The World is Better Off Without Superheroes
Debate Rounds (3)
I will be arguing that the world is truly better off without superheroes. I define superheroes as those with superpowers or tech equipment which gives them an advantage over normal humans. Simple examples include Superman, Batman, Spiderman and so on. The premise of this debate is therefore in the fictional world. Everyday 'heroes' such as engineers and doctors do not fall into this definition of the debate.
My main point is that superheroes are humans and are susceptible to errors in judgement which can cause harm to the society. The fact that they can literally kill off someone or destroy entire cities if they choose to is evidence enough as we can see from watching countless Marvel and DC movies and TV series.
If the opposition argue that this was to save the world from supervillains, or that we should implement a law where all superheroes are registered under government and can only act under government supervision, I have my rebuttals for this.
Firstly, supervillains also fall under my definition of superheroes since they have super abilities. Whether they are seen as a villain or as a hero is another story since this depends on your perspective. The debate today is about whether or not it is good for these guys to EXIST at all. In this, I argue that they should not even exist. If we can do so, we would live in a fictional world where super abilities are totally banned from the population regardless of a person's intentions because we never know when someone turns 'bad'. Under their logic, they may think that they are doing something good. In the process, they cause havoc to our world especially evident in the Batman vs Superman trailer. Wouldn't if be easier to just totally get rid of all these super abilities (assuming we somehow can).
Secondly, just cause they are registered or under supervision, who's to say they won't start an underground or terrorist movement? They can ban together, and even if 2 or 3 got together, its bad.
MrYazid forfeited this round.
The proposition team have been emphasizing that superheroes shouldn't even exist due to the possibility of them turning bad. Is it ethical to have a small possibility of turning bad, which might not even occur, as a reason to deny the existence of a community? Say if we are to say that kind of reasoning is rational, then, we shouldn't exist either. Our actions are very impactful in itself towards the flora and faunas of this world, making us kind of superheroes to them. Just because a small portion of us turned bad and start destroying the nature, does that mean we shouldn't exist in the first place? Despite having some of us being bad,, a larger number have been on the go combating these 'villains' and at the same time improving conditions of the nature, which leads to my first point that superheroes help improve civilisation.
Superheroes are beings that have the intelligence and ability to help accelerate civilisation. These superheroes would be able to contribute to society in many ways such as creating high-tech infrastructure whilst ensuring safety within the progress is maintained at a high level. For example, superheroes which come to obtain his title due to high intelligence such as Tony Stark and Batman would be able to aid in introducing next generation technologies and infrastructures. Other superheroes which have high experience in saving people from unexpected misfortune could help share their experience in creating a safer environment. Take spiderman as an example. He have a lot of experience in helping unfortunate people who almost dies due to poor safety conditions in construction sites. Spiderman would be able to give his perspective from his experience on why this accidents keep on happening, which would help open a new vision for the authorities to design more effective safety regulations.
Thus we from the opposition team supports existence of superheroes for the sake of brighter and safer future together.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.