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

I will begin by thanking axM62 for this debate. ----- I apologize for not addressing his value "block"; I have only been trained in parliamentary debate and have not been trained in LD debate; as a result, I did not know to address it. Before I move on, I would like to clarify that my speech is not meant to be in formal LD format. I would like to address my opponent's value block now. ----- There is another value in this debate that is more important than human dignity. This value is proportionate force. Batman did bring about good in Gotham, but the amount of force he used was disproportionate and illegal. Batman's actions frequently resulted in unnecessary destruction of property and physical harm to criminals. The methods I detailed accomplish the reduction of crime Mr. Wayne sought without this property damage and physical harm. Thus, the standard by which to measure proportionate force is whether Batman's actions used more force than was necessary to accomplish his goals in a feasible manner. I have shown that Batman has failed to do this, as he has destroyed personal and public property and assaulted criminals in his attempts to reduce crime, actions which are unnecessary. ----- I will now address my opponent's defense of his first contention and the supposed "anarchy" in Gotham City. While Gotham was beset by high crime rates and a corrupt police force, the city's government and police were not completely corrupt and were still intact. My opponent even admits that Gotham had an active government and police force; thus, his claim that Gotham was in a state of anarchy is self-invalidated. The government may have failed its people, but it was still intact, and Mr. Wayne did not need to use the level of force he did in reducing crime. As to my opponent's second contention, "failure" and "ripe with corruption" are not synonymous with "lawlessness". The fact that there was even a legal system FOR Mr. Falcone to manipulate shows that there was not "lawlessness" in Gotham. In my opponent's defense of his third contention, he claims that the ability of the police and armed forces to use violence in combating injustice allow Batman to do so. He also claims Batman has "no choice" but to "bend the rules". First of all, Batman is not an officer of the government or law enforcement and is not legally allowed to use force against criminals except in self-defense. Second, Batman does have alternatives, which I have presented. Third, he is not "bending" the rules, he is breaking them. Since my opponent's defenses of his contentions have all been countered, none of them stand. ----- Now to defend my case. My opponent's counter to my first contention is invalid, as he misquotes my case. My opponent claims I stated that " Batman's actions are justified if crime would have gotten worse without it". I never stated this. I stated that "the only possible justification... is that they were the only way to prevent crime in Gotham from becoming worse". My opponent disregarded the uses of "only" in my statement in a clear attempt to deceive the viewers. Also, Batman's defeat of the Falcone cartel was a violent raid upon a drug shipment of theirs. Batman's actions here were unprovoked and even included Falcone's being "brutally dragged out" of his car [1], a clearly unprovoked act of violence that interrupted no crime. I have defended my first contention and it still stands. As to my second contention, I will point out flaws in my opponent's counter and then defend my alternatives. First of all, he mentions acts I argued for in the "status code". I mentioned no such status code. This mysterious "status code" has no bearing on my contentions. Secondly, my opponent claims that Batman only uses violence "in self defense or to interrupt crime". The fact that Batman dragged Falcone from his car and bound him to a skylight clearly invalidates this claim. I do not claim Batman's actions to be "horrible"; they are merely more violent than what is necessary and feasible, and thus are unjustified due to excessive force. As to the alternatives I proposed, I never claimed that Batman did not already engage in these activities. What I meant to propose was Batman's use of these as a replacement for his illegal vigilantism rather than a supplement. By focusing the time he spends as a caped crusader on legal channels and obtaining evidence without attacking criminals, he could accomplish just as much as he does as the Batman without violating any law. Lastly, my third contention. My opponent's attempt to counter my third contention is, frankly, rather nonsensical. First of all, I mention no final demand or "ultimatum". Secondly, Mr. Wayne does not steal to live abroad; he uses his immense wealth. Third, he does not "avoid violence whenever he can", as shown by his actions regarding Mr. Falcone. Lastly, his vendetta becomes clear when one examines the fact that he once plotted to kill Joe Chill and then dedicated his life to combating criminals. ----- Since all of my opponent's contentions have been successfully countered and all of mine still stand, I urge viewers to vote CON when the voting period arrives. I will end by thanking axM62 for the debate and the viewers for their time. ----- SOURCES: [1] http://dc.wikia.com...(Movie)#Plot_2