Choose

My initial complaint was with Pro arbitrarily defining the term ‘young people’ to mean 10 and under and then arguing that only their opinions matter. He seems to have dropped these points. His new trick is to suggest that my contentions only apply to certain age groups, which is ridiculous. My arguments - Batman is a criminal, emotionally unstable, and abusive to children - are all straightforward and universally understood. My CaseGotham’s Biggest CriminalPro’s argument is a non-starter; he cannot both praise Batman for stopping crime and then condone Batman’s crimes. By claiming Batman’s actions as just a means to an end, Pro renders law, and thus Batman’s entire mission, meaningless. Even Batman doesn’t pretend what he’s doing is right or legal. He runs from the police and only works with Commissioner Gordon in secret. He was relieved when Harvey Dent, an “honest” crime fighter, came to town. He doesn’t work with the public or even make himself or his goals known. He clearly knows what he’s doing is wrong and self-defeating, he just can’t help himself. Pro tries to go line by line and explain why Batman’s crimes are exceptions to the rule (though he conveniently leaves out the more serious charges), but he misses the whole point. There is a reason we don’t see police officers breaking into homes without warrants, hanging criminals off balconies, or driving their cars through buildings. Vigilantism puts the public in danger, disregards the rights of the accused, undermines our justice system, and destroys civilized society. No results Batman could ever attain would erase the damage of his renegade antics and the fact that his irresponsibility is the antithesis of everything he claims to defend. Why So Sociopathic?Pro concedes the crux of my argument: Batman is insane. He goes on to say that he is still admirable because he continues to “move on in the only way he knows how.” But...he’s not moving on, is he? In fact, he is as emotionally and psychologically stunted as a person could ever be. He modeled his entire adult life around a single childhood trauma and it has ended him as a person. He isn’t Bruce Wayne anymore. He’s a husk of vengeance and loneliness, hiding his face and sitting alone in the dark. What message does this send to readers? That when faced with pain, repay the world in kind? That when adversity strikes, dwell on it, make it the center of your world, and forsake all others in the process? That is about as unhealthy and unhero-like as it gets. Generally, heroes use personal loss as a source of inspiration, not obsession. That’s why, in the pantheon of superheroes, only Batman has no friends, no love, no life of any kind. He only has the mask. Batman’s story isn’t admirable, it’s pitiable. Worst. Babysitter. Ever.Let me get this straight...Batman trains children to fight murderers, physically takes the children to the murderers, watches as they are murdered, and he bares no responsibility? Seriously, it’s like a karate instructor taking a van full of his 12 year old students to a crack house and telling them to go make some citizens arrests. I’m sorry but I respect Pro too much as a debater to think that he believes his argument. What Batman has done - providing children with weapons, instructing them to fight, teaching them to break the law, etc. - isn’t just bad parenting. It is the very definition of child abuse, neglect, and endangerment [1][2]. Even if we used the perspective of a child, as Pro would like us to do, the sight of the heroic Caped Crusader leading his own biological and adopted children to their eventual brutal deaths is hard to admire. Well, at least he doesn't actually physically assault them himself or anything... ...and my personal favorite: Counter-ArgumentsBatman is...a good guy?Pro seems to concede my point here by agreeing that there is a difference between doing a “good” act and being, on balance, a “good” role model. He states that the Joker’s crime fighting doesn’t change his negative nature. Similarly, Batman’s crime fighting does not change his sociopathic criminality. The difference is that I, like our criminal justice system and society at large, do not believe that good intentions alleviate someone of their wrongdoing. There is a reason manslaughter is a crime; intentionality of a bad deed may influence the extent of one's punishment but it doesn’t erase it and it certainly doesn’t make the perpetrator a good person. Batman vs. the PolicePro seems to think it is my burden to prove why recklessly and dangerously taking the law into your own hands is wrong. By this point I have made that reason abundantly clear, but that demand still strikes me as odd. In any case, Pro concedes that it is the responsibility of the police, not Batman, to maintain and enforce societal good. Batman’s actions, which rest completely outside the law and forces him to interfere with their operations constantly, serves largely to obstruct their mission and waste their resources. A perfect example of Batman hindering justice is Pro’s example of supposed selflessness. At the end of The Dark Knight, Batman takes the blame for Harvey Dent’s murders. Pro wrongly attributes this to Gotham City’s need for “a person to hate.” As I explained previously, Batman admired Dent because Dent's motives were pure and his actions legal, as opposed to his own psychotic lawbreaking. Now, Batman decides to lie to the entire city and use countless governmental resources and manpower hunting him down for the one crime he didn’t commit. Once again he gets in the way of the actual law enforcers and takes them away from solving actual crimes. This “sacrifice” is actually making Gotham less safe. I look forward to my opponent’s final round. References1. http://www.childwelfare.gov...2. http://www.legalmatch.com...