The Instigator
Hardcore.Pwnography
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
socialpinko
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Resolved: We would depower all superhumans. (Mr. Infidel's R1 Tourney)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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...
socialpinko
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/21/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,421 times Debate No: 20536
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (3)

 

Hardcore.Pwnography

Pro

This is for Mr. Infidel's Round 1 tournament, which can be found here: http://www.debate.org...

Round 1 acceptance.

Topic:
Resolved: We would depower all superhumans.

"We" are the United Nations in the world of Capcom and Marvel.

"Depower" By depower, I mean that we have come across new technology, an electromagnetic ray, which when fired at a satellite in space, would spread across the world, removing all powers from superhumans.

"Superhumans". People like superheroes or supervillains. People like spiderman, magneto, cyclops, venom, etc. Basically anyone with a special power that exceeds those of normal humans. (people with above average strength or intelligence would not count in this circumstance)

BOP:

As Pro, I will argue that using the EMR to depower all superhumans is the right thing to do, is the best decision.

As Con, socialpinko will argue the opposite. That we would not use the EMR.

BOP is equal and shared.

I forsee that sources will not play a major factor in this debate, as this is a fun hypothetical debate.

If you have any disagreements with any BOP or terms, then please PM or comment on this debate.
socialpinko

Con

I accept the terms provided by my opponent. Looking forward to a good debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Hardcore.Pwnography

Pro

Why, thank you for finally accepting the challenge.

C.1: Stranger Danger

Like all superhumans, they tend to get into alot of fights with other superhumans. Just look at Spiderman, or X-Men, there is always some sort of fight. When there's a fight, there is danger. When there is danger, people can potentially get hurt. The most likely to get hurt being the fighters themselves.

Superheroes tend to lead normal lives when they are not combatting crime. As a result, they have normal friends and family that they care about. Supervillains tend to exploit this weakness and put their loved ones in danger. Let's look at Spiderman. Spiderman really cares about Mary Jane, but he cannot tell her his true identity in the beginning because he doesn't want to put her at risk.

Nonetheless, supervillains exploit this weakness and often hold their loved ones hostage to try to get the superhero to submit. In spiderman, pretty much every movie, Mary Jane is in great danger. For simplicity, let's look at Spiderman 3.



Mary Jane is at constant risk of danger. Also, the bystanders and the big bus with all the people in it, are also in danger, as they can easily get hit and be caught in the crossfire.

People with superhuman abilities will inevitably use them, for either good or evil. For simplicity, let us assume that 50% of all people with superhuman abilities choose to use them for good, and another 50% choose to use them for evil.

These two groups will inevitably clash, as their ideals conflict with each other. There will always be a fight of superhuman proportions. It is also safe to assume that the villains will take hostages (as they are evil) and there will always be bystanders watching the fight. These people are in constant risk, and sooner or later, will be caught in the crossfire and get fatally injured. Furthermore, the police cannot do anything against the supervillains as they have superhuman abilities. Therefore, in this circumstance, the police are useless.

Therefore, from this, we can draw the conclusion that when the world has superhumans, innocent people will get hurt, and the police can't do anything about it. Furthermore, it is really likly that the fighters will get mortally wounded as well. There is also no guarantee that the doctors will be able to heal these victims because their wounds were caused by a superhuman (it really depends on the ability the superhuman has). For example, if a superhuman has the ability to turn blood to acid, there is no guarantee that the doctors will fix this problem in time, as they have never seen such a thing before.

Therefore, to solve this issue, there is a simple solution. To depower all superhumans. As a result, there will be less violence and no injury caused to innocent people. The world would be a much safer place.

C2: Exploitation

What we must understand, is that these superhumans have special powers that normal humans don't have. As a result, there are always going to be scientists who are power hungry who want to kidnap these people to research them, see what gives them these powers, so that they may obtain these powers for themselves.

This happens in many scenarios, the mad scientist who wants to experiment on the superhuman. This practice is not morally or ethically sound, as it is infringing on the victim's (although a superhuman, he still has basic human rights) rights as well as breaking several laws in the process.

Sure, we can send SWAT and police teams after the mad scientist, but what we must remember is that this person is a mad scientist. As a mad scientist, he has most definitely ran experiments that were illegal in the past, notifying the police. We can ssume that the police are doing everything in their power to arrest the mad scientist. Because the police have not yet arrested the mad scientist, we shall call him Bob, we can safely assume that they have tried, but without any luck. We can safely assume that the police are unable to arrest Bob, either because they don't know where his hideout is, or because Bob has too strong defenses.

We can essentially render the mad scientist useless by using the EMR. Like taking a toy away from a baby, we can use the EMR to depower all superhumans so that Bob cannot conduct any of his evil experiments on them anymore. This means that we are essentially protecting all superhumans from undergoing this inhumane treatment by Bob. No doubt, Bob will get mad and try to take his revenge. Like a baby who just had his toy taken, Bob will try to get more toys, more superhumans anyway, to try to see what happened, see if any other superhuman lost his powers too.

But this is where the police come into play now. We would closely monitor all ex-superhumans to waiting for Bob to kidnap one of them. As a result, he would lead the police to his hideout, where the evidence would be found that Bob is breaking laws. He would then be arrested and the world would have one less mad scientist.

Afterwards, the mad scientist would lose interest in superhumans because they do not have super powers anymore.

Therefore, using the EMR to deactivate all superhuman abilities is a good and moral idea, because we protect the future of all superhumans. No one would ever exploit and experiment on them again.

C.4: Temptation

Humans are naturally greedy and selfish, and throughout history, we have constantly succumbed to temptation.
These superhumans will constantly face temptation as they have supernatural abilities. For example, let's say that Fred can walk through walls.

He is a good guy, but will constantly face the temptation of robbing banks, as it is easy for him. Just walk through the wall into the bank vault and walk back. Sooner or later, he will succumb to this temptation, and decide to rob something, because he is short on money. Maybe at first he will start off small, as he is a good guy.

But when he isn't caught and sees how easy it is, because of his super abilities, he will escalate and rob bigger and bigger targets. This is the same with all superhumans, more specifically, the benign ones. Again, there is really nothing that can stop these superhumans, for example, from robbing the bank, as there are no security measures to protect against the supernatural.

What we must remember is that really, these superhumans cannot be blamed for succumbing to temptation, as it is a natural instinct to take the easy way out. Therefore, as moral human beings, we must save these child superhumans from succumbing to this temptation and growing up to become corrupt and evil in our society. We can also protect others and their surroundings by using the EMR.

Therefore, by using the EMR, our world becomes a better place.

C.5 Evolution

Like all human traits, they evolve over time to adapt to their surroundings. There is no doubt that these superhuman abilities will also undergo evolution.

Evolution is unpredictable. There is no telling what it would be able to accomplish. Let me give you a possible evolutionary trait.

After a few years, superhumans may develop a resitance to EMR, from constant use of computers and technology. At this point, the EMR we have would be useless, and even if we wanted to, we would not be able to depower superhumans anymore. Now, say a supervillain also evolved the trait of shooting lasers from his fingertips.

We would not be able to capture that villain or depower him. The police would be useless. This villain would be of harm to everyone in the world. Everyone will be at risk, because we decided not to depower superhumans a few years ago.

Therefore, we must depower superhumans now before they can evolve and adapt to their surroundings. Maybe in a few years, it would be too late and we would regret not depowering them now.

Therefore, it is necessary to depower superhumans to protect the interests of the entire world. As the United Nations, we stand for humanity and safety in our world.

We must uphold these values and depower superhumans.
socialpinko

Con

For this round, I will refute my opponent's points while formulating my own short case.

C1: Stranger danger

My opponent's first point is a strong one I admit. He argues that allowing superheroes to retain their powers allows for the putting of their loves one's in danger as a means of coercing actions on superheroes. This point however does not hold much weight as it proves too much. If the general principle of my opponent's C1 were to be applied consistently, any person in a position of considerable power or influence would need to be taken out immediately as their enemies can do the exact same thing. My opponent's contention would support the "de-powering" of politicians, businessmen, anyone with considerable wealth, etc. since there is still the possibility that someone would use that to their advantage.

Sub-C1: Clashes

My opponent's next point is that superheroes and villains will inevitably clash, leaving innocents injured or dead with the police powerless to stop them. As with my opponent's C1 though, his point proves to much. For instance, the same could be said of nations at war with each other. Even the poorest nations are on par with superheroes in the considerable amount of power and destructive possibilities that they wield. The United States has nuclear capabilities that far exceed the powers of any superhero and the same could be said of a handful of nations in the world. My opponent's plan would take out one source of unaccountable power while still leaving sources of exponentially more power completely unchecked.

C2: Exploitation

The main problem with this point of my opponent's is that it (like his previous points) proves far too much. For instance, superheroes are not the only ones who are experimented on unlawfully. Animals, twins, Jews, homosexuals, Gypsies and a plethora of other people and animals with marginally interesting characteristics have been unlawfully experimented on. By my opponent's own admission, it would be the moral option to render homosexuals as heterosexuals, force conversion from Judaism, etc. This point is to show that even if the consequences might seem desirable, the effects on the characteristics that make that person "them" must outweigh the desired consequences.

C3: ?

My opponent seems to have skipped a contention 3.

C4: Temptation

my opponent continues to make the same mistake. This point, much like the previous two, rests on a certain principle. For instance, the principle my opponent uses in this point is that superheroes will use these powers as a means to break laws which their powers make very easy to do so. However, again like his other two points, my opponent is unable to consistently apply this principle without "de-powering" anyone who has any sort of influence that would make it easy for them to break the law. Politicians are a glaring example of this rule. We hear about it all the time, politicians using their position of power to get what they want, even if it's against the law or unacceptable for a normal person to do so. My opponent, if he wishes to act consistently, would need to "de-power" politicians or anyone with any sort of influence over others which they could use to exploit them.

C5: Evolution

My opponent's next point is that super humans might evolve so that de-powering them would prove useless in the future, making attempts to de-power them in the future useless. This point rests on the premise that forcefully de-powering super humans would be a good idea which I have shown it s not. This point would only hold weight if my opponent showed that it was already a good idea and that we ought to do it now. The point is more advocating when we do it than if we do it.

Case in negation of the resolution

Basic rights and "de-powerization"

My opponent has conceded the point in his Exploitation point that super humans have basic human rights even if they have super powers. I will utilize this point to negate the resolution. For since super humans have basic rights like everyone else, the mere fact that they have super powers ought not negate those rights.

One of these rights which everyone possesses is the right not to have rights infringed on unless as a response to the infringement on the rights of others. Seeing as in this scenario, super humans are being pre-emptively de-powered, we can assume they have not necessarily done anything to require de-powerization. I hold that if super humans infringe on the rights of others to such a degree that not de-powering them would casually cause infringement on the rights of others, de-powerization would prove moral. However, seeing as my opponent's scenario involves pre-emptive action, it is not moral.
Debate Round No. 2
Hardcore.Pwnography

Pro

Thanks for the reply, again in the nick of time. Here I was, hoping for a forfeit. How silly of me.
Anyways, I will defend my previous arguments, as well as refute the short paragraph that is my opponent's case.

Defense of Previous Contentions

D1: Stranger Danger

CON makes a feeble attempt at refuting my argument by saying it proves too much, as hostages can be used against businessmen and politicians. Viewers and voters please note, that this is a straw man fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

I may be supporting that politicians and businessmen should be depowered, but that would not relate to this resolution, as this resolution, I remind you CON, is that we would depower all superhumans. Please be aware that businessmen and politicians would not fit in this superhuman category.

Furthermore, we have no method of depowering businessmen and politicians, unlike with superhumans as we have the EMR. Therefore, we would not be able to even depower politicians or businessmen. It is obvious that CON's refutation is not logical nor is it strong. Therefore, my argument still stands.

Sub D1: Clashes

Again with the straw man fallacy. CON believes that saying: "My opponent's plan would take out one source of unaccountable power while still leaving sources of exponentially more power completely unchecked." is a sufficient enough refutation.

First, let me say that nations at war with each other have nothing to do with depowering of superhumans. CON is obviously misrepresenting my argument.

Furthermore, CON says that by taking out one source of power (superhumans) we would still leave other powers unchecked (countries). This is a red herring logical fallacy, as CON introduces the argument of leaving other powers unchecked, which has no relation to the original topic. http://www.nizkor.org...

CON's case is that we should not depower the superhumans, not depower country's nukes. Moreover, CON supports the notion that we should not use the EMR. By not using the EMR, we would still leave sources of exponentially more power, as CON says, unchecked. In fact, it would be much worse, as we would have these sources of unchecked power as well as the power of the superhumans.

D2: Exploitation

CON brings up the point that superhumans are not the only ones that are experimented on.
I must remind CON that "We" are the United Nations of the world of Capcom and Marvel. (Look at round 1)
CON accepted these terms in round 1, so he can hardly contest them now.

Jews, homosexuals, etc. may be experimented on in our world, Earth, but not in Capcom or Marvel. If CON does not believe this, I challenge him to find a comic by Capcom or Marvel that depicts these groups getting experimented on.

Therefore, CON's refutation of "it would be the moral option to render homosexuals as heterosexuals, force conversion from Judaism, etc. This point is to show that even if the consequences might seem desirable, the effects on the characteristics that make that person "them" must outweigh the desired consequences" is invalid, as there are no homosexuals in Capcom or Marvel, so homosexuals would not be rendered heterosexual, and we would not force conversion from Judaism.

Therefore, CON's refutation is invalid.

D3: Temptation

I apologize for the skip in numbers. I do have trouble counting.

Do I sense straw man? I sense straw man.
Again, the depowerment of politicians does not relate to the resolution at all. It is the depowerment of superhumans.

When politicians use their position of power to get what they want, they should be arrested. Furthermore, politicians differ from superhumans because of the fact that they are elected into power. Therefore, it is much worse if a politican uses their power to get what they want, as they represent the populace.

Just to add on to my point, most superhumans are merely teens or young adults (Spiderman, many of the X-Men characters such as nightcrawler). During this time, they are still growing, and do not truly recognize the full extent of their power nor are they fully mature. As adolescents, they are more prone to temptation. We see this when underage teens drink and smoke, because their peers do and they want to fit in. As a result, these superhumans are much more likely to use their powers for not so good causes than a mature adult politician.

D4: Evolution

CON attempts at a refutation here by saying: "This point would only hold weight if my opponent showed that it was already a good idea and that we ought to do it now".

I have clearly shown that this is a good idea, as all my points still stand. This is a good idea because innocent lives may get harmed, these superhumans may be exploited, and these superhumans may use their power for not so good causes.

I have shown that we ought to do it now because like every living being, the superhumans will evolve in the future. These evolutions may include the resistance to EMR, and we would not be able to depower them. Also, by depowering them now, we save more innocent lives, we save more superhumans from being exploited, and we save more superhumans from succumbing to temptation than if we waited.

Therefore, as CON says, my point holds weight.

Refutation of CON's Case.

R.1: Basic Rights and "De-Powerization".

CON says, "super humans are being pre-emptively de-powered, we can assume they have not necessarily done anything to require de-powerization"

I must stress that this is not true. Superhumans are not being pre-emptively depowered. They have done things in the past the require de-powerization. The main thing that comes to mind is the many fights that have occured.

If you look at the video I posted last round, you can see Spiderman fighting Sand Man. This fight puts many lives in danger, including the lives of Mary Jane and the many bystanders. It is actions like these that require depowerization. It is actions like these that prove that superhumans are not being pre-emptively depowered, as they have endangered lives before.

CON also says: "I hold that if super humans infringe on the rights of others to such a degree that not de-powering them would casually cause infringement on the rights of others, de-powerization would prove moral. However, seeing as my opponent's scenario involves pre-emptive action, it is not moral."

Superhumans do infringe on the rights of others, though. As I have proved before, supervillains tend to kidnap hostages, as you can see with Mary Jane.

This kidnapping is a clear infrignement of Article 3 and 9 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights.
http://www.un.org...

"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."
"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile."
By being kidnapped and held hostage, then the hostage does not have liberty, nor the security of person. Furthermore the act of kidnapping is an arbitary arrest, as the hostage is taken into custody.


As I have just proved that my scenario does not invovled pre-emptive action, and as CON himself stated if the actions of superhumans infringe on the rights of others, the depowerization of superhumans is moral.

Conclusion

As a result of several logical fallacies presented by CON, and the fact that he agreed if I could prove that superhumans infringed on the rights of others, I have clearly won this debate.

Therefore, I urge a vote for Pro.







socialpinko

Con

C1: Stranger danger

My opponent's defense of his point rests on pointing out that my refutation does not relate to the resolution since we are arguing whether or not superheroes should de-powered, not whether businessmen or politicians should. My opponent argues that thus anything not related to superhero de-powerization does not relate to the resolution. However, I contend that if we (as reasonable and logical beings) are to evaluate the resolution and it's premises, we must be able to apply it to other similar situations to determine it's consistency.

My opponent employs a crucial principle to the defense of the resolution. He argues that superheroes and super villains are a large risk to innocent bystanders and third parties with their super powered excursions and battles and therefore, the public would be more safe if the source of these disturbances was destroyed (super powers). I argue, that if this principle were applied consistently (that people with large amounts of power that hurt the public ought to have this power taken away) than it would support the "de-powerization" of politicians, powerful businessmen, and any other figure who wields a large amount of power. I employ the logical extension of this principle to show that the maxim that my opponent argues on is faulty.

Sub C1: Clashes

My opponent again misunderstands my argument. I am not trying to bring unrelated topics to this debate, I'm merely applying my opponent's principle on which he argues consistently. If we were to de-power super humans because they cause damage during clashes, then applied consistently, we should also de-power nations since they cause invariably more damage during the course of wars and international conflicts than super humans. Thus my opponent's maxim logically supports a patently absurd idea, that entire nation's armies (or at least a large percentage) ought to be dismantled in the name of the public good.

My opponent tries to defend this positions (along with calling it a red herring) by arguing that even if he is arguing inconsistently, de-powering superheroes and leaving nations at full power is still better than leaving them both at full power. My opponent argues that I am arguing inconsistently by arguing against limiting super human power, but am arguing for limiting national power. Again, this is a gross misrepresentation. I am arguing that my opponent's own reasoning supports grossly cutting national power, not that I support it. I am merely pointing out the unreasonableness and irrationality of my opponent's own maxims which he builds his case on.

C2: Exploitation

My opponent brings an interesting point up here. He argues that even if his point supports the render homosexuals as heterosexuals, "there are no homosexuals in Capcom or Marvel". Interesting, as Dante Ortega was featured in the Marvel comic book Emma Frost for a time as Christian Frost's boyfriend[1]. Other Marvel characters were also homosexuals, including Christian Frost, Chili Storm[2], and others[3].

On my opponent's other attempt to refute this point, he argues that "Jews, homosexuals, etc. may be experimented on in our world, Earth, but not in Capcom or Marvel". I must point out though that this is patently untrue. Magneto (a popular character in the X-men series) was actually persecuted during the Holocaust(see video), perhaps the most known and emotional form in which Jewish persecution took. I think there is no question that experimentation certainly goes on even in the world of comic books. Homosexuals (as well as a myriad of other races and marginal groups) were also experimented on during the Holocaust.

My opponent's attempt to disprove my point by simply ignoring experimentation on people and even the existence of homosexuality in the comic book world is futile.

C3: Temptation

My opponent's first attempt to defend his point against my refutation employs the same flawed reasoning from his C1 and sub-C1. He argues that I am improperly applying his maxims to a point that are irrelevant to the scope of this debate. However, I will remind my opponent and readers that I am merely extending my opponent's own points to their logical conclusions in order to show that they are lacking in reasoning or logic. Take for example, if I were to argue that midgets should be killed because they are short and short people deserve to die. One would certainly not be bringing irrelevant points if they showed that my argument would logically support the killing of children as well in the name of consistency as children and midgets are both short in comparison to the adult population.

My opponent next argues that superheroes are many times young and thus more prone to temptation and reckless decision making. However, this point actually doesn't apply to the scope of this debate since the resolution specifically states "We would depower ALL superhumans". A point supporting the "de-powerization" of only a fraction or even a majority (so long as it is not all) does not help my opponent's case.

C4: Evolution

My opponent admits that this point would only support the resolution as a possible time-table of when to depower super humans. While he falls back on the claim that he has supported this claim (which I contest) he must admit that this point is still not relevant to the debate at hand since we are entirely concerned with whether de-powering is a good idea at all, not when we should do it.

Con case

Basic rights and "de-powerization"

My opponent makes two contradictory claims over the course of this debate which are fatal to his case and his refutation of my own. He argues that "Superhumans are not being pre-emptively depowered" and that they "have done things in the past that require de-powerization". Again I will hold my opponent to his burden of proof as the defender of the resolution. The resolution states that he is defending the "de-powerization" of ALL super humans, however it has not and cannot be demonstrated that every single possessor of super human abilities has or will use them to infringe on the rights of others.

My opponent argues merely that super villains "tend" to take hostages. Again this is not sufficient to show that every super human will do so and thus de-powering every super human is unjustified. I agree that the Sandman might be deserving of "de-powerization" as restitution for his crimes. Not wanting all super humans pre-emptively de-powered does not preclude the defense of the "de-powerization" of wrong doers. But this does not prove that every single super human has infringed on the rights of others and therefore they are not ALL deserving of being de-powered.

[1] http://www.comicvine.com...
[2] http://marvel.wikia.com...(Earth-616)
[3] http://marvel.wikia.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Hardcore.Pwnography

Pro

D1: Stranger Danger

Here, CON drops my argument that we have no means of depowering politicians and businessmen, as we do not have an EMR for these situations.

CON wants consistency? Okay, I'll give him consistency.

When politicians and businessmen use their power to harm others, they get arrested. For example, when big name CEOs practice insider trading, they are using their position and hurting others who invest in the business. As a result, they get arrested. We can hardly arrest a superhero or supervillain, as superheroes protect our cities from these supervillains (the police are quite useless as they are mere humans) and as supervillains, they can easily escape from prison.

Therefore, we must take some sort of measure to punish these supervillains, as CON stated, we need consistency. We can do this with depowerment. Therefore, superheroes (as they are the good guys) are able to lead normal lives as humans, and the supervillains can now be arrested and charged for crimes that he committed as a supervillain.

In fact, many superheroes want to lead normal lives and get rid of their powers. You think the they enjoy having their loved ones in constant danger? No, we would be doing many superheroes a favor by allowing them to lead normal lives. Frankly, we owe them this favor, as they have been saving our cities from supervillains for a long time.

Therefore, I have successfully defended my argument both ways. CON attempted to refute my argument with a straw man fallacy, which obviously is not a valid refutation, as it is a fallacy. However, CON insists that it was not a fallacy, and he is merely applying my concept consistently, though CON has failed on this front as well. I have applied it consistently, and still shown that we should depower all superhumans. Therefore, it is obvious that I win on this point.

Sub D1: Clashes

Again, I will show CON that when applied consistently, we should depower all superhumans.

CON says that we should depower nations. We are already trying to depower nations. Just look at the trade sanctions against Iran. http://www.international.gc.ca...

We are imposing these trade sanctions because Iran is developing nuclear weaponry, and these trade sanctions are done in an effort to depower nations, in this case Iran, from these nuclear weapons. Obviously, it is still a work in progress.

Therefore, when applied consistently, we should depower superhumans as well, as we are already depowering nations. Obviously, CON does not realize that by arguing consistency, he is improving my case. Therefore, I have won on this point as well.

D.2: Exploitation

Okay, true, there may be homosexuals in Marvel and Capcom, I did not realize this.
However, this still does not disprove my argument

This argument is about how superhumans will be experimented on because of their supernatural tendencies and powers. CON says that it proves too much, and, by my logic, we should make homosexuals heterosexual, and etc.

However, I must ask, what is wrong with making homosexuals heterosexual with the use of a similar EMR? I am sure that those homosexuals and Jews wished that they were not homosexual or Jewish during the time they were experimented on. If by using the EMR, changing homosexuals to heterosexuals and converted Jews to Christianity, we prevented these people from being tortured and experimented on, then I would argue that that is a much better option.

We would have saved these people much pain, and the morality of this outweighs the morality of conversion.

It is the same with the superhumans. The morality of saving them from the pain of experimentation and torture, outweighs the use of the EMR. Furthermore, I would like to remind CON that many of these superhumans wish that they could lead a normal life anyways, like I pointed out in my first defense this round.

Therefore, as it is much more moral to save people from pain, my point still stands.

D4: Temptation

Here, my opponent drops my argument that politicians should be arrested and is different from the depowerment of superhumans.

CON says that I am unable to consistently apply this argument. However, he fails to realize that I, in actuality, have. We arrest politicians for succumbing to temptation and abusing their power. As I pointed out in my first defense this round, we cannot arrest superhumans.

As a result, we must first depower them, and then arrest them if they have broken any laws during their time as a superhuman.

Also, CON says that " A point supporting the "de-powerization" of only a fraction or even a majority (so long as it is not all) does not help my opponent's case."

However, he fails to realize that it does help my case. The depowerment of the fraction of superhumans, the adolescents, is merely an added benefit to the depowerment of all superhumans, as they are much more prone to temptation as they are still growing.

CON conceives this to be an argument on its own. I would agree, that as an argument, this does not help my case. However, it is not an argument, but merely a beneficial side effect of this resolution. For example, say you are at a restaurant, and you're really feeling like Pizza. It is Saturday, a day where the restaurant gives a free side of fries with every Pizza ordered. This would certainly influence your decision. You would not order the Pizza for the fries, but merely, it would be an added benefit to the Pizza ordered, as fries or not, you still would have ordered the pizza.

Like how the fries benefit your meal, this argument which highlights the temptation of adolescents, benefits my case. Therefore, it helps my case. Also, applied consistently, I have again shown how we should depower superhumans as well. Therefore, my argument is still valid.

C.4: Evolution

My opponent uses the same flawed logic in his refutation, and CON also changes his views.

The previous round, CON says, "This point would only hold weight if my opponent showed that it was already a good idea and that we ought to do it now."

I have done what my opponent pointed out, which shows that the point holds weight. However now, CON says that my points are irrelevant to the debate, when clearly, he say that my point would hold weight if I proved these things, which I have.

My points are relevant to the debate. As CON says, we are "concerned with whether de-powering is a good idea at all."

This argument supports that line of reasoning. Depowering is a good idea, as superhumans may develop a resistance to the EMR and if needed, future attempts at depowering may prove useless, which is why depowering now is a good idea.

Clearly, my opponent doesn't know what he is talking about. This argument is still valid.

Refutation

R.1 Basic rights and "de-powerization"

I will now refute my opponent's one argument.

CON says that "however it has not and cannot be demonstrated that every single possessor of super human abilities has or will use them to infringe on the rights of others."

However, I have proved this stance. Note that in the first round, my sub C1 point of Clash, I stated that superhumans will inevitably clash and there will always be a fight. CON did not contest that they will alway clash and fight. He merely said that this was not a valid point to prove the resolution (which I contested). Therefore, it is assumed that he agrees.

As a pointed out in the previous round, a basic right is the security of person, in essence, safety. Therefore, it is infringing on the rights of people around the fight (bystanders) caught in the crossfire, as their security of person is being violated. As CON himself said, " I hold that if super humans infringe on the rights of others to such a degree that not de-powering them would casually cause infringement on the rights of others, de-powerization would prove moral. "

Therefore, CON has conceded his case to me.
As a result, it is obvious that I have won this debate.

Thanks to the voters for reading and CON for debating this topic with me.

I urge a vote for PRO.


socialpinko

Con

C1: Stranger danger

To my opponent's point about de-powering politicians and businessmen, he argues that there is no way to do so as we have no EMR for these people. Obviously though there are way to take away power from politicians and businessmen. Businessmen can have their wealth and property expropriated away and politicians can be thrown from power. Obviously since some politicians and businessmen act in a way harmful to the public's interest, my opponent must advocate the de-powering of every businessman and politician.

My opponent then argues that the best way to deal with businessmen and politicians who abuse their power is to take them out of power, on a case by case basis. Meaning businessmen who are good honest people and don't hurt anyone should be left alone as well as politicians who follow the rules set out for them. On this point I wholeheartedly agree. In fact, this is the point I have been arguing for over the course of this debate. I have been arguing that we should not automatically take away the power of every single super human (remember this is what my opponent is defending as the resolution mentions "all" super humans specifically), but that super humans who abuse that power or infringe on the rights of others may be de-powered.

My entire point was a reducto ad absurdum on my opponent's point. For if he argues that all super humans ought to be de-powered because some (though not all) infringe on the rights of others with their powers, then he must also advocate the "de-powering" of any other group of people where some portion of them abuses their power (remember that I have shown that businessmen and politicians can in fact be de-powered, just not with an EMR). Since this logical conclusion is patently absurd, we must conclude the same for my opponent's conclusion regarding super humans.

My opponent makes a few other points here. He also argues that the EMR should be used to punish super humans who abuse their power. Again, this supports a case by case basis approach which I have defended, and contradicts my opponent's own position of de-powering ALL super humans. My opponent also argues that many super humans wish to lead normal lives and thus we would be doing them a favor. Nothing in my own position precludes super humans from voluntarily undergoing the EMR. It is my opponent's position which does not allow non-aggressive super humans to go on possessing their powers.

Sub-C1: Clashes

My opponent's first point is that we are de-powering nations, citing as an example trade sanctions against Iran. However, this would be akin to Superman and the X-men de-powering Color Kid because he's too powerful[1]. Let me explain. When comparing the relative strengths of country's miltary's, Iran doesn't even make the top 50[2] while those imposing the sanction (the U.S., Canada, European powers) are much more powerful. For instance, the United States is near universally ranked as the most powerful country in the world. Iran is developing nuclear technology while the United States and Russia possess an amount of nuclear power that would dwarf anything that Iran could hope to develop. Again, this is akin to Superman and the X-men de-powering Color Kid for being too strong.

C2: Exploitation

My opponent argues that it would actually be the moral decision to forcefully convert Jews to Christianity and make homosexuals into heterosexuals since it would diminish the pain those groups would feel collectively. In all honesty, I did not expect my opponent to take my reductio seriously as it was meat to show the absurdity of my opponent's argument. My point was that homosexuals and Jews have not acted aggressively against anyone and thus should not be forcefully subjected to the EMR. If it would really save them from so much pain and anguish, then it would make sense that they would go willingly, thus contradicting any need to forcefully use the EMR on them. However, if they feel like they would rather be their natural selves and be tortured rather than changing themselves to escape pain, that is obviously their own choice to make.

C3: Temptation

My opponent argues again that just as politicians who abuse their power are arrested, so should super humans who abuse their power (with the exception that they be subjected to the EMR). Again, I agree with this point, it is my opponent who is arguing against it by supporting that super humans ALL be de-powered, not just those who break laws or infringe on the rights of others. By his own logic, all politicians should be forced out of power because some politicians abuse it.

My opponent then further argues his point that adolescent super humans are apt to succumb to temptations and break the law. I argue that if they do do so, then they should be punished (with possibly the EMR). The same logic of my opponent could be used to support the pre-emptive jailing of teenagers because they're likely to take drugs or try alcohol. The point is incoherent and supports aggression against people who haven't actually done anything yet. As I've stated before, if they do break laws or infringe on the rights of others, then de-powerization could be a viable option.

C4: Evolution

My opponent further argues that super humans MIGHT develop a resistance to the EMR on their own (without ever being subjected to it apparently), therefore we should de-power them all now before it's too late. However, as I've shown already, this point predicates on the soundness of my opponent's other points for de-powerization. If those arguments hold weight, then so does this one. However, if they do not, then this one does not. Either way, the entire scope of this point has to do with WHEN, not IF and thus it is irrelevant to the debate at hand anyways.

Con case

Basic rights an "de-powerization"

My opponent argues that super humans will "inevitably" clash and fight and thus the EMR is the only way to stop this. Of course, my opponent shouldered himself with a quite impossible burden of proof with this point as it is impossible to show that every super human to ever exist will infringe on the rights of others and break laws just as it is impossible to show that every UFC fighter will get into a fight on the street. If my opponent had even attempted to ove this, rather than showing a single example of a fight, that might have helped with his point.

My opponent next argues that the right in security of person is also the right to safety. My opponent then goes on to argue that because people have their security infringed on during fights, super humans are infringing on their rights and should thus be de-powered. Again, I am not arguing that super humans who do infringe on the rights of others must be left alone and go unpunished, however, I am arguing that those super humans who do not engage in huge public fights (and remember that my opponent has not upheld his BoP to show that every super human will) should not be subjected to the EMR. My opponent has not shown that by the mere fact that one has some sort of super power, one will necessarily infringe on the rights of others. Therefore, de-powering every super human is an infringement on their own rights and unjustified.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.globalfirepower.com...
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by socialpinko 2 years ago
socialpinko
I dont think it's a vote bomb. That's just how everyone used to vote before all this shart came out about crappy RFD's. If you have a problem with his vote, simply ask him for a more in depth RFD. He hasn't been here for a while so is probably unfamiliar with current voting "etiquette".
Posted by Hardcore.Pwnography 2 years ago
Hardcore.Pwnography
lol koopin, votebomb?
Posted by Guitar_Guru 2 years ago
Guitar_Guru
The whole Evolution argument wasn't strong and it didn't flow to either side because neither side tried to get any Offense with it. Con should have made the argument that "Just because one is possibly going to be able to resist arrest doesn't make it right to arrest them now" and he can warrant this with the idea of Iran (Which would have been strong because Pro brought it up himself) He could have said just because they might be able to resist us telling them to stop in the future doesn't make it right for us to go over there and oppress them like we have. Once again I can't infer.

The Con argument of basic Rights once again flowed Pro. The first reason is because I don't buy the argument that keeping these super human abilities fall under their BASIC Human Rights. The second reason is even if I do buy that these Super Human Rights are to be in tact with their Basic Human rights it still flows Pro because of the contention of Stranger Danger standing tall and hard. The contention of Basic Rights was simply flowed Pro due to the infringement of rights they indirectly create to innocent people due to them having their powers. Therefore the right used to cause the infringement is revoked

Good Round to both sides though. It was very interesting to read through and I hope my RFD Seems fair to both sides. If either side has any questions feel free to ask.
Posted by Guitar_Guru 2 years ago
Guitar_Guru
RFD: I feel that all of the refutations made by Con were very weak because of two reasons. 1) The definition of Super Humans defeated all of those refutations. Even though he tried to get out of it by saying affirming still perpetuates this idea I couldn't really look to that because of the second reason. 2) Pro's argument that we de-power Politicians and Nations that hold extreme power and do wrong things with them and perpetuate wrong things with their power was very strong and bought me totally. An additional idea I would have brought up if i were Pro (But I didn't infer for him) Was that often when Politicians mean to do good things but perpetuate bad things (i.e promote laws that are supposed to protect the public but harm them) are revolted against and taken out of power. If you made this argument I would have been able to vote for your first contention Stranger Danger right of the bat but you didn't. Then the second contention of exploitation was very weak on both sides. I felt the first refutation against it from the Con was extremely strong and the defense for it from Pro was extremely weak but I still couldn't look to it to vote for Con because Con attempted no offense with this what-so-ever. I couldn't infer that he was because he never explicitly said it therefore I considered it a defensive reason to not vote for Pro but I feel it wasn't enough to fight back the first Contention Stranger Danger. The next argument of Temptation went to Pro. I bought his whole "Side-Dish" Argument only because I couldn't buy the Perpetuation argument against it. Con should have made the argument "Just because one is tempted to do bad doesn't mean they will do so" Yet he never made that argument he stuck to the Perpetuation argument of "Anyone holding power will now be taken out" Also an argument the Pro could have made here to make his case stronger is the fact that we have faced situations where heroes turn to villains due to temptation. Once again I can't infer for you.
Posted by socialpinko 2 years ago
socialpinko
I mix it up.
Posted by Hardcore.Pwnography 2 years ago
Hardcore.Pwnography
Now you reply with an argument right away... Just when I am busy.
Posted by PeacefulChaos 2 years ago
PeacefulChaos
You guys would de-power me? What kind of sick monsters are you?!
Posted by Maikuru 2 years ago
Maikuru
Cool topic.
Posted by Hardcore.Pwnography 2 years ago
Hardcore.Pwnography
Always posting at the last minute.
Posted by socialpinko 2 years ago
socialpinko
With thirty minutes to spare.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Koopin 2 years ago
Koopin
Hardcore.PwnographysocialpinkoTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I feel like the arguements were neck and neck, but pinko pulled it off in the end.
Vote Placed by Guitar_Guru 2 years ago
Guitar_Guru
Hardcore.PwnographysocialpinkoTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources to Con seeing that he used his sources much more effectively. Spelling/Grammar to Pro for a few less mistakes on his part. The RFD for Arguments will be posted in the comments section.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
Hardcore.PwnographysocialpinkoTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Well arguments tie off. The reason for sources is: 1. Con had more 2. Except for the UN source cons sources where more credible ones. Hence the vote. Good debate.