The Instigator
Tobias_Berenson
Pro (for)
Losing
22 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
29 Points

The jokers statement in the "Dark Knight" that "We are destined to do this forever" is true.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/1/2008 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,094 times Debate No: 4874
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (14)

 

Tobias_Berenson

Pro

The Joker: You just couldn't let me go could you? This is what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object. You truly are incorruptible aren't you? You won't kill me out of some misplaced sense of self-righteousness, and I won't kill you, because you're just too much fun. I think you and I are destined to do this forever.

I am an extreme fan of the Batman comic book. And i believe this statement to be true. 4 reasons will support me:
1.Batman is, as the joker states, truly incorruptible, and will not take a life.The Batman works to rid this city of the evil that took his parents life, and that means to deaths on his hand.
2.Because the joker is insane as well as a genius, he will forever be able to either escape from Arkham, or plead insanity, or trick and connive his way out.And because of batmans morals against killing he (the joker) will always end up back in arkham. it is a never ending circle. (Which came first, the joker, or the bat?)
3. Alfred Pennyworth: Because he thought it was good sport. Because some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.

This quote from alfred in the dark knight is one of the last supporting statement i need. The joker has no goal. He just wants chaos, anarchy. He wants to see the world "burn". and, in response to one of batmans questions

4."Why do you want to kill me?" the joker replies:
The Joker: [laughs] Kill you? I don't want to kill you! What would I do without you? Go back to ripping off mob dealers? No, no, you... you complete me."

Because the joker feels the batman completes him than its only logical that he will not kill batman either. This is circular, and a circle never ends, (now to use some science) not until an outside force ends its pattern. I assume this to be Comm. Gordon or Harley Quinn, which would end it. However it ends though, it will not be by the joker or by the batman. But by An outside force.

Thank you for taking me up on this in advance. Ive been working on it in my head for a while. Lets see how this works out, aye? my sources for direct quotes was imdb.
Danielle

Con

1. BATMAN WON'T KILL JOKER

Unlike other super heroes, Batman is entirely human. His name is Bruce Wayne and he has flaws just like everybody else. In fact the parallel character to Batman in the film The Dark Knight was Harvey Dent, who several times throughout the film was called Gotham's White Knight. As most of us know by now (I know my opponent does), Dent's character becomes skewed and we're introduced to the concept and transformation of/into Two Face. A major theme throughout the film was the triumph of evil over good, and the film sought to show how even good people have their limits, inconsistencies, and potential for evil or wrong-doing. Batman is not above those realities.

For instance, we know that when he had the choice to either save Rachel (for personal reasons) or Harvey (which would have been the better choice for the public), he made a selfish decision to save Rachel instead. This proves that although Batman is AWESOME, he is not above all aspects of human nature. Corruption is one consequence of being human, which is yet another theme explored in the film. However my point here is that there is no way to prove for certain that just because Batman has risen above corruption in the past, that he will always and forever.

--

2. THE JOKER IS INDESTRUCTABLE

Again this is entirely speculatory. Pro feels that Joker's genius/madness will always lead him to outsmarting the authorities, his enemies, etc. However not only can we not foresee the future, but we cannot be exactly sure just where the dichotomy of human nature will take us. Another interesting concept explored in the film The Dark Knight was the fact that good people have the capacity to do bad things, and likewise, bad people have the capacity to do good things as well. This became apparent when the two boats full of citizens chose NOT to blow each other up when they each had the chance. Indeed even a hardened criminal chose to rise above corruption and do the right thing; it was a stellar moment tributed to the goodness of human kind. Likewise, the theme of TWO FACE in general establishes that good and evil are opposing yet EQUAL forces. Thus just as someone completely good (Harvey Dent) could do evil, someone entirely evil (Joker) ALSO has the capacity to do good. And let's face it - a bad guy turned good is pretty common in films, especially super hero movies. Hell the Joker and Batman could even join forces sometime in the future - who knows. (An unlikely team but still my point stands...)

--

3. THE JOKER IS JUST EVIL

Pro brings up Alfred's quote of some men just wanting to see the world burn here, which is fine, except for the fact that it doesn't really do anything to support Pro's case. I agree that Joker is psychotic and seemingly an unstoppable force. I also agree that he thrives off chaos and bringing anarchy and madness to the world. Fine. But what does this have to do with the resolution? Simply because chaos and madness are inevitable to humanity does not mean that the Joker's presence or action is necessary in order to sustain it. So...?

--

4. JOKER WON'T KILL BATMAN

Here's the thing. The Joker's ultimate goal/pleasure is chaos, corruption, etc. Pro establishes this with his 3rd point. However what to do if Batman threatens to squash the Joker's hopes and dreams...? We must assume that Joker's quest for insanity and disturbia outweighs any feelings that he has for the Batman. Further, Pro has acknowledged that the Joker is completely mad -- I highly doubt he has a terrible amount of compassion. And since one element of madness is inconsistency (in fact it is often used as a determining factor of madness), we must conclude that Joker's actions are entirely non-predictable. Though he has spared Batman in the past, he certainly was not opposed to hurting him severely. Perhaps in the future he will take it a little too far and Batman will be killed.

--

MY REASONING:

1) The Joker and Batman have completely opposing goals. One of them is bound to wise up and realize that without destroying the other, neither side will triumph over the other. The Dark Knight evaluates how sometimes either side can win depending on the circumstances/situation, thus without the destruction of the other, it is not possible for there to be complete order (Batman) or complete chaos (Joker). While Joker may be content to just wreak havoc for sh1ts and giggles endlessly, Batman should realize that people are DYING as a result of Joker's little game. One potential outcome (of many) is that he chooses to sacrifice the Joker's life in order to save hundreds/thousands of others. So far he has rejected this path; however, after the Joker's resurrection time and time again, he may come to realize that ending Joker's life is the only way. He may decide that it is the RIGHT way. [ Interject all Pro-death penalty reasoning here :P ]

2) I still maintain that either the Batman or Joker can/will die on accident one day during an intense altercation. Even if it was an accident, it would still be one of them responsible for the others death, hence negating the resolution.

Anyway this debate is for fun so I'll end here for now and wait to see what my opponent has to say :)
Debate Round No. 1
Tobias_Berenson

Pro

Thank you for replying to the challenge.

first i will rebut the comments that my opponent has made on my original statements, (than will attack):
1. He says that batman does the selfish thing and saves rachel moss. this is wrong. He told the cops thats where he was going. But He was the one to pull Harvey dent out of the building before it blew.
2. Nothing.
3. This matters because it is part of what drives the Joker. as long as the batman exists he wont see the result he wants. but this is contradicted by my next statement, which leads back to a circle.So, whether you think this has to do or not with my argument, (which i have proved it does)and so it has not been contradicted.
4.nothing.
Alright, attacks on your points.
1. Batman will not take a life, this includes preventative, him grabbing the joker as he jumps, and stopping himself before the final blow is thrown. (this may be obscure)but batman did not allow ras al ghul to die when the last of the lazurus pits where gone, he gave in. He gave him one. Does this mean hes weak? no, but it supports me. He may be human, but he will not take a life. As alfred says to bruces question "What would you have me do?" alfred says "Endure". Enduring can mean fighting as long as the joker continues to exist, and not lowering his standards.
2.
3.
4. Joker wont kill batman. as long as he has tried, no matter who becomes his ally, or who helps him, he never wins. This is not purely because the good guy always wins, harvey dent didnt win, and as you said the theme is evil over good. But batman is the drive for joker to work for what he wants. Chaos. Anarchy. No one else can put up the challenge for the joker. Obviously comm loeb couldnt, and neither can gordon. not without the help of the batman. and anarchy, cant exist without people trying to put it down, (from the webster school dictionary, 2007).

Your points:
1.people die every day from crime for whatever reason. The joker is just part of gothams thing. The reasoning behind batman is that he will not do what the criminals do. He will not kill. Out of all the weapons he uses, he has no guns. He has weapons that are deadly, but he uses them non lethally. Batman knows people die from people like joker of scarecrow, or even a regular criminal. He has accepted this in not killing joker.
2.ah. well, as much as i would like to agree with this, i cant. An accidental death would not fullfill killing each other. the burden of a death doesnt fall on someone just because he was involved in the accident.

One more point of my own:
Rachel moss said in her letter to Bruce "we could be together if ever there was a time when Gotham wouldn't need batman, but i don't think you'll never not need him."
Batman wont just give up and let it happen. He needs the joker as much as the joker needs him. The joker gives him a villain to constantly look for, fight, and match wits against, thats what he does.

Well, we'll see how this goes i guess. ive just been told that apparantly my writing is too sporadic to understand. we'll see i guess.

Rich
Danielle

Con

1. Pro is wrong. Batman does, in fact, try to save Rachel Moss before saving Harvey Dent. The Joker makes this clear by telling Batman that he "accidentally switched them up," indicating that he in fact switched them up on purpose. Why? He wanted Batman to wind up saving the OPPOSITE of whom he would have chosen. The Joker's goal here was to have Rachel die in order to piss Batman enough for Batman to retaliate.

2. My opponent's response to my lengthy and valid point here was simply "Nothing." Thus this unrefuted point goes to me.

3. During the few points where Pro actually wishes to respond, his wording is inarticulate and I have a hard time understanding his point. In response to #3, he says that it is the Joker's madness which drives him to cause chaos, and that with Batman alive, he will never reach his goal... Pro says "this is contradicted by my next statement, which leads back to a circle" however he doesn't make a next statement. His response to #4 was again simply the word "nothing" meaning that he doesn't have a point at all. Mine still stands, which was the fact that BECAUSE the Joker is absolutely mad with absolutely no sound reasoning behind his judgment, YOU CANNOT PREDICT WHAT A MAD MAN WILL DO ALL OF THE TIME.

4. My point still stands after my opponent's "nothing" response, and this was a pretty big point...

--

"ATTACKS ON MY POINTS" rebuttal:

1. Now on to some kind of actual rebuttal, Pro maintains that Batman will not take a life, and notes that he hasn't taken Ras Al Ghul's life in the past. That's fine. But people's pasts do not always reflect their futures. For instance, I have never eaten Indian food, but that doesn't mean I never will. Similarly, even though I am in a FAR LESS "intense" occupation or lifestyle as Batman, I cannot say for certain that I will never take a life in the future, even though I haven't up to date. In The Dark Knight, Batman says several things that indicate the possibility of him revealing a "darker" side.

1) "You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain." Here Batman is acknowledging that he may one day abandon his moral code of ethics, including the #1 cardinal rule of not killing.

2) "I'm whatever Gotham needs me to be." Protecting Gotham is the Batman's #1 goal and priority. He will do whatever it takes - no matter how much he doesn't want to - in order to protect the lives of its citizens. This was exemplified in The Dark Knight when he put Gotham before himself on SEVERAL occasions (in choosing to come out of hiding, so to speak, and also in regards to Rachel Moss). Thus if it was necessary for the Joker to die, Batman would put Gotham's needs ahead of his own priorities.

2.
3.

Points 2 and 3 are left blank by my opponent...?

4. Again BECAUSE the Joker was agreed to be mad (by my opponent), we cannot assume that the Joker will NEVER kill Batman in the future. For one thing, his goals could change at any moment. For another, madness = insanity and that is never stable. Albert Einstein once said, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." This definitely applies to the Joker. Further, while the Joker may be BORED if Batman were gone, it doesn't mean that he would be upset in any other way. In fact, during the Dark Knight the Joker says "It's simple. Kill the Batman!" This proves that he actually doesn't care whether Batman was dead or alive (though he'd prefer him alive).

--

"My points" rebuttal? :

1. Pro points out again why the Batman hasn't killed the Joker in the past, but I've already refuted that.

2. "An accidental death would not fullfill killing each other. the burden of a death doesnt fall on someone just because he was involved in the accident."

This is completely wrong. An accidental death ABSOLUTELY fulfills killing each other, if they did in fact kill each other. Why does it matter whether it was an accident or not? The resolution does NOT reject this situation. Further, I don't know where Pro comes from, but the burden of death does fall on someone even if the death was an accident!!! Think of fist fights that turned deadly. Sentence? Murder. Consider the 15 year old kid who was play-fight wrestling with a younger kid and accidentally killed him. Sentence? Murder. Drunk driving accidents? Yep, the drivers are at fault (even if it was an accident). This point is laughably inarguable, and goes to the Con.

--

Opponent's Point:

"Batman wont just give up and let it happen. He needs the joker as much as the joker needs him. The joker gives him a villain to constantly look for, fight, and match wits against, thats what he does."

This suggests that the Batman is the Batman for fun or for sport; that he enjoys doing what he does. I disagree. While being Batman most certainly has its perks, consider all that Bruce Wayne has given up for the role: normalcy, no credit for his action, an immediate turn on him from the public after one misunderstanding after years of service, and most notably, Rachel Moss.

I believe that Batman is Batman because he knows it is the right thing to do. He knows it is the right thing to protect the citizens from Gotham as much as he can. It's almost a calling, and it would go against his moral code if he were to just give up when he knows he could make a difference and save lives. He wants to protect people. It has nothing to do with competing with the Joker and seeing who can outsmart the other. Fighting the Joker is DANGEROUS and Batman's life is at risk every time. If he dies, Gotham's hero dies. And as I've pointed out, being good for Gotham is his #1 priority. He establishes this throughout the film The Dark Knight AND in other endeavors. For Pro to express that the Batman NEEDS the Joker, he's going to have to do a little more explaining than that...
Debate Round No. 2
Tobias_Berenson

Pro

Tobias_Berenson forfeited this round.
Danielle

Con

Well Pro didn't respond in the final round, and since I'm Con, I really have nothing else to go by... I guess I have no choice but to extend all of my arguments. Keep in mind that none of my final points (which have trumped Pro's) have been refuted. That said, even if you acknowledge that The Joker and Batman will probably never kill each other, you should only vote based on the arguments made in this debate. I think I've brought up some pretty good points -- hopefully it was enough to encourage a Con vote. Thanks for reading!
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by USAPitBull63 8 years ago
USAPitBull63
The best rationale in the film was Alfred's assessment of trying to reason with people who refuse to think reasonably.

Sometimes, whether or not it's popular or pleasant, one must realize that trying to reason with evil is fruitless and just adds to the potential evil forced onto society.

So, as a conservative, I loved that major theme of the film.
Posted by Zero 8 years ago
Zero
In that case, it is disregarded then.
Posted by Tobias_Berenson 8 years ago
Tobias_Berenson
actually i didint type that comment. my brother was on and wanted to say it. so disregard that please.
Posted by Zero 8 years ago
Zero
I'd answer you, but I don't want to be accused of "helping" at this point. If you really don't care about whether or not I'd answer though, I'd be more than happy to respond immediately.
Posted by Tobias_Berenson 8 years ago
Tobias_Berenson
well zero that would be true, but he has dived after others in the past (the penguin in Haunted knight by jeph loeb), so whos to say that preventative doesnt go along with not taking a life?
Posted by Zero 8 years ago
Zero
And just so onlookers now, this post was made before a challenger took this debate up.
Posted by Zero 8 years ago
Zero
I like how "The dark knight" is currently beating "The Godfather" on IMDB.

Also, if I may be so blunt, if I were to point out that Batman could simply refuse to save the Joker (in a death trap of the Joker's doing) as he had refused to save Ras Al Ghul in batman begins, wouldn't that legitimately refute your point, which is that only an outside force would end the never ending struggle? Since that is the case, this debate is too easy. Be prepared to address this if your opponent wises up and points it out.
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Tobias_BerensonDanielleTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit, but Con already voted for herself.
Vote Placed by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
Tobias_BerensonDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Tobias_BerensonDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:70 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
Tobias_BerensonDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07 
Vote Placed by Seltz 8 years ago
Seltz
Tobias_BerensonDanielleTied
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 
Vote Placed by The_Devils_Advocate 8 years ago
The_Devils_Advocate
Tobias_BerensonDanielleTied
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 
Vote Placed by USAPitBull63 8 years ago
USAPitBull63
Tobias_BerensonDanielleTied
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 
Vote Placed by gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
Tobias_BerensonDanielleTied
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 
Vote Placed by Josh 8 years ago
Josh
Tobias_BerensonDanielleTied
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 
Vote Placed by DanWong 8 years ago
DanWong
Tobias_BerensonDanielleTied
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