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

The most profitable superpower, that the human mind can imagine, would be superpower manufacturing.

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: 8/26/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,594 times Debate No: 25298
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (41)
Votes (1)




As the pro I shall be setting out boundaries and giving definitions. I would like the con to focus more on proving my case wrong than proposing a better power, however I shall accept the latter tactic, it just complicates the debate more.

Boundaries of this debate: -

1) Do not say that my suggested power is impossible since we are being imaginative and talking in terms of fantasy and not reality.

Definitions: -

Profitable: yielding advantageous returns or results.[1]

Superpower: power greater in scope or magnitude than that which is considered natural or has previously existed.[2]

Human: A human being.[3]

Human being: any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens.[4]

Mind: the element, part, substance, or process that reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, judges.[5]

Imagine: to form a mental image of (something not actually present to the senses).[6]

Manufacturing: Present-tense of manufacture.

Manufacture: the making or producing of anything.[7]

Superpower Manufacturing [self-created definition]: The making or producing of power greater in scope or magnitude than that which is considered natural or has previously existed.


Best of luck to my opponent.



I accept this debate, on the grounds that my opponent strictly sticks to the definition of 'Superpower Manufacturing' that he has proposed.

Since he has not yet made an argument, I assume this debate is supposed to begin in round 2.

Good luck.

Debate Round No. 1


YES! Thank you to my opponent for not being a coward and stepping up to the plate when he could. I will stick to my definition as long as you realise that if the definition is "the making or producing of power greater in scope or magnitude than that which is considered natural or has previously existed." then, once produced, the power can be traded just like a shampoo bottle can be traded once manufactured.

The nature of the power is something like this (I will accept an alternative method of it being carried out, as long as it doesn't limit the power's capacity): The user 'shudders' their body by a voluntary action that is only voluntary after having got the power for one can not voluntarily shudder the entire body continuously unless they have a genetic mutation. While in this shuddering state (it is quite different from shivering in that it doesn't warm the body up but merely separates the mind from any physical attribute). When the shuddering occurs, the user enters a state of mind in which it is purely imagination (all other parts of brain are shut off, apart form memory as without remembering what power they wanted before entering the state, one cannot imagine a power. The person continues to imagine until they stop imagining. If the power has no further alterations, conditions or terms of use added to it for 10 seconds then the power will be created.

I argue that this power is the most profitable since no other power has the same reaping of rewards, nor results, as this power.

My opponent cannot simply base their debate on countering my power being profitable but rather has to prove that there exists one, if not more powers that are more profitable.


I choose the power to completely and utterly manipulate all living beings at all times.

I explicitly prevent my opponent from giving himself this power and if he does, I force him to give himself the power to remove other powers and then remove aforementioned power.

Now, my opponent, being super-human himself is completely under my control and unable to do anything about it. Since his power requires him to be in the vicinity of the people he wishes to give powers to, he is unable to affect me (even though he couldn't anyway).

I force him to give me 51% of his profits, making my power more profitable.

Over to you.
Debate Round No. 2


I counter this on the very premise that it only works if you get your power before mine.

We are discussing which the most profitable superpower is. Not which would win in a battle.

If,you died and no longer could control my mind or if at any time under your control, I happened to find a way to convince myself to manufacture immunity to all powers and assign it to myself then I would suddenly lose all mind control and then while out of your control create the power to not just turn back time but undo actions altogether, then undo everything I did and then make you a miscarriage (since I can manufacture that power too.

Besides, we are discussing profits of the power itself, not who would beat the other.


This is really an impossible debate for me to win, unless I try such extreme under-handed tactics.

So let me elaborate...

If you exist in seperate worlds, our powers are (at the least) equally profitable. You can simply give yourself this power, or any of a number of 'money-producing' powers mentioned in the comments. However, I assert that since my power is one step less towards total global control, it is superior in "yielding advantageous returns or results".

If however, we existed in the same world and received our powers simultaneously, I would clearly be more profitable than you. On that ground, I obviously win this debate.

Thus, my power is superior to yours in all situations.

Over to you.

Debate Round No. 3


Firstly, the closing statement "Thus, my power is superior to yours in all situations." is untrue. You just stated that there is a situation in which we are equally profitable and yet you then say that your power is superior to mine in ALL situations...

Self-contradiction at its finest.

You said that if we received our powers simultaneously You would be more profitable than me. But what if I immediately gave myself immunity to all powers in, say, fifteen seconds (five seconds to shudder and think, then ten seconds to confirm my request) then I doubt that in fifteen seconds you would have realised that I have the ability which I do. You power merely would be to control all minds all the time, not the READ all minds all the time so ou'd be unaware of who I was or what power I had and wouldn't think, in fifteen seconds, of controlling anyone with a power to come forward and by that time I'd be immune to your power. The reason I say within fifteen seconds is that it's common sense, if one can have all powers that they would pick immunity to all other powers as soon as they could (for all they know they've been under mind control for their whole life).

As I said proposing a power to be superior to mine when, in reality, it's only superior if you get it before mine is ridiculous.

In terms of the profitability of your power, all you gain is control. I can leave people fully conscious and to be who they want as they like. You can't ever hav ea true friend, ever fall in love since you are unable to turn it off (you explicitly stated 'at all times' in your introduction to your power). Mine allows me to pick and choose which powers I want and which I do not. Any power that would indicate permanence I can simply choose not to produce.


Time to flex my semantic-fu muscles and finish this.

First of all, almost everything you said in your last round is demonstratably false.

"Firstly, the closing statement "Thus, my power is superior to yours in all situations." is untrue. You just stated that there is a situation in which we are equally profitable and yet you then say that your power is superior to mine in ALL situations..."

If you take what I said out of context, then you are course correct. In reality, I went on to explain that I was one step less towards total domination, thus I was superior. So, your point here fails.

Next, you propose that if we received our powers simultaneously, you would immediately give yourself immunity to my power. Then you say that I couldn't know anything about you or your powers, so I wouldn't know to prevent it... So you're allowed to give yourself the power to block other powers, but I'm not allowed to actively prevent everyone from blocking my power? Also, the time gap kills you here and gives me an obvious advantage.
Since you take 15 seconds to use receive your power, I have plenty of time to make my first move; preventing all living beings from blocking the use of my power and giving themselve a power equal to mine.

Alternatively, I could just stop all people on Earth from having any dealings with you, thus make you increasingly unhappy until you just choose to give yourself the power to explode your own head.

Additionally, you have misrepresented my power:
There is a big difference between these two:
I choose the power to completely and utterly manipulate all living beings at all times.
I choose the power of completely and utterly manipulating all living beings at all times.

...and the difference is that I can choose whether or not to manipulate people.


Arguments: My opponent's ridiculously over-powered power is convoluted, in that he has to think of a power before he can give it to himself and then he has to go through this 'shudder' process to use it. My power is simply control over every living being in the Universe, which is superior for the reasons I've laid out throughout this debate.

S&G: My opponent made no ridiculous mistakes, so this is even.

Conduct: My opponent immediately broke the condition I laid out in my first round by adding that powers can be traded between people. This adds an extra element which I had no idea of when I accepted. Conduct should go to me for this point.

Sources: I'm definitely a saucy individual, but this is also even.

GG, my friend. Please don't make any more douchebag, auto-win debates.

Debate Round No. 4
41 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by adontimasu 4 years ago
RM, calm down, mate. It's just a debate. :P
Posted by RationalMadman 4 years ago
thank you batman guy :D
Posted by ishallannoyyo 4 years ago
If I told you to jump off a cliff, would you? Just because he told the voters to vote that way doesn't mean they're going to.
Posted by RationalMadman 4 years ago
No but for real do you think that it's fair?
Posted by ObiWan 4 years ago
He provided his opinion on how people could vote, they don't have to agree with him.
Posted by RationalMadman 4 years ago
No but you LITERALLY TOLD THEM what to vote. that's out of order?!
Posted by tvellalott 4 years ago
Don't blame me because you don't have a good format. If people disagree with my summary, they can obviously vote differently...
Posted by RationalMadman 4 years ago
So I just say vote me for this and that and then the pro can't do anything?!!!!!!!!!!! that's cheat!
Posted by Man-is-good 4 years ago
*used by
Posted by Man-is-good 4 years ago
RationalMadman, that is actually a common practice by debaters who want to recap the debate in those categories...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by adontimasu 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's definition did not justify the distribution of superpowers; only the creation of them. Therefore, the profitability is lost. Furthermore, even if Pro could give powers away, Con could prevent others from using them or buying them, including Pro, with his power, thereby making the power ultimately useless in comparison. Victory: Con.