Resolved: We would depower all superhumans. (Mr. Infidel's R1 Tourney)

C1: Stranger dangerMy opponent's defense of his point rests on pointing out that my refutation does not relate to the resolution since we are arguing whether or not superheroes should de-powered, not whether businessmen or politicians should. My opponent argues that thus anything not related to superhero de-powerization does not relate to the resolution. However, I contend that if we (as reasonable and logical beings) are to evaluate the resolution and it's premises, we must be able to apply it to other similar situations to determine it's consistency.My opponent employs a crucial principle to the defense of the resolution. He argues that superheroes and super villains are a large risk to innocent bystanders and third parties with their super powered excursions and battles and therefore, the public would be more safe if the source of these disturbances was destroyed (super powers). I argue, that if this principle were applied consistently (that people with large amounts of power that hurt the public ought to have this power taken away) than it would support the "de-powerization" of politicians, powerful businessmen, and any other figure who wields a large amount of power. I employ the logical extension of this principle to show that the maxim that my opponent argues on is faulty.Sub C1: ClashesMy opponent again misunderstands my argument. I am not trying to bring unrelated topics to this debate, I'm merely applying my opponent's principle on which he argues consistently. If we were to de-power super humans because they cause damage during clashes, then applied consistently, we should also de-power nations since they cause invariably more damage during the course of wars and international conflicts than super humans. Thus my opponent's maxim logically supports a patently absurd idea, that entire nation's armies (or at least a large percentage) ought to be dismantled in the name of the public good.My opponent tries to defend this positions (along with calling it a red herring) by arguing that even if he is arguing inconsistently, de-powering superheroes and leaving nations at full power is still better than leaving them both at full power. My opponent argues that I am arguing inconsistently by arguing against limiting super human power, but am arguing for limiting national power. Again, this is a gross misrepresentation. I am arguing that my opponent's own reasoning supports grossly cutting national power, not that I support it. I am merely pointing out the unreasonableness and irrationality of my opponent's own maxims which he builds his case on.C2: ExploitationMy opponent brings an interesting point up here. He argues that even if his point supports the render homosexuals as heterosexuals, "there are no homosexuals in Capcom or Marvel". Interesting, as Dante Ortega was featured in the Marvel comic book Emma Frost for a time as Christian Frost's boyfriend[1]. Other Marvel characters were also homosexuals, including Christian Frost, Chili Storm[2], and others[3].On my opponent's other attempt to refute this point, he argues that "Jews, homosexuals, etc. may be experimented on in our world, Earth, but not in Capcom or Marvel". I must point out though that this is patently untrue. Magneto (a popular character in the X-men series) was actually persecuted during the Holocaust(see video), perhaps the most known and emotional form in which Jewish persecution took. I think there is no question that experimentation certainly goes on even in the world of comic books. Homosexuals (as well as a myriad of other races and marginal groups) were also experimented on during the Holocaust.My opponent's attempt to disprove my point by simply ignoring experimentation on people and even the existence of homosexuality in the comic book world is futile.C3: TemptationMy opponent's first attempt to defend his point against my refutation employs the same flawed reasoning from his C1 and sub-C1. He argues that I am improperly applying his maxims to a point that are irrelevant to the scope of this debate. However, I will remind my opponent and readers that I am merely extending my opponent's own points to their logical conclusions in order to show that they are lacking in reasoning or logic. Take for example, if I were to argue that midgets should be killed because they are short and short people deserve to die. One would certainly not be bringing irrelevant points if they showed that my argument would logically support the killing of children as well in the name of consistency as children and midgets are both short in comparison to the adult population.My opponent next argues that superheroes are many times young and thus more prone to temptation and reckless decision making. However, this point actually doesn't apply to the scope of this debate since the resolution specifically states "We would depower ALL superhumans". A point supporting the "de-powerization" of only a fraction or even a majority (so long as it is not all) does not help my opponent's case.C4: EvolutionMy opponent admits that this point would only support the resolution as a possible time-table of when to depower super humans. While he falls back on the claim that he has supported this claim (which I contest) he must admit that this point is still not relevant to the debate at hand since we are entirely concerned with whether de-powering is a good idea at all, not when we should do it.Con caseBasic rights and "de-powerization"My opponent makes two contradictory claims over the course of this debate which are fatal to his case and his refutation of my own. He argues that "Superhumans are not being pre-emptively depowered" and that they "have done things in the past that require de-powerization". Again I will hold my opponent to his burden of proof as the defender of the resolution. The resolution states that he is defending the "de-powerization" of ALL super humans, however it has not and cannot be demonstrated that every single possessor of super human abilities has or will use them to infringe on the rights of others.My opponent argues merely that super villains "tend" to take hostages. Again this is not sufficient to show that every super human will do so and thus de-powering every super human is unjustified. I agree that the Sandman might be deserving of "de-powerization" as restitution for his crimes. Not wanting all super humans pre-emptively de-powered does not preclude the defense of the "de-powerization" of wrong doers. But this does not prove that every single super human has infringed on the rights of others and therefore they are not ALL deserving of being de-powered.[1] http://www.comicvine.com...[2] http://marvel.wikia.com...(Earth-616)[3] http://marvel.wikia.com...http://www.youtube.com...