This House would Register Super Humans.
Resolution: This House would Register Super Humans.
Register: "15. To enter or cause to be entered formally in a register" 
Superhuman: "having powers above and beyond those of mankind" 
For example, an individual with advanced martial arts skills would not be required to register. However, an invidual with inhuman strength or the ability to glow would be required to register.
1st Round Acceptance
2nd Round Standard
3rd Round Standard
4th Round NO NEW ARGUMENTS
NO REFERENCING OR CITING FICTIONAL MATERIAL SUCH AS MARVEL OR DC.
Reference/citing history or research studies is encouraged.
24 hour timer.
1000 character limit.
Footnotes (such as the links below) may be provided in the comment section to conserve characters. Be sure to specify which speech your footnotes are for.
I define 'this house' as an Earth wide organization capable of protecting and maintaining a list of super humans.
Super humans can be a danger to themselves and those around them. It is important for the sake of innocent civilians that volatile super humans be kept out of public places until they are stable. "This house" would be responsible not only for keeping the registry, but also providing resources to registered super humans to help them handle their abilities.
Super human abilities often emerge in the tumultuous teen years. "This house" would be at the front lines of helping teens develop their abilities in safe ways, and protecting them from manipulative third parties that could lead young minds astray.
Protecting the public from super human outbursts and guiding young super humans are my top two reasons why we should register super humans.
I challenge my opponent to define "volatile". My opponent argues that superhumans should be kept out of public places, and I would like to know how they plan to do so. I cannot rebut this point without elaboration of this point.
My opponent states that superhuman abilities often emerge in teen years. This is not an established pattern to my knowledge. I challenge him to prove this theory. Even if such powers emerged in teen years, I argue that attempting to guide these teenagers will lead to a rebellious streak, counteracting the effort.
I invite all to consider how many people fit into my opponent's description. The number is massive, but the population's true powers are underwhelming. The cost of maintaining a list of people who serve no threat to the population makes the endeavour a bewildering prospect. For example, I bring up Michel Lotito*. He possesses a power which, albeit above mankind's, is not a threat.
Clarification: The “would” in the resolution means that, in the case of super humans existing, this house would register them. Michel Lotito is an entertainer, not a super human. He eats bicycles by breaking them down into small pieces and drinking mineral oil . There is no evidence of super humans existing currently.
I. Volatile: “tending or threatening to break out into open violence”  or a danger to others. For example: a super human with the ability to drain the oxygen out of a room.
II. Per the rules, I am not allowed to directly cite fiction. However, emotional situations are more intense for teenagers , which would lend super human teens to volatility.
I challenge my opponent to prove that offering guidance to teens causes a worse reaction than not offering guidance.
A. CON believes a registry in unnecessary because the majority of super humans would be harmless. This ignores the minority of super humans that risk endangering civilians and must be monitored.
2. My opponent has been unable to cite evidence pertaining to the emergence of superpowers in teenagers. He instead has moved the goalposts to bring a new a reason into play, that superhuman teens are more volatile. I do not see how situations would be more volatile for teenagers, and adults would have more to lose when gaining superpowers.
A. I do not ignore the minority of superhumans that are dangerous, but such a minority hardly calls for a registry of the whole. If, instead, a registry of only volatile superhumans was created, such a system would be far more useful and cost-efficient in protecting the public.
Registration is the first step in identifying and keeping potentially volatile super humans out of situations that could result in mass casualties. Michel Lotito, as I mentioned earlier, was an entertainer. He used tricks and training to accomplish a mind boggling feat. This is no different than sword swallowers. Lotito was human.
Earlier, I cited that emotional situations are more intense for teenagers. CON's counter that adults would be more volatile is unsupported, and irrelevant. Adults would also be helped through the registry in the same way teens would.
CON claims a complete registry is unnecessary, and calls for a registry of only volatile super humans. What party would draw the line between volatile and harmless? How super human abilities develop and what their application will be is difficult to predict. I agree it is unnecessary to register individuals such as Lotito, but he is not super human.
Thank you for a pleasant debate.
I would like to reiterate that my opponent has not explained his policy as to keeping the superhumans from public. Michel Lotito was not reliant upon tricks and training. He had a stomach lining that was twice as thick as the average person.* This would fall under my opponent's definition of a superhuman, as one with powers above and beyond those of mankind.
As I said, my opponent was unable to support that superpowers often emerge in the tumultuous teen years", and the only references were fictional.** The new statement that teenagers would be more volatile is irrelevant, and shows case shift.
While it is difficult to predict superhuman development and application, the debate is supposedly "in the case of super humans existing". As for which powers are volatile, I would say that "this house" would be drawing the line, as my opponent has already given an example of in his second speech, "drain the oxygen out of a room".
Thank you for the debate
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|