Spider-man. It is not unreasonable to conclude that Spider-man's presence in New York would, at the very least, raise the amount of police officers who leave the NYPD by 10% a year.

This argument is on the verge of silliness. It's basically saying that officers would be leaving just because of Spider-Man. First, there's no proof. Second, 10% is a drastic number. My opponent is just pulling a random number that sounds shocking out of the air. Third, they're not babysitting milk-slimed criminals. They just catch them when they fall out of the web, and throw them in jail. Lastly, it doesn't matter if some leave. Spider-Man has it covered. The NYPD, with Spider-Man, needs minimal amount of actual police force to do the job. So if some leave, that would mean the city of NY would have less police officers to pay, which reverses the fiscal point and it means Spider-Man actually saves money.

Additionally the city has to spend $25,000 to recruit and train a replacement for every seasoned officer who leaves the NYPD. Further, we can't ignore that Spider-man is a vigilante. The NYPD has a special unit for everything; a Major Crimes Unit, a Mounted Unit, a Transit Bureau, a Scuba Team, an Aviation Unit- everything. You have to assume they'd create a special anti-Spider-man Task Force charged with bringing the web-slinger to justice, they wouldn't be doing their duty if they didn't. This means special training, more men, and highly advanced weaponry and body armor that can compete with Spider-man's superhuman abilities.

Another assumption. My opponent is just making his arguments from assumptions of what people will do. The fact that spider-man is a vigilante does not mean NYPD will make a whole task force to get him. They would eventualy accept that he's just a more efficient way to get the job done. Also, even if they did make a special unit against Spider-Man, it does not mean more men. They can just take men from other units. Special training: not really. No amount of training will make them able to contend with Spider-Man. Advanced weaponry and armor: If such technology existed, they would already have it. They're obviously going to have the most updated technology, with or without Spider-Man. Plus, if they need to get extra technology, that would be BENEFICIAL because that means there is new technology for the world. A benefit, not a negative effect.

"So, in conclusion, Spider-man's isn't freeing up manpower, he's wasting it, and he's not saving the city money, he's costing it more. 5 years after Spider-man's reign and New York will be hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt and with 1/3 of the police force they require."

In conclusion, let's take a step back from all this point by point refutation and refute his summary.

"So, in conclusion, Spider-man's isn't freeing up manpower, he's wasting it"

My opponent dropped the major point about the fact that he would free up more than 10 cops each crime. So he's actually freeing up man power.

He's not saving the city money, he's costing it more.

Not at all. The fact that the NYPD would have to pay for less officers means they will be saving money. Also, they will become accustomed to Sipder-Man, not create a whole unit.

5 years after Spider-man's reign and New York will be hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt and with 1/3 of the police force they require."

No, NY would have less money to pay. Also, they don't REQUIRE the officers that actually leave. These officers leave because Spider-Man takes up their place for free. NY doesn't have to hire more to take their place so it would be a slimmer system.

In conclusion, although it's compelling to believe that Spider-Man was actually bad for NY, he obviously wasn't. He saved lives (lives are incalculable), manpower, and money. I would like to emphasize the lives point. Sandman, for example, would have killed hundreds or thousands without Spider-Man. My opponent did not talk about this super villain.

On this point alone you should vote for me. He was a net benefit. Vote con.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by DOB 6 years ago
DOB
I'll fix that right up. Thanks.
Posted by Zealous1 6 years ago
Zealous1
You need to make the voting period like 1 month. You probably won't get a vote in 1 week.
Posted by TD29 6 years ago
TD29
Whoa, the voting period will last forever. Change it and i'll accept.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
DOBZealous1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Nice web argument, but well refuted by Con.
Vote Placed by tvellalott 6 years ago
tvellalott
DOBZealous1Tied
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: Arguments to Zealous1. He was right about DOB conceding his major point. However, I would have added that it much safer for police officers to simply wait for the webbing to disolve rather than attempting to catch the criminals themselves. Good work on an interesting debate.
Vote Placed by GeorgeCarlinWorshipper 6 years ago
GeorgeCarlinWorshipper
DOBZealous1Tied
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: Wish this one could have been a bit longer. While I appreciate that both sides elected to largely take each other at their word, I personally would have preferred more citation of specific sources. Spelling, grammar, and conduct were pretty even.