The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

In a world where superheroes exist, THW force them to train and register with the government.

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
universalsteven has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/29/2018 Category: Funny
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 564 times Debate No: 111995
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




Model: We are setting this in a fictional WLD that has people born with superpowers. Essentially, everyone who wants to be a superhero must first take part in a monthlong training session hosted by older superheroes where they learn important skills like conducting themselves, minimizing collateral damage, etc. If they pass this class, they can then receive an official 'certification' from the government to perform superhero duties unencumbered. This also means that the government will know your name, where you live, etc. It is up to you whether you want to reveal this information to anyone else. If you are born with superpowers and do not want to be a superhero, you must take part in the training class, but do not need to perform superhero duties afterwards.

3 reasons for this. 1, accountability. 2, two-way communication, and 3, alleviating personal stress on the superhero.

1. Superheroes, even with the best intentions, frequently end up causing a lot of property deaths and collateral damage in their fights. While some level of this is unavoidable, it is problematic when someone in a mask simply causes damage and disappears into the night, leaving a baffled government to deal with repairs. Knowing that if a superhero gets too careless, there will be actual legal consequences, incentivizes superheroes to be more careful. This training will also enable them to do that, whereas in the status quo, there is less accountability. The knowledge that this accountability exists will also increase public trust in superheroes because they will feel more secure about superheroes. This also means that they will be more likely to cooperate with them, causing fewer collateral deaths.

2. Two-way communication. Under status quo, cops and gvt cannot directly communicate with superheroes if they do not know their identities. This can lead to situations like superheroes busting undercover cops for crimes because they do not know who is who, making it harder for both superheroes and law enforcement to do their jobs. Having the government know who each superhero is and how to contact them can benefit both parties in two ways.

First, it will prevent situations like superheroes stopping sting operations, making them more able to focus on stopping actual criminals. Secondly, if a government notices a threat (like aliens, or another country trying to attack them), they can directly contact the superhero, allowing them to assemble more quickly. Under status quo, if I'm a government official who knows an alien evasion is imminent, and knows a superhero called Lightning Man exists but no idea how to contact him, I am not going to be able to get the help I need for my country. This will remedy that problem.

3. Under status quo, superheroes often have to spend a lot of their time making sure their secret identities are not discovered by the police or the government. Why is this? Because currently, the relationships between these groups are very adversarial. Cops HATE Spider-man and don't want him to be on the streets any more BECAUSE of the lack of two-way communication mentioned previously. If training courses exist and governments can safely assume that these superheroes know what they're doing, the relationship will be less adversarial and more cooperative. This will alleviate a lot of stress on the superhero as they no longer need to hide their identity.

Ultimately, this will lead to fewer deaths, higher public trust in superheroes, an increased ability for heroes to safely do their jobs in an informed manner, and will make everyone feel more comfortable. We are proud to propose.


This is going to be fun! I would first like to begin by providing some constructive and then I will go into some thorough refutation. The primary claim in this debate is that this program would reduce the harms associated with the presence of superheroes in society. Side government rests their case on two main ideas that training will reduce harms and that the government can be trusted.

I will be presenting three constructive points The inefficacy of the program, The need for secrecy and The lack of government trust.

The inefficacy of the program
This program is completely infeasible as the program is far too short for any hero to be properly trained and the variety of powers would make standardized course material impossible.
I will make the assumption that control of one"s power would make its way into curricula. Should side Gov wish to contest my assessment by stating that use of powers was not included in her training schedule, I would simply state that controlling power is essential to a superhero and any citizen with superpowers. Should they wish to remain in secret the government would require assurances that their powers would not accidentally cause collateral damage, thus necessitating this be on curricula. Think of Xavier"s school and even sky high, this is essential training.

This creates the primary failure of this program there is not enough time in a month to properly train a superhero military basic training requires 14 weeks of constant day and night training to even be accepted into the armed forces, police forces require 35 weeks of full-time study.
The training associated with law enforcement procedures is far more intense than anyone could hope to achieve in a month of part-time study. These people are being trained simply to operate a gun whereas these heroes potentially have the power to level armies (superman, magneto, phoenix) this should require infinitely more training.

When asked in a POI via face book messenger regarding the proposed hours of study side gov stated the following "It would be a 'several hours after work on weekdays and full days on weekends situation'. Because this is mandatory, it would be somewhat like jury duty in that your employer has to give you the time off if you work unusual hours." (more on the jury duty point in arg 2). Reducing the hours even further.

This method of training has the following issues beyond insufficient hours.

This program is being marketed as a means of reducing collateral damage, and by extension control of superpowers. How is this possible when each new hero has the potential for a unique power? Even allowing for older heroes to train these individuals would prove problematic as there isn"t sufficient time for the trainers to understand how the powers work let alone train someone else in a month. This is simply not possible. Xavier had a boarding school that taught these individuals over years not merely weeks.

Additional issues arise when considering the locations of training facilities and the cost. Given the powers of these individuals and the danger associated with practicing their use, these facilities would need to be heavily reinforced installations and ideally very secluded from the public as any accidents could prove catastrophic. Imagine cyclops from the X-men leveling a city block in a training accident. Or Magneto accidentally destroying cars. These facilities would prove dangerous to all nearby citizens and very costly to repair after each incident.
Given side government analogy to jury duty it would also imply these facilities would be as prevalent as courthouses resulting in trillions of dollars of expense only to accidentally destroy their surrounding and thus increase the cost.

These costs and damages would be less than simply allowing these individuals to learn on their own. Sure one may accidentally do some damage to their home or neighbourhood but it"s far less than the damage possible when grouping many in one area and hoping for the best.

These individuals are in grave danger if any regular citizens learn of their identities. Nefarious individuals can exploit them by threatening to either harm them or their loved ones. A hero who can teleport would be a goldmine to a drug cartel shipping across borders. Once outed the potential for these individuals to be exploited is astronomical. This may not seem relevant but it most certainly is when the government is forcing these individuals to spend every evening and weekend training at a local facility. One could simply keep track of locals who fall of the earth for a month or stake out the training facilities. This creates an incredibly dangerous situation for these heroes as there discovery under this model is almost certain. They can be harassed, harmed or threatened to engage in criminal activity against their will simply to take a useless mandatory course.

Not only does forced participation bring up questions regarding human rights but when the program actively harms these individuals by outing them, it is clear it is wrong.

Given that the training course provides little benefits in terms of knowledge and safety the only true benefit of this system is a government registry of all heroes. Registries of potentially marginalized groups always provide massive issues in regards to the human rights of those individuals. Further, this registry will have two primary issues it would only include those law-abiding individuals with powers willing to participate and by extension leave out those who may become villains. By evading detection villains could maintain anonymity while their superhero foes are being held liable for collateral damage in their battles. This clearly doesn't"t help the fight for good. Any would be villain would certainly do this as secrecy is a hero's (or villains) greatest asset (to butcher an Incredibles reference......I need to rewatch it lol). This program necessarily cripples the heroes and empowers the villains. If we account for the outing at training facilities, they would become clear targets for villains to either learn the identities of heroes or to simply attack them while they have yet to be trained or worse recruit them. Allowing for a known installation that is training beings with the powers of armies allows for many unimaginable security risks.

This motion assumes the heroes a) will trust the government and b) should trust the government. Let"s handle the latter first. There is no reason these heroes should trust the government. The government would surely use these individuals for military testing and as soldiers. As this program is only in effect in WLDs the promise of human rights and respect are only afforded to those heroes born in WLDs. This restriction will not apply to foreign adversaries with less respect for the rights of heroes. These governments will surely begin using superhumans in armies resulting in an arms race that this program impedes WLDs from participating in. "We" on side opposition know this sequence of events is inevitable. This would leave WLDs with 3 options 1) accept defeat (going to happen) 2) nuke everything to try to win the war (let"s all hope not) or 3) scrap the protections for heroes and use the registry as draft (very likely).

Given that the government is providing a useless program that puts participants at risk and creating a registry that would most certainly lead to a draft, why would any semi-intelligent individual actually trust this system?

This clearly falls short of status quo for everyone. Side Gov states this allows for better trust between heroes and the government but it only destroys it. Status quo already allows for a system of trust by allowing heroes to maintain secret identities and remain safe. Status quo does not prevent cooperation between police and heroes, example Batman works with Gotham PD and even has a bat signal and has been allowed into interrogation rooms. If we as citizens and governments wish to benefit from cooperation with heroes it must be on their terms in which they are actually safe. This motion ignores their safety while demanding a great deal from them while giving governments with histories of exploitation all the means to do so once more.


The public tends to overwhelmingly support heroes already spiderman is a household name and many agree with his actions (excluding police and angry journalists of course). The only benefit this accountability has is to punish heroes for damage caused. The Avengers may have destroyed new york but they did still save the entire world so there is clearly a net benefit to having heroes. Making them pay for damages would just have them leave the hero business.

2. Communications
Bat signal. The government does not need a registry of heroes to communicate they just need to be willing to cooperate without risking the hero's safety. Rather than treating them as vigilantes they can work with them and maybe build that good PR the Govs first point attempted to bring to the heroes. This program already results in collaboration the extra step only harm the heroes in this transaction.

3. Stress
The entire model implies police are now willing to work with heroes so why not just do it? This model is contrived and dangerous and would only serve to add more stress to the heroes as maintaining is now nearly impossible and the government is sure to exploit you at some point or sue your "behind" (I'm not allowed to sear :( . This model only adds stress.

This model will only harms the heroes by providing useless training in exchange for their safety and eventually their free will. More harms are created on side Gov while my argumentation clearly shows the government should not be trusted. Side Gove falls on both key points. As such "we" are proud to oppose!
Debate Round No. 1


I'm going to go into some rebuilding of my "partner's" case, and then I'm going to go into some extensive refutation, and talk about the comparative that we are looking at in this case and why even if what Cole tells you is true, what we are giving you is still going to be comparatively better than the status quo.

So the first thing my "partner" tells you is that this program is going to reduce collateral damage by giving superheroes a more well-rounded idea of how to control their powers, as well as giving them expert training on things like combat. What Cole tells you in response to this is: first, that this program is going to be ineffective because it is too short and not 100% comprehensive.

Two responses to this. First of all, you can learn a surprising amount in a short period of time. Mandatory CPR courses usually total out to about 4 to 6 hours for a lifesaving skill. This is less time than ONE potential weekend class about how to control your powers. A lifeguarding course is 25 hours (pandering to any potential lifeguards who might be reading this) and trains you for a job that grants you the sole responsibility of potentially saving someone's life. This course, being (let's say) 3 hours a night on weekdays and 7 hours on weekends for a month would total to 116 hours, more than four times the amount of time to be a lifeguard. This is a perfectly sufficient amount of time.

Second of all, however, even if it wasn't, this is still comparatively better than what we get on Side Opposition. Opp has decided to defend the status quo. Even if this training was literally just a rudimentary 3-hour course, this is still comparatively better than the 0 hours of training that you get on Opp. Unless Opp can provide some substantive analysis as to why this training actively provides a net harm to people, we win on this point.

What harms does Opp actually give you for this training? All Cole tells you is that 1, it could be expensive, 2. it can potentially out superheroes, and 3, that accidents while training could be destructive.

On the first point: Yes, this training would have a cost attached. You know what else has a cost attached? Superman levelling several blocks of Manhattan during a fight because he has no concept of how to control his powers. This is vastly more expensive, and if we can provide training to reduce that, it's still going to be net cheaper.

On outing superheroes: The only dangerous outside parties who are going to be staking out training facilities, would be supervillain types (think Mirage from the Incredibles). These people are going to be trying to find superheroes with ease regardless of whether or not these facilities exist; they can do things like cause explosions and see who comes to everyone's rescue and then follow those people back home. Because, y'know, they're supervillains and they do things like that. If superheroes are going to be easily tracked by supervillains regardless, we might as well at least have that happen in a way that makes the world safer.

On training potentially being destructive: Heroes training in a controlled environment that is specifically designed to withstand their powers is less likely to be destructive than them getting their first combat experience in an open city that is not built to handle, say, fire coming out of your fists. This small risk is going to make it less likely that MUCH larger-scale destruction happens, so there is still a net positive.

Secondly, we told you that two-way communication makes both facets of justice better. Cole's only response here was "but bat-signal!" First of all, this doesn't address harms like superheroes busting sting operations. Second of all, a general, nonspecific signal isn't the same as a government being able to contact a hero and give them specifics about, say, an imminent alien threat. This would vastly improve direct communication, and the fact that a worse version of this already exists doesn't refute that point.

Finally, we told you that this would make the relationship between heroes and government less adversarial, and take a lot of stress off superheroes' shoulders. What Cole says in response to this is that if governments are willing to work with heroes either way, why not simply work with them without having training? I've already addressed why this training is a comparative good, but also: the training and registration is the entire REASON law enforcement would be willing to work with these people. I am going to feel a lot more secure working with someone who I know knows what they're doing, and whose identity I know, than a random loose cannon edgelord in a mask with zero formal training and no accountability.

Now let's look at Cole's substantive material (which is limited, as most of it was refutation dressed up as constructive).

The first thing he tells you is that having a registry of superheroes opens up avenues for persecution. He specifically cites the idea that should an international threat occur, the government is simply going to ignore superheroes' rights by drafting them.

Two responses to this.

1. Seeing as we've already established that we live in a world where superheroes who actively go out and do superhero things on a regular basis exist, there would be no reason to have a draft. Superheroes want to be good and help people! That is why they are superheroes! You have a mass amount of people who are already willing to fight to save the world on a daily basis, no draft needed! In fact, this necessarily must be true for most of Cole's arguments to stand; for example, the massive damage and costs that Cole tells you the program will incur rests on the idea of there already being lots of superheroes who are WILLING TO BE SUPERHEROES. There is no need to draft people who already consent to helping.

The only time this would be a problem is if a government wants to draft them to do something evil or unethical, in which case I find it hard to believe that a government would be able to physically stop people who, in Cole's own words, can be more powerful than a nuclear weapon. It is unlikely that the superheroes are going to tolerate a government trying to take over their rights. What they WILL tolerate, however, is a registry with mandatory training, because as I've already told you, it is mutually beneficial to both the superhero and the government.

2. The government has more of an incentive to help its citizens than any other actor, due to governments' desire to stay respectable in the public eye so that people will continue to vote for them and keep them in power. Fundamentally taking away heroes' rights means a) looking bad to most people, and b) losing the entire superhero vote. Governments will be disincentivized to do this.

Secondly, Opp tells you that this registry is inherently problematic as the only people who would register would be law-abiding heroes, and people with powers who are interested in being villains would simply not register. The harm he gives you is that this would somehow cripple the heroes, because only they would be held accountable for the collateral damages that they caused while supervillains would not be.

First of all, this is already partially true under status quo; supervillains are ALREADY not held accountable for the collateral damage they cause unless they are actively caught. They don't care that they blew up a car full of people. They're supervillains. It's in the name.

So, what's the comparative difference here? The difference is that in this case, the superhero is being potentially held accountable, and must therefore be careful. Why does Cole tell you that this is harmful? He doesn't explicitly explain anything, but the general idea I got is that this is somehow inefficient.

Here's the thing. If Cole's idea of an "efficient superhero" is a superhero who is willing to get people killed just so that they can have the strongest kicks or the fastest punches, this is not much of a superhero at all. Heroes having to make sure they are careful so they don't get anyone killed does not make them worse superheroes; on the contrary, it makes them better.

Ultimately, the only substantive material Cole ends up giving you is a defense of the status quo. A lot of Opp's problems with the model are not that any aspect of the model is actively harmful; rather, they are just complaining that it is not perfect. However, when compared to the status quo's current alternative of "literally nothing", even having a small amount of training is still going to be better on the comparative because none of the actual harms that they give you stand.

What have I told you today? 1. Accountability is good. 2. Cooperation is good. 3. Almost all the harms Opp gives you still exist in the status quo. We are simply giving you a way to mitigate these harms by creating a mutually beneficial alliance that will make everyone safer.

We are very proud to propose!


I will first be be rebuilding my "partners" case and then go into some refutation and then will do some refutation and lastly I will do an actor analysis to show why we on side OP win this round.
Inefficacy of the program
The inefficacy of this program is clear from the limited teaching time. Side Gov tries to state this isn"t an issue and provides the efficacy of CPR training but this example actually helps our side in the following ways;
a) CPR is less complicated than super hero training so while it may show that life saving info can be imparted in short amounts of time it does not show the scale of responsibility. The examples my partner provided are much more relevant as military and police are in the in the same field of protecting people and we argue even their training would be insufficient for our heroes. GOV tries to state that one would be surprised the amount that can be learned quickly but let"s be honest here CPR isn"t that hard whereas learning to shoot fire from your hands is.
b) CPR is a standardized base of knowledge. The training does not need to be tailored to each individual and has had years to be optimized to be in the short form factor side gov praises. This course as my partner has mentioned requires a longer period of time to learn about the powers of these individuals and then tailor instruction to them. So while some training could be argued as beneficial in the "it"s better than nothing" sense but it would only be marginally so. I"ll use my own coursework as an example I have personally spent over 100 hours learning calculus with teachers who are helping me and guiding me through the material in a tested and effective curriculum. Now let's imagine we have this 100 hour cap on the time we have and calculus hasn"t been invented yet. I don"t think my instruction will be as simple as side GOV believes it will be. It should also be reasonable to assume learning how to control the weather with my mind or shapeshift when neither my instructor nor myself know how these powers work would prove a little more difficult than math and certainly more difficult than CPR.
c) CPR and similar certifications require constant updates to maintain the certification. This superhero training course as proposed does not even require one follow up on training. How is it reasonable to expect that people who may occasionally have to administer the heimlich have more hoops to jump through than people who are tasked with saving the world. We on side OP are more than happy to use Govs analogy of CPR to prove our point. While GOV may provide examples of training they forget that any appropriate program would require years of study to be at the level GOV is claiming this program is capable of. We will later show how a hero practicing on their own in a slower pace is more effective than this paltry course.
Now let"s tackle the comparative. "This program is better than nothing" seems to be the main argument on side GOV. I have just shown it is significantly more complicated than GOV thinks it will be she says we are dissatisfied that it isn"t 100% comprehensive but that isn"t the case we just understand that is much closer to being 0% comprehensive than 100%. Learning 5% of something wouldn"t be very effective especially when we discuss the costs of this program both financial and personal. She even says a 1 hour crash course would be better than status quo and this seems to be their case "anything is better than nothing".
Let"s discuss what no training would look like. Yes these individuals if they so chose to explore their powers on their own would potentially cause damage. But it wouldn"t be very different than with training. Individuals may learn some basic information but most of their actual practice of their powers would be outside the program as they won"t be able to completely grasp what their powers are and how to control them in the short time frame so the destruction of property in learning still stands on their side. But let"s also think it through what if someone didn"t want to be super? Now they"ve been forced to start using and practising their powers and have received a woeful education. It would be like hogwarts taking every wizard teaching them ten spells and setting them loose. You"ve potentially just taken a bunch of people who would never use their powers forced them to start and then letting them out to practice. You would only wind up with more people using their powers in the world and potentially even causing more damage. All after you"ve basically flushed billions or trillions down the drain just to prevent a few from potentially causing damage.
So why does this point still stand? Because GOV has failed to understand status quo. Secrecy is a benefit when training heroes are learning how to control their powers while keeping them secret this actually reduces the potential harms as they do not want to be caught. This actually allows them to choose to discover their powers on there own or even choosing not to. Heroes often wait until they feel they are ready to enter the public eye (think of all the training montages). This program woefully unprepared them at the same time as giving them a certification making them more likely to practice without trying to keep it secret and may result in more damage. This training is more likely worse than nothing and if it isn"t only insignificantly better. The next points show why it isn"t worth it.

Gov doesn"t really engage with this argument and simply waves their hand and says villains can discover the identity of heroes by setting off a bomb and following the heroes home. This doesn"t actually engage the point that heroes wish to protect their identity. Why do they want this? Because being a hero is dangerous and this danger should not extend to their personal lives. How many heroes do you think there would be if villains could come after the people you love. Humans even superhumans prioritise the lives of loved ones over strangers. If the government necessitates putting family at risk in order to be a hero there would be a decrease in heroics. But let"s look at the other side of the coin which GOV ignores. What about those who want to live normal lives? Going to this facility outs you immediately telling your boss when you need to leave work early to attend outs you for what benefit? Hero training when you"re an accountant? Now what happens when these people are discovered? Their lives are at risk and their families too. You can wave your hand and say maintaining a secret identity as a hero is hard but you can"t justify putting innocent people in danger when they never wanted to fight evil. Even worse you put them in a spot that opens them up to exploitation from evil people who can hold their family hostage in exchange for say levelling a city. Secrecy is important and this is where the GOV case falls apart sacrificing secrecy actually puts the world at greater risk.

As for the my partners discussion on the the lack of trust the government deserves when creating a registry of the most powerful people in the world, GOV seems to paint it as irrelevant. However it is potentially the most relevant point in this debate. Governments seek to control great power and more frightening they like to use it. My partner shows the inevitability of a draft by discussing how foreign powers will use their superhumans in their militaries. Traditional weapons will prove ineffective against an army of superhumans and will result in the government creating an army of superhumans in order to compete. Side GOV says that won"t happen because these heroes would just volunteer to save the country/world "it"s what they do". But no it isn"t they are volunteers and while they do get involved it is when they choose to. My partner discussed the options for the government when dealing with a foreign army of superhumans and concluded the most likely result is a draft. GOV denies this by stating they"ll just volunteer but what if they don"t? Or more likely what if they don"t in sufficient numbers? It is quite likely the military may need superhumans in a foreign war think Vietnam and Afghanistan. Many heroes would justifiably refuse and what of those who don"t want to be heroes just ordinary people. The government would certainly abuse the list if ever they felt they were in danger of losing whatever war they are in, which let"s be honest if they"re against a country that has drafted ALL their superhumans a gang of volunteers won"t cut it. They will be forced to recruit every single superhuman on their list against their will. GOV says "but public perception" so what, hell whether or not LGBT people deserve rights is still up for debate in the most liberal countries, it wouldn"t be a stretch that a government would launch a media campaign classifying the superhumans as weapons and not humans think X-men.
Debate Round No. 2


(This is a placeholder. We are doing a CP debate, which means that after two rounds of argumentation, both sides get to do a 'reply speech' summing up the debate and why they feel their side wins, starting with opposition. It is now time for Opp's reply speech, and Government's will be afterwards!)


My partner and myself have discussed the cost of this project. GOV wishes to ignore this point by stating it"s less than replacing a destroyed metropolis but is it really? Let"s think about this in the event of say an alien attack on new york city, does GOV truly expect the 100 hours of training would result in no damage? On side OP we understand if you trained superman for a 100 years there"s is no way to prevent any destruction. IT"S A WAR ZONE! Military combat destroys its surroundings with trained combatants on both sides (better trained than these heroes). This is a fact. GOV is under the impression this training and registry will make the heroes more careful, but at the same time says they are heroes who are good people. They seem to believe heroes want to save the world but are just careless and that"s why after battles the city looks like a war zone. But in reality heroes are careful and try to reduce the damage in order to save lives you know "it"s in the name", the reason damage occurs is because it is a war zone.

This leads into the GOVs plan to hold heroes accountable. Let"s think it through my partner said this accountability measure would negatively affect heroes by instilling fear and liability into their heroics. If I"m going to get in trouble if a building was destroyed while fighting a would be world conqueror it only makes me less effective. Because while I"m fighting a thousand henchmen I need to be worried of each broken street or building. We already know heroes care about saving lives and reducing damage but as my "partner" said adding liability only makes them worried while fighting which could put them in danger. A more effective system which is completely possible under status quo is to look at the actions of the heroes. If everytime superman comes to help everything is solved with very little damage you treat him as the hero he is. The damage would have occurred regardless so let"s just be thankful it was minimized. But what if everytime batman gets involved the city is levelled one need only mark him as a villain and an enemy combatants thus ending his career of "heroics". Accountability is possible without this program and even better under status quo as we allow our heroes to protect us without fear that we"ll come after them for damages. To build on the CPR point one is not liable for any damage caused when performing CPR unless it is the result of willful negligence this incentives action as there is no fear of repercussions for your good deeds our heroes need these protections too. This point falls.

2. Communication

Let"s look at communication under this model the government knows who you are and can now contact you. GOV mocks the bat signal point my partner made while ignoring its spirit and tries to show how ineffective it is compared to calling your hero. The bat signal was mentioned as a case in which communication between police and a hero have occurred without this program and proven beneficial to all parties. This is not to say we need to implement signals for every hero but that communication can happen without the police knowing the identity of the hero encrypted phone lines could be used instead. The point here is heroes wish to protect their identity and with good reason as my partner has explained. Forcing them to be known to the police doesn"t increase communication it just makes it dangerous for the hero. Communication between batman and gotham PD exists and is effective, while not putting batman at risk. All that needs to occur is for the police to understand the benefits of a hero and understand the need for a hero to have a secret identity. These people are volunteers and GOV does not seem to understand this. We need to ask ourselves "do we want heroes?" if no then we mark them as vigilantes. If yes we accept them as heroes and accept that they may cause some damage while saving the world and would like to have a life afterwards. In short accountability is available and better in status quo without sacrificing secrecy. This point falls.
3. Stress for the heroes
The entirety of our constructive shows this system will only put heroes in danger thus increasing stress. This point falls.

Let"s look at what we"ve shown you in the effects on individual actors.
They get easier access to heroes because this program ruins any chance for heroes to maintain secret identities. They may also have an easier time of recruitment given the government is outing budding heroes and forcing them to take a stupid course. Throw in the inevitability of government abuse of heroes, villains would be more easily able to talk them into joining their ranks. Or just force them to by threatening the heroes family which the government has led them to.
Heroes and superhumans who don"t want to be heroes
Their entire lives get ruined all for trying to help the world. Increased liability results in greater stress and danger not less. The loss of secrecy results in their families being at risk. Hell it even makes them accidental celebrities once it"s discovered peter parker is spiderman he can never have a normal life. We can say the odds of discovery under this system are nearly inevitable especially when parker has to tell his boss "I"m going to superhero training so I need the evening off"
All this does is make their lives significantly more dangerous so much so that they may even decide not to be a hero. Not to mention as we"ve said repeatedly this makes them a target for recruitment by evildoers. Basically it makes their lives garbage. And as stated a draft will be inevitable so it may even cost them their garbage lives.
The Government
This just allows them to exploit heroes which is not good. This also costs astronomically more than status quo and will result in greater incidences of villainy given the fact that villains have been empowered. This results in a reduced number of heroes given how poorly they would be treated in this system. Essentially this creates more danger than in status quo and costs more but hey it allows the government to eventually turn heroes into weapons so why would they complain.
Society as a whole
Heroes are less likely to save you, villains are more likely to attack you. But hey now you know if you get saved by a hero they gave up their lives and underwent some useless training so YAY!

In summation this comes down to will this proposal do what it says it will and is it better than status quo. We have shown that in every instance it fails to be better than status quo as each of our constructive points demonstrate the harms associated with the program and how status quo achieves the same results. If it isn"t broke don"t fix it. We are proud to oppose!
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.