DC Comics: At their prime, Batman is a better vigilante than Green Arrow PART II

My opponent I have conceded his arguments. I have not. I have acknowledge the presented stats about the character he defends, I have not conceded any of my opponents arguments though that they make batman the better vigilante. And his arguments at the very most in response to when I have laid out a case for Green Arrows public political life strengthening his vigilante life have been “no it doesn’t”. I have even sourced my argument to a real life non-fictional source to show I did not just make up this school of thought that one job of ours helps and aids our ability to do the other. And I did not just leave you to explore Jon Acuff’s website forever in his blogs or go buy and read his book or try and get tickets to a Quitters Conference he might be speaking at near you in order to understand the case I was laying out for the Green Arrow. I explained it with very easy to understand examples of how being a mayor during the daylight makes the longbow hunters job in the moonlight a million times easier and more effective. A Vigilante’s secret control over the police department dwarfs any amount of effectiveness Batman can hope to do with a few well trained sidekicks. And I believe my opponent knows with that case made I have this debate in the bag because he has shown to be so desperate to try and label my case as supporting Green Arrow as better at anything other than what is in the resolution that he has made some statements that boarder on absurdity. Making this one I feel was essentially him conceding the debate to me. “As I've said, having a larger base doesn't make you personally a better vigilante. It makes you better at fighting crime.” He’s not better at being a vigilante, just at fighting crime? That’s like saying he’s not a better a being a doctor, just better at saving and healing patients. Or he’s not a better mechanic, just better at fixing cars, or he’s not a better boxer, he just is better at knocking other boxers out, he’s not a better teacher, just better at educating kids and adults. That last paragraph alone is where I should rest my summary case and leave it because it shows that my opponent has acknowledged I made a successfully case for Green Arrow as a better crime fighter, not just a better hero, but a crime fighter. No amount of legalist retreat to the phrase ‘taking the law into there own hands’ is going to change vigilante into not equaling fighting crime. And I really want you to vote after considering just that statement from opponent right now. But below I will for you pleasure so it doesn’t look like I just dropped the rest of whats been discussed this debate from my summary. I repeat my case about the wife is not about Green Arrows willpower. Its about viger/gusto. Willpower is making yourself do something. Gusto is being happy and energized in doing the something. Saying becoming the lawmaker is not taking the law into your own hands is self contradictory. Just who’s hands do you think the law is left to when Oliver becomes the lawmaker? Or the Law enforcer? The costumed hero’s on the street at night…..or wait he’s there doing that to ;) My opponent did not give a real rebuttal to my minor point about comic source weakness because he did not address the dilemma from my sourced example of Batman’s impossible age. Lack of ability to trust what is current comic cannon is a huge problem for debates about the comics which is why an argued point is stronger when its source is actually not reliant on what might still be comic cannon but rather just has to do with the argued concept. My opponent made a complete dodge of my 1st cross-examination question to try and make you ignore the details to my main point. I did not ask ‘can a general win a war by himself’ or a soldier, I asked who wins it better/faster. This phrasing did not leave room to think about solo acts winning a war, it was about effectiveness at accomplishing a task which in this debate is being a vigilante, taking the law into their own hands, fighting a war against the criminal underworld the law without them cant be counted on to reach. And my opponent like I said conceded Green Arrow was better at fighting crime. My opponent tried to dodge my other question as well, hoping to leave the thought unanswered by you the voters, trying to redirect rhetoric to his talking points for batman’s willpower. He did not actually say if he’d do better with wife or not, he just said he doesn’t ‘need’ one. Maybe a man doest ‘need’ a bazooka to destroy a car if he’s got a sledgehammer but he probably does it much faster with the bazooka. I don’t care if Bruce’s willpower puts Hal Jordan to shame, would he get better at fighting crime with Zatanna as his spouse? The answer is he would become even more dangerous to criminal world; the answer is I have a valid case for the spouse making a vigilante better, and the answer is I made a valid case for Green Arrow made better by something Batman doesn’t have. Conclusion: My opponent dodged my questions cause acknowledging them would bring light to the validity of my arguments My opponent completely ignored my charge about comic continuity problems I actually managed to make arguments in a comic debate that did not need proven by a comic source but a regular source. Thus not leaving the backing of my case to change with a change of Brad Metzler to Grant Morrison. The points I did drop were not ultimately relevant to my main point so its not relevant to who’s main arguments stand at the end of this debate. My opponent really only argued for batman being better at bench pressing, looking in microscopes, and using a green lantern ring, but not really taking the law into his own hands. My opponent even came to conceded I argued (conceded without rebuttal to the point itself, just contended its relevance) Green Arrow was better at being a leader, political force, hero, and most importantly…. crime fighter. And with that I urge you all to vote Con And I urge you next time before you say to “Batman duuh…” to a debate comparing these two heroes ask yourself this, “would I rather be Batman or Green Arrow given what they each got?” or in the case of this debate “if I were a billionaire trying to take the law into my hands, remove crime from my city, would I try and copy what batman does or what green arrow does?” I thank my opponent for this excellent debate. I’m pretty sure I refrained from giving new arguments this round but sometimes I know I do and don’t realize it, if you feel I have please go ahead and take your chance to use the extra round to respond to it. consider this an apology for my accidental forfeit with the first part of this debate.