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

C1: Stranger dangerTo my opponent's point about de-powering politicians and businessmen, he argues that there is no way to do so as we have no EMR for these people. Obviously though there are way to take away power from politicians and businessmen. Businessmen can have their wealth and property expropriated away and politicians can be thrown from power. Obviously since some politicians and businessmen act in a way harmful to the public's interest, my opponent must advocate the de-powering of every businessman and politician.My opponent then argues that the best way to deal with businessmen and politicians who abuse their power is to take them out of power, on a case by case basis. Meaning businessmen who are good honest people and don't hurt anyone should be left alone as well as politicians who follow the rules set out for them. On this point I wholeheartedly agree. In fact, this is the point I have been arguing for over the course of this debate. I have been arguing that we should not automatically take away the power of every single super human (remember this is what my opponent is defending as the resolution mentions "all" super humans specifically), but that super humans who abuse that power or infringe on the rights of others may be de-powered.My entire point was a reducto ad absurdum on my opponent's point. For if he argues that all super humans ought to be de-powered because some (though not all) infringe on the rights of others with their powers, then he must also advocate the "de-powering" of any other group of people where some portion of them abuses their power (remember that I have shown that businessmen and politicians can in fact be de-powered, just not with an EMR). Since this logical conclusion is patently absurd, we must conclude the same for my opponent's conclusion regarding super humans.My opponent makes a few other points here. He also argues that the EMR should be used to punish super humans who abuse their power. Again, this supports a case by case basis approach which I have defended, and contradicts my opponent's own position of de-powering ALL super humans. My opponent also argues that many super humans wish to lead normal lives and thus we would be doing them a favor. Nothing in my own position precludes super humans from voluntarily undergoing the EMR. It is my opponent's position which does not allow non-aggressive super humans to go on possessing their powers.Sub-C1: ClashesMy opponent's first point is that we are de-powering nations, citing as an example trade sanctions against Iran. However, this would be akin to Superman and the X-men de-powering Color Kid because he's too powerful[1]. Let me explain. When comparing the relative strengths of country's miltary's, Iran doesn't even make the top 50[2] while those imposing the sanction (the U.S., Canada, European powers) are much more powerful. For instance, the United States is near universally ranked as the most powerful country in the world. Iran is developing nuclear technology while the United States and Russia possess an amount of nuclear power that would dwarf anything that Iran could hope to develop. Again, this is akin to Superman and the X-men de-powering Color Kid for being too strong. C2: ExploitationMy opponent argues that it would actually be the moral decision to forcefully convert Jews to Christianity and make homosexuals into heterosexuals since it would diminish the pain those groups would feel collectively. In all honesty, I did not expect my opponent to take my reductio seriously as it was meat to show the absurdity of my opponent's argument. My point was that homosexuals and Jews have not acted aggressively against anyone and thus should not be forcefully subjected to the EMR. If it would really save them from so much pain and anguish, then it would make sense that they would go willingly, thus contradicting any need to forcefully use the EMR on them. However, if they feel like they would rather be their natural selves and be tortured rather than changing themselves to escape pain, that is obviously their own choice to make.C3: TemptationMy opponent argues again that just as politicians who abuse their power are arrested, so should super humans who abuse their power (with the exception that they be subjected to the EMR). Again, I agree with this point, it is my opponent who is arguing against it by supporting that super humans ALL be de-powered, not just those who break laws or infringe on the rights of others. By his own logic, all politicians should be forced out of power because some politicians abuse it.My opponent then further argues his point that adolescent super humans are apt to succumb to temptations and break the law. I argue that if they do do so, then they should be punished (with possibly the EMR). The same logic of my opponent could be used to support the pre-emptive jailing of teenagers because they're likely to take drugs or try alcohol. The point is incoherent and supports aggression against people who haven't actually done anything yet. As I've stated before, if they do break laws or infringe on the rights of others, then de-powerization could be a viable option.C4: EvolutionMy opponent further argues that super humans MIGHT develop a resistance to the EMR on their own (without ever being subjected to it apparently), therefore we should de-power them all now before it's too late. However, as I've shown already, this point predicates on the soundness of my opponent's other points for de-powerization. If those arguments hold weight, then so does this one. However, if they do not, then this one does not. Either way, the entire scope of this point has to do with WHEN, not IF and thus it is irrelevant to the debate at hand anyways.Con caseBasic rights an "de-powerization"My opponent argues that super humans will "inevitably" clash and fight and thus the EMR is the only way to stop this. Of course, my opponent shouldered himself with a quite impossible burden of proof with this point as it is impossible to show that every super human to ever exist will infringe on the rights of others and break laws just as it is impossible to show that every UFC fighter will get into a fight on the street. If my opponent had even attempted to ove this, rather than showing a single example of a fight, that might have helped with his point.My opponent next argues that the right in security of person is also the right to safety. My opponent then goes on to argue that because people have their security infringed on during fights, super humans are infringing on their rights and should thus be de-powered. Again, I am not arguing that super humans who do infringe on the rights of others must be left alone and go unpunished, however, I am arguing that those super humans who do not engage in huge public fights (and remember that my opponent has not upheld his BoP to show that every super human will) should not be subjected to the EMR. My opponent has not shown that by the mere fact that one has some sort of super power, one will necessarily infringe on the rights of others. Therefore, de-powering every super human is an infringement on their own rights and unjustified.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.globalfirepower.com...