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

D1: Stranger DangerHere, CON drops my argument that we have no means of depowering politicians and businessmen, as we do not have an EMR for these situations. CON wants consistency? Okay, I'll give him consistency. When politicians and businessmen use their power to harm others, they get arrested. For example, when big name CEOs practice insider trading, they are using their position and hurting others who invest in the business. As a result, they get arrested. We can hardly arrest a superhero or supervillain, as superheroes protect our cities from these supervillains (the police are quite useless as they are mere humans) and as supervillains, they can easily escape from prison. Therefore, we must take some sort of measure to punish these supervillains, as CON stated, we need consistency. We can do this with depowerment. Therefore, superheroes (as they are the good guys) are able to lead normal lives as humans, and the supervillains can now be arrested and charged for crimes that he committed as a supervillain. In fact, many superheroes want to lead normal lives and get rid of their powers. You think the they enjoy having their loved ones in constant danger? No, we would be doing many superheroes a favor by allowing them to lead normal lives. Frankly, we owe them this favor, as they have been saving our cities from supervillains for a long time. Therefore, I have successfully defended my argument both ways. CON attempted to refute my argument with a straw man fallacy, which obviously is not a valid refutation, as it is a fallacy. However, CON insists that it was not a fallacy, and he is merely applying my concept consistently, though CON has failed on this front as well. I have applied it consistently, and still shown that we should depower all superhumans. Therefore, it is obvious that I win on this point. Sub D1: ClashesAgain, I will show CON that when applied consistently, we should depower all superhumans. CON says that we should depower nations. We are already trying to depower nations. Just look at the trade sanctions against Iran. . http://www.international.gc.ca...We are imposing these trade sanctions because Iran is developing nuclear weaponry, and these trade sanctions are done in an effort to depower nations, in this case Iran, from these nuclear weapons. Obviously, it is still a work in progress. Therefore, when applied consistently, we should depower superhumans as well, as we are already depowering nations. Obviously, CON does not realize that by arguing consistency, he is improving my case. Therefore, I have won on this point as well. D.2: ExploitationOkay, true, there may be homosexuals in Marvel and Capcom, I did not realize this. However, this still does not disprove my argumentThis argument is about how superhumans will be experimented on because of their supernatural tendencies and powers. CON says that it proves too much, and, by my logic, we should make homosexuals heterosexual, and etc. However, I must ask, what is wrong with making homosexuals heterosexual with the use of a similar EMR? I am sure that those homosexuals and Jews wished that they were not homosexual or Jewish during the time they were experimented on. If by using the EMR, changing homosexuals to heterosexuals and converted Jews to Christianity, we prevented these people from being tortured and experimented on, then I would argue that that is a much better option. We would have saved these people much pain, and the morality of this outweighs the morality of conversion. It is the same with the superhumans. The morality of saving them from the pain of experimentation and torture, outweighs the use of the EMR. Furthermore, I would like to remind CON that many of these superhumans wish that they could lead a normal life anyways, like I pointed out in my first defense this round. Therefore, as it is much more moral to save people from pain, my point still stands. D4: TemptationHere, my opponent drops my argument that politicians should be arrested and is different from the depowerment of superhumans. CON says that I am unable to consistently apply this argument. However, he fails to realize that I, in actuality, have. We arrest politicians for succumbing to temptation and abusing their power. As I pointed out in my first defense this round, we cannot arrest superhumans. As a result, we must first depower them, and then arrest them if they have broken any laws during their time as a superhuman. Also, CON says that " 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. "However, he fails to realize that it does help my case. The depowerment of the fraction of superhumans, the adolescents, is merely an added benefit to the depowerment of all superhumans, as they are much more prone to temptation as they are still growing. CON conceives this to be an argument on its own. I would agree, that as an argument, this does not help my case. However, it is not an argument, but merely a beneficial side effect of this resolution. For example, say you are at a restaurant, and you're really feeling like Pizza. It is Saturday, a day where the restaurant gives a free side of fries with every Pizza ordered. This would certainly influence your decision. You would not order the Pizza for the fries, but merely, it would be an added benefit to the Pizza ordered, as fries or not, you still would have ordered the pizza. Like how the fries benefit your meal, this argument which highlights the temptation of adolescents, benefits my case. Therefore, it helps my case. Also, applied consistently, I have again shown how we should depower superhumans as well. Therefore, my argument is still valid. C.4: EvolutionMy opponent uses the same flawed logic in his refutation, and CON also changes his views. The previous round, CON says, "This point would only hold weight if my opponent showed that it was already a good idea and that we ought to do it now. "I have done what my opponent pointed out, which shows that the point holds weight. However now, CON says that my points are irrelevant to the debate, when clearly, he say that my point would hold weight if I proved these things, which I have. My points are relevant to the debate. As CON says, we are "concerned with whether de-powering is a good idea at all. "This argument supports that line of reasoning. Depowering is a good idea, as superhumans may develop a resistance to the EMR and if needed, future attempts at depowering may prove useless, which is why depowering now is a good idea. Clearly, my opponent doesn't know what he is talking about. This argument is still valid. RefutationR.1 Basic rights and "de-powerization"I will now refute my opponent's one argument. CON says that "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. " However, I have proved this stance. Note that in the first round, my sub C1 point of Clash, I stated that superhumans will inevitably clash and there will always be a fight. CON did not contest that they will alway clash and fight. He merely said that this was not a valid point to prove the resolution (which I contested). Therefore, it is assumed that he agrees. As a pointed out in the previous round, a basic right is the security of person, in essence, safety. Therefore, it is infringing on the rights of people around the fight (bystanders) caught in the crossfire, as their security of person is being violated. As CON himself said, " I hold that if super humans infringe on the rights of others to such a degree that not de-powering them would casually cause infringement on the rights of others, de-powerization would prove moral. "Therefore, CON has conceded his case to me. As a result, it is obvious that I have won this debate. Thanks to the voters for reading and CON for debating this topic with me.