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

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!