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

Marvel Comics Civil War: Pro Registration > Anti Registration

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/28/2015 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,355 times Debate No: 79129
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




In July 2006 Marvel Comics released one of most successful, extraordinary and entertaining line of comics, created by Mark Millar - Civil War. The aim of the series was to divide Earth Mightiest Heroes in order to deduce who is a true leader of avengers - billionaire, philanthropist, playboy Tony Stark (aka Iron Man), or soldier, veteran, and a truly virtues man Steve Rogers (aka Captain America).

While many of the fans and general public get hooked up on the idea of physical controversy between two of the most iconic superheroes of Marvel Comics, I would like to sustain this debate within the ideology that stands behind these great fictional people.

The debate would concern ONLY the comics source, ignoring the upcoming 2016 movie entirely.

To give some background, the civil war kicks off after an unfortunate incident during the TV show created by government, where rookie superheroes and ex supervillains would fight agains active criminals and super criminals. In the aftermath of the accident a school was bombed, with 200 children casualties. The government decided to react to this situation by promoting the Superhuman Registration Act, with the help of Iron Man. The idea behind this act is to register all the superheroes, in order to be able to train them, organise them, watch after them, and maintain general control. This is done in order to increase efficiency in meta-humans actions and make public feel safer.

However, Captain America believes that this goes directly agains the idea of freedom, and that superheroes cannot be controlled and trusted by government, who would never understand them.

I hope this gives enough background, but if CON would like more information on the sets out of this debate he should without hesitation say so.

Now, I would like to express my PRO view on this Superhuman Registration Act.

The first reason to support the SRA is because of the person who fights for it more than anyone else - Anthony Howard Stark.

In the comics series Illuminati, Tony Stark is one of the sixth wisest people in the entire Marvel Comics, who is on the mission to save the world. Before the Civil War even started, Stark already knew that the following accident with school will take place, and he already set out the plan of precautions to reduce the damage as much as possible. That means that Iron Man is always a step ahead of trouble. If that was not true, he would not be the most trustful superhero to the USA government.

However, I do not want to make Iron Man's argument the main argument for the SRA.

Instead, I want to outline all the positives that the act brings to the world filled with various and unknown superheroes.

1. No freelancers.

That being no untraced, no self-responding meta-humans. How is that a positive? Very simple. There are multiple hundreds of superheroes, but so there are multiple hundreds of super villains. If we take a look at those super villains, a solid part of that group are not inherently evil, but just are results of being unaccepted by the society and being denied in finding their own place in the world. If they would turn up for help to the government, who would provide training, home, friends, life philosophy, who would actually give them a place to fit in - they would very much change their lifestyle and life morals.

Besides, people would not be afraid of super people attacking them on the streets, at their homes or at the fair, while spending a nice evening with their children. No freelancers means control, and control means safety. And what could be more important than safety for public nowadays?

2. Efficiency.

Many superheroes, even though being very skilled and experienced what they do, still do make a lot of mistakes, that could come at a high price. Example of that being the incident that led to the Civil War, with the explosion of the school. Superheroes can be registered in order of their abilities, age, views, characters. They can be organised in extremely effective teams, that will be able to deal with certain problems. The best example of that happening is in the unrelated movie X-men First Class, where professor X gathered mutants, who would only cause harm to themselves using their powers. But he managed to train them, and to show them how to control and manipulate their gifts. That turned out pretty well, if those who have seen the movie remember.

3. Great power, Great responsibility.

Uncle Ben was right all along. Supers like Deadpool, Punisher, Quicksilver and even Captain America sometimes take their actions for granted. They leave a huge mess behind, justifying that by doing a right thing. Being registered means handing over a huge responsibilities for ones action, which once again would mean safety. One may argue, that by making them responsible would make them less efficient, but I am sure that efficiency lost here, will be compensated in training and teams that meta-humans will be given and allocated respectively.

These are all the arguments I have so far, as I don't want to elaborate fully on all of my ideas in the very first round.

I hope that I made everything clear enough, and If I have confused CON in any way anywhere in my argument, let him, please, correct me straight away.

Thank you, and this is PRO's first round over.


I accept this debate, good luck.
Debate Round No. 1


I move on to the next round, since CON did not post a counter argument to my primary argument.

I would also like to correct my mistake - it is Anthony EDWARD Stark, not Anthony HOWARD Stark.

Good luck to CON too.


Now I will start off with saying that a act like that would take away there freedoms. They are fighting to create a better place, now there are some bad guys with super powers but you think that they would fellow it? Of course not, this would only allow people to know who is different, and who is fighting to stop these criminals that also use there powers. This act would only create more problems rather then solving the ones it try's to fix. When the act did pass it has shown that it created more hate, and fighting broke out. It has hero aginest hero. Human vs super human, this act would punish everyone that had these genes rather then the few that miss use them. Plus when this war happened it left the usa defenseless aginest threats outside of the nation. This is due to the heroes keeping them at bay fighting a government that had betrayed them, and the heroes fought among each other.
Debate Round No. 2


In this round I will systematically address each point mentioned by CON and present a counter argument towards it.

1. "take away their freedoms".

Police department, ambulance workers, doctors, firefighters - they all do not have freedoms as well. They have a certain set of rules to follow, to ensure safety and morality behind every decision they make. And even when it comes to extreme and spontaneous situations, they still have to consider some guidelines, even though making a choice all by themselves. But that does not make them less efficient or dissatisfied. Superheroes squads could just be another department, who would respond to the people or government, but make good in the world. Is that not a purpose? If by freedom you mean an ability of being a vigilante, well that always ends up bad for those superheroes.

2. "only allow people to know who is different."

Exactly. One of the main arguments for the SRA was that people could not distinguish superheroes and superbaddies anymore. The SRA would let them see who is willing to co-operate and contribute to making world a better place, and who is an arrogant and ignorant fool, who thinks he can provide justice using his subjective views and perspectives on virtues of morality. Therefore, knowing who is who is a massive advantage both for heroes and people.

3. "When the act did pass it has shown that it created more hate, and fighting broke out"

The fight broke out with the death of Goliath, which had nothing to do with the act. Therefore, there is no further need to comment on this argument.

4. "this act would punish everyone that had these genes rather then the few that miss use them"

In what way would act punish those with genes and power? Act is not meant to worsen heroes lives, its meant to give them purpose and efficiency that they were not able to have before. Maybe CON needs to re-read the purpose and procedures that the SRA act provides.

5. "this war happened it left the usa defenseless aginest threats outside of the nation"

There is no doubt, that one of the side effects of having a Civil War inside of the country will reduce the efficiency of defences outside of national boundaries. However, once again, the actual physical and verbal conflict has began before the Act, therefore the Act itself cannot be blamed.

PRO has finished with this round. I thank CON for this argument and eagerly expect the next one.


stargate forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


blackprtzl forfeited this round.


stargate forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4




stargate forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by blackprtzl 2 years ago
Yeah, absolutely! Just set up the debate, please!
Posted by Uatu_The_Watcher 2 years ago
I would be interested in debating, I'm still going back in forth over which side I like better, but debating would help. Let me know if you still are interested. :)
Posted by blackprtzl 2 years ago
If anybody would like to re-battle me, I would be happy to accept the challenge!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Balacafa 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments were refuted and after that they all forfeited multiple rounds.