The Instigator
Tthompson1995
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
kyleflanagan97
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The avengers should not have signed the soviet accords

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/16/2016 Category: Movies
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 441 times Debate No: 91317
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Tthompson1995

Pro

I am for the argument that the avengers should not have signed the accords. If you disagree I would love to debate. For round 1 please just put your stance and we will begin devating round 2
kyleflanagan97

Con

The Avengers should have signed the soviet accords, it was the only way they would be able to actually help people without the vigilante stigma.
Debate Round No. 1
Tthompson1995

Pro

I think that the most important thing the avengers could have would be unity. So by some signing and some not sogning, it obviously caused a breach in that unity. And with that point alone, the blame couldn't really go to either side. But lets look at the main reasons that the people who signed decided to. The first reason was because they thought they should "be kept in check." This was not done by iron man or romanov. Both decided to do their own thing and not worry about whether it was what the UN wanted them to do or not. I think another point would be involving a conversation between romanov and cap. Romanov said "staying together is the most important thing." Captain America replied "But at what cost?" I think he is saying that staying together as vigilantes has less consequences than staying together as a part of the UN. I think it would be measured by the number of lives that would be lost. The avengers would only be able to do something when the panel of UN members says they can. So i think that more lives would be lost if they can only defend the nations "whenever the panel sees fit" rather than when the avengers deem it necessary
kyleflanagan97

Con

But doesn't captain america prove that he needs to be kept in check when he is willing to fight members of his own team to protect a friend, who yes had no control over his own-self, but was still responsible for the deaths of many. How effective can a group be if they do not have the support of the people they are trying to protect. People would not feel safe when the Avengers arrived, they would simply see it as trading one problem for another, by signing the soviet accords they would rebuild that trust.
Debate Round No. 2
Tthompson1995

Pro

Captain America doesn't fight anyone on his team. He fights other heroes after they signed the accord, ending the partnership between them. Second point, having the peoples support has nothing to do with the effectiveness of a team. Batman is hated by most everyone in gotham because they believe he is responsible for things harvey dent did. I also still think my other point that with the avengers signing the accord hasnt been answered because more lives would be lost than by not signing at all because a panel would only let them stop crime "when they see fit"
kyleflanagan97

Con

I don't see the team having broken up when the accord is signed, it is when captain america helps a known criminal. And batman only works in the parameter of gotham city, so while some see him as a vigilante, they also see the good he's done in that city, but the Avengers work on a global scale, so they may show up to a city only once and nearly destroy a city and then leave and never return.
Debate Round No. 3
Tthompson1995

Pro

You dont see how the team is broken up after the accord is signed? By law the ones who didnt sign are no longer heroes and are forced to retire. When captain America didnt sign, he was no longer a recognized avenger. He may not have been on the UN most wanted list at that time, but captain was certainly not on their team. And my point was not whether the majority of people see batman as a vigilante or hero, but that peoples opinion have no weight on how effective the group is. And the avengers are stopping crime that would be more dangerous and cause more damage than what the avengers do trying to stop them. If the avengers stop someone trying to blow up the world, but in stopping him they blow up a building, i think that the second is the most beneficial of the city.
kyleflanagan97

Con

While it is true that it is the lesser of two evils, there has to be accountability for the blowing up of the building. By signing the accords they allow someone to be responsible for the collateral damage. It is a lot more reasonable for the president of a country to allow the UN to have blown up a building for collateral damage then a band of vigilantes to have blown up a building.
Debate Round No. 4
Tthompson1995

Pro

Paying collateral damage? That is the issue??? It has not been an issue ever and has never been brought up in any movie. There was never a problem mentioned about who is going to pay for this. My points are that it was wrong to sign because the people were inconsistent with the reasons they gave to sign, they are the ones responsible for breaking unity, and it is going to cause more danger to all people if the UN is in charge. I think that lives are more important than collateral damage.
kyleflanagan97

Con

I don't think it does save more lives to allow them to personally chose what threats they intervene in. I feel a lot safer that the government decides where to send our military, and that the military doesn't just go and fight in everything they feel like intervening in. Making them accountable to someone is the only way to ensure that there is no chance they break off to a movie on revenge.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.