Resolved: The Actions of the Vigilante Known as Batman are Justified

I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for this debate. I accept his apology; however, it was not necessary. I understood the risks when I took this debate and apologize for making the matter seem more important than it was. ----- I will begin by summarizing and countering my opponent's R3 statements. 1) My opponent's statement here is an attempted defense of his second contention. However, the presence of the Scarecrow and Ra's Al Ghul do not indicate a state of anarchy. In fact, Batman would most likely have been much more successful against the Scarecrow if he directed the police to him rather than attempt to engage Scarecrow himself. By doing so, Batman would have prevented Scarecrow's use of the gas near the movie's end. A group of riot cops or a SWAT Team would likely be better prepared to combat Ra's Al Ghul than Batman due to their use of firearms and team tactics. The presence of these villains does not indicate a state of anarchy, as other forces could counter them. 2) Drug smuggling itself is not a violent crime. Mr. Wayne could have taken incriminating photos and contacted the police or a federal agency rather than taking unprovoked violent action against Mr. Falcone. The alternative methods I described would have prevented violence from being "absolutely necessary", though I did show that violence was not necessary against Mr. Falcone to begin with. My opponent did not challenge this claim. His failure to do so invalidates his second R3 point. 3) My opponent's third statement lacks reasoning and doesn't account for the fact that Mr. Wayne could still have prevented crime without use of the Batman persona through the methods I described. I recommend that the viewers disregard this statement due to its lack of reasoning. ----- I will now summarize my case for viewers. Though Mr. Wayne did good in Gotham City, the disproportionate amount of force he used in doing so combined with the numerous nonviolent alternatives show that his actions lack moral justification. The level of force he used in crimefighting shows that it is likely he is using his vigilatism as a way to enact a vendetta against criminals. Lastly, Mr. Wayne's actions, while noble in purpose, are illegal. There are legal alternative ways for Mr. Wayne to prevent crime, which I have outlined. The level of force Mr. Wayne uses combined with the numerous alternatives and his vendetta against criminals show that his actions lack justification. ----- I will now weigh the debate for viewers. CONVINCING ARGUMETNS: My opponent has given three contentions, all of which I have countered. He has not successfully defended these contentions; thus, none of them stand. I have also presented three contentions and successfully defended them from countering; as a result, all three stand. Since all three of CON's contentions stand and none of PRO's do, I urge a CON vote for convincing arguments. SPELLING/GRAMMAR: CON's spelling/grammar has been largely correct throughout the debate. However, PRO has made some spelling/grammar errors: R1: "for the comic books have to many different interpretations have conflicting plot lines. .. " Misspelling of "too", no "which" before "have conflicting plot lines". "The philosopher, Ayn Rand discussed. .. " No comma after appositive. "If they see injustice occurring they will act. .. " No comma before occurring. My opponent used poor punctuation a number of other times during his R1. R2: ". .. its a lawless town. " Wrong form of "it's". ". .. opponents case. " No apostrophe in possessive. My opponent made at least a couple other grammatical errors in his R2. R3: "First off, I apologize for calling my opponent out on the value block, I did not realize he was unfamiliar with Lincoln-Douglas Debate rules. " Run-on sentence. "As traditional with LD debate" No "is" before "traditional". My opponent has shown spelling and grammar that, while not "poor" per se, is not as good as CON's. I do not mean to be rude by saying this; I only mean to show voters that CON should be given the Spelling/Grammar vote. I encourage voters to make a vote for CON on spelling/grammar. CONDUCT: Both sides have shown good conduct throughout the debate. As a result, I encourage viewers to cast their Conduct vote for neither debater, leaving it as "Tie". RELIABLE SOURCES: In the course of this debate, CON has cited eight clear sources, while PRO has cited none. As a result, I encourage a CON vote for sources. ----- I will end by thanking my opponent for the debate and the viewers for their time.