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

Is "Batman" in,and of itself,right?

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
John135086 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: 1/8/2017 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 605 times Debate No: 98782
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)




Hey,what's up? This argument is about the idea of Batman being morally,and philosophically right. Now i'm gonna explain and set my standards.
My idea of Batman:Basically Batman is brutal. Not afraid to torture,break bones,and impale. Batman is a super-genius in all fields of well,everything. He's a hacking genius,computer genius,engineering genius,etc. He has an IQ of at least 200-250,and has photographic memory. Hence he has a photographic memory,and being a genius in all field,he know exactly how to torture someone,(Ex. is when he impaled Falcone in the tellale game.)without killing them. So that's why i say he can impale people without killing them. But yes,he will break bones,crack ribs,and shatter collar bones;as long as he doesn't kill he's A-OK. And Batman is also soft on his allies like: Lucius,Alfred,Dick Grayson,etc. But he is brutally hard on his enemies. Also he prefers working with the police,but to him it doesn't matter. That's why in his early years he doesn't bother with the police. He knows the police are corrupt,and he prefers not to deal with them. Besides,not a whole lot of people think Batman's even real. In the eyes of a criminal,he's a flying red eyed demon who's impervious to bullets.
So basically you get the run down on batman. Bruce Wayne is rlly just a mask,and he is the Batman. Im not gonna get into the details of Batman,but for this debate,this is basically what i consider "Batman".

Here's what's the debater have to do:
Just argue against my case that what Batman does is not morally right,and/or philosophically right. BUUUUUUT,but,you have to do this in the eyes of a cop. I highly recommend whoever does this watch "Blue Bloods",because you can really see what cops think of their jobs. They think the law is it,the beginning and the end,The Alpha And the Omega. You get it. There is nothing outside the law. The law is DE SHIOT.

Now here's my actual debate boundaries,PLZ BE F*CKING POLITE! cause ive debated alot of ppl who have been rlly rude just to be rude. The first round is only acceptance,and this isn't rlly a requirement,outside of the first round,PLLLLLLZ,have correct grammar and spelling to the bets of your ability. The first round is the only exception to that.

So um,yeah,that's it,let's get started.


This is my first time; please go easy on me!

Batman's philosophy is morally corrupt. Batman's view is that killing is wrong, but allowing someone to die is morally OK and killing in self-defense or defense of others is morally wrong. Let me elaborate.

Batman would never kill and preaches this philosophy all the time. So when the Joker is killing pedestrians during a car chase, Batman doesn't Batarang him from the start and allows the deaths of many -- this is second-degree murder -- and by doing that, instructs innocent kids that killing in self-defense or defense of others is morally wrong.

When you have the power to save someone and don't, that is manslaughter and morally corrupt, Batman disagrees -- "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you," a quote from Batman to Ra's al Ghul.

Ra's al Ghul was seconds away from death and Batman was the only one that could save him, but didn't. This is manslaughter. Batman considers not saving someone you have the power to save being dissimilar from being responsible for their death, that differs from the law and the majority of the public, thus being morally wrong.
Debate Round No. 1


Ok,thank you for accepting,appreciate it,mhm. Ok,lets get started. OH! Before we do,one more think I forgot to mention in the first round...If I make a joke,don't turn around and use that joke against my entire's a joke. Don't even do anything with it.

So Batman doesn't necessarily agree killing in self-defense ins't right. I mean,he's American. Who doesn't think killing in self-defense isn't right?(Liberals) He just thinks that there's a better way. He doesn't want to be judge,jury,and executioner. And in fact,he did kill the joker at the end of "The Killing Joke" comic. And besides,look at it this way,since he hand the Joker over to the cops(,I will actually be talking about the cops in the 3'rd round)and the system decided that Joker doesn't get the death penalty,then why should he? And you can't answer something like "well Batman works outside the law and sh*t and he's not afraid to go outside the system and everything" without taking down your entire argument,because that's my argument. So...HA! But seriously,yeah,that's my argument,so you can't answer that without being hypocritical.

ALSO...let me bring up another point. You know how you mentioned how Batman could save so many lives had he just killed the Joker? Well how many lives do you think he saved by letting Ra's Al Ghul die? He would just come back and kill more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more people. There's a difference between not doing something,and killing someone. Ra's Al Ghul probably coulda escaped. He's a freaking ninja,better than Batman. And no,you also can't say "well batman had his cape,he flew out". You can't say that because that's just a tool in a toolbox that's makes his job easier. Batman also goes by this. You saying Ra's couldn't escaped is bs. I think he just realized what would happened,and just let it be.

ALSO...Batman killed Harvey in the Dark Knight trilogy at the end of the movie. Batman stopped the bad guy,and took the blame so all the criminals would stay locked up. Sounds like a win-win. But this is how it coulda went down:

A. Batman does nothing and let Gordon's kid die. EVEN IF YOU SAY GORDON WAS IN THE WRONG and deserved to die,his kid was innocent.

B. Batman pushes Harvey off and the badguy dies.

So either DO NOTHING(which i had heavily talked about earlier in the debate) and let a innocent kid die,or kill the badguy and prevent the death's of so many more people. Which one sounds right to you?
But anyways,all this takes place in The Dark Knight trilogy,which is where my opponent bases most of his argument off of. This isn't even the comics or anything. The comics is basically 95% of all Batman info.
But hey,this is only round two...looking forward to the rest of the debate.


Just because the Judge didn't have all the information doesn't mean he doesn't deserve the death penalty, we've seen the Joker kill 543+ people, so because he broke several federal laws providing for the death penalty, he would have been put on death row if the Judge had all the information. So Batman would be morally right for killing him; but he didn't, which leaves him morally wrong.

Yes, Batman eventually kills the Joker, but what about the countless amount of times that he could have killed him and saved numerous lives?

I don't get it, just because Ra's al Ghul could have escaped, Batman is in the right? If you see someone about to jump off of a bridge, would you not stop him because he could have escaped? Ra's al Ghul wanted to die, and Batman just lets him, letting a depressed person kill themselves is morally corrupt. You can't have a proper rebuttal to that without being contradictory to what you said handing the Joker over to the police.

When Batman lunges towards Harvey, Harvey indirectly dies because of him, Batman's intention was not to kill Harvey; it was to save him and James. You can see Batman still holding Harvey as they fall, but Harvey slips away. Batman tried to save Harvey, then turn him into the police just like he did with the Joker. Although this is just speculation, as is yours.
Debate Round No. 2


OK,first off,i'm just gonna say since we've kinda both decided the Nolan universe is very easily speculation,let's not touch on it again. So the Nolan-verse is neutral.

Second off,lets talk about the arkham-verse. You mention how the judge doesn't know everything? Well in the arkham-verse,in the VR game,if you read Joker's bio,it tells you he's been attempted of alot of crimes,alot of which is TRYING TO KILL EVERYONE ON THE PLANET! And he was convicted of that. But obviously he didn't get the death penalty,for reasons we may not know,nor never will know. And anyway's,who are you to decide what's right and wrong? I your first paragraph of round two,you said that he deserves the death penalty regardless of what the Judge,Jury,and executioner think. You don't get to decide it. You're not the law. What's the point of having this great system that our founding fathers gave us,if you ignore it because of what you,and you alone,think is right. OK,say you knew O.J Simpson was innocent,and they tried him guilty. If you were a relative of one of his victims,would you take matters into your own hands and gun O.J down? No,I didn't think so. What's the point of having this system if we don't believe in it,if we don't uphold it. Our system insures that every citizen get's a fair hearing. Even Batman follows this. Now yes,he may break bones,crack ribs,and shatter collar bones,but he leaves them to the fate of the court. So who are you to say Batman should've killed the Joker?

Now this point is going to be somewhat contrary to my second point. I ONLY BELIEVE IN VIGILANTISM IF THE SYSTEM IS CORRUPT OR BROKEN. Now I believe in our American way of life,I really do. But I only believe in vigilantism if the system if corrupt and/or broken,and needs to be fixed. And that's exactly what Batman's doing. In his early year's,he goes after common day crooks,and drug lords,but most importantly he's getting rid of the corruption in the GCPD.(GOTHAM CITY CENTRAL POLICE DEPARTMENT.) Now this is only a small scale of what Batman's doing,but the corruption is also on a small scale. Now I believe that if thing's went back to how they used to,our founding fathers would want us to revolt. And "how thing's used to be" is where the system says it's fair,but it's not. Where people got thrown in courts without a fair hearing,where if you say something they don't like,you die get thrown away. This is the exact same kind of Tyranny and anarchy and corruption our Founding Fathers fought against;and if it happened again,they would want us to revolt. And guess what,when the government started getting like that? Batman didn't stand alone,he stood with the community,because it's not for him to decide what's wrong and what's right. It's not for him to decide alone if the whole systems corrupt. He decided with the community of Gotham city. And then the government tried to kill him,and they retaliated. And you when this happened? IN "The dark knight returns." He returns because he can't just stand on the sidelines and watch as people get wronged by the now corrupt system. He want's to fix it.

Also I was gonna mention something else,but I think that's enough for now,I might mention it later. Again thank you.


I did not decide on what's right or wrong. I was saying since Batman has seen the Joker kill many people and violate many federal laws providing for the death penalty, it doesn't matter what the Judge says since we're debating morally and not based on the law. If Batman saw him commit the crimes worthy of the death penalty and did nothing about it countless times, then Batman is either a sociopath who cares nothing about human life, or he's morally corrupt.

Also, I did not say he deserves the death penalty despite what the Judge, jury, and executioner think, do not put words in my mouth.

This argument is also pure speculation. Batman is a billionaire who dresses up and tortures bad guys; he spends millions upon millions of dollars on his gadgets -- he doesn't trust Gotham City Police Department and thinks the judicial system is broken, knowing that, he doesn't ameliorate the criminal justice system to help his community, he prances around in his animal costume, roughing up and torturing baddies -- if Batman wanted to save his city, then he would donate his millions to the criminal justice system, local clinics, and homeless shelters.

Further arguments
Batman would never kill. Unless he wants to impress a lady; In All-Star Batman and Robin No. 7, Batman is catching a group of thieves, and suddenly Black Canary shows up. That's when Batman -- to impress Black Canary -- grabs a bottle of bleach and mixes it with thermite and throws it at the group of thieves, burning them alive. But that isn't enough, as they are burning and dying in agony, Batman continues to attack and beat them to the ground ruthlessly. Seconds later, while the criminals are burning alive, Black Canary and Batman make love... right in front of the people burning alive and screaming in anguish.

Batman puts the criminals of Gotham in Arkham Asylum, but he knows that the criminals are going to break out, he admits it several times. So when they do break out, Batman can catch them and be idolized by the citizens of Gotham. This is obsessive and manic, borderline psychopathic, risking the lives of the citizens of Gotham just to look like a hero to keep up his image.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by John135086 2 years ago
Yes it was,sorry i took to long,i was planning on posting my argument that day,but turns out i was too late. thx for participating
Posted by lua 2 years ago
Darn, well, that was fun!
Posted by John135086 2 years ago
well f*ck.
Posted by John135086 2 years ago
Luna,to me it's the same thing. You're looking at it through the eyes of a non-corrupt police officer. But i mean hey,do it however you want. But it's basically the same thing. If you watch Blue Blood,you know what i mean. I talked about it alittle bit in the first part of my debate
Posted by lua 2 years ago
If I accept, am I arguing in the eyes of the law or the eyes of a police officer?
This debate has 2 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.