The jokers statement in the "Dark Knight" that "We are destined to do this forever" is true.

1. Pro is wrong. Batman does, in fact, try to save Rachel Moss before saving Harvey Dent. The Joker makes this clear by telling Batman that he "accidentally switched them up," indicating that he in fact switched them up on purpose. Why? He wanted Batman to wind up saving the OPPOSITE of whom he would have chosen. The Joker's goal here was to have Rachel die in order to piss Batman enough for Batman to retaliate. 2. My opponent's response to my lengthy and valid point here was simply "Nothing." Thus this unrefuted point goes to me. 3. During the few points where Pro actually wishes to respond, his wording is inarticulate and I have a hard time understanding his point. In response to #3, he says that it is the Joker's madness which drives him to cause chaos, and that with Batman alive, he will never reach his goal... Pro says "this is contradicted by my next statement, which leads back to a circle" however he doesn't make a next statement. His response to #4 was again simply the word "nothing" meaning that he doesn't have a point at all. Mine still stands, which was the fact that BECAUSE the Joker is absolutely mad with absolutely no sound reasoning behind his judgment, YOU CANNOT PREDICT WHAT A MAD MAN WILL DO ALL OF THE TIME. 4. My point still stands after my opponent's "nothing" response, and this was a pretty big point... -- "ATTACKS ON MY POINTS" rebuttal: 1. Now on to some kind of actual rebuttal, Pro maintains that Batman will not take a life, and notes that he hasn't taken Ras Al Ghul's life in the past. That's fine. But people's pasts do not always reflect their futures. For instance, I have never eaten Indian food, but that doesn't mean I never will. Similarly, even though I am in a FAR LESS "intense" occupation or lifestyle as Batman, I cannot say for certain that I will never take a life in the future, even though I haven't up to date. In The Dark Knight, Batman says several things that indicate the possibility of him revealing a "darker" side. 1) "You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain." Here Batman is acknowledging that he may one day abandon his moral code of ethics, including the #1 cardinal rule of not killing. 2) "I'm whatever Gotham needs me to be." Protecting Gotham is the Batman's #1 goal and priority. He will do whatever it takes - no matter how much he doesn't want to - in order to protect the lives of its citizens. This was exemplified in The Dark Knight when he put Gotham before himself on SEVERAL occasions (in choosing to come out of hiding, so to speak, and also in regards to Rachel Moss). Thus if it was necessary for the Joker to die, Batman would put Gotham's needs ahead of his own priorities. 2. 3. Points 2 and 3 are left blank by my opponent...? 4. Again BECAUSE the Joker was agreed to be mad (by my opponent), we cannot assume that the Joker will NEVER kill Batman in the future. For one thing, his goals could change at any moment. For another, madness = insanity and that is never stable. Albert Einstein once said, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." This definitely applies to the Joker. Further, while the Joker may be BORED if Batman were gone, it doesn't mean that he would be upset in any other way. In fact, during the Dark Knight the Joker says "It's simple. Kill the Batman!" This proves that he actually doesn't care whether Batman was dead or alive (though he'd prefer him alive). -- "My points" rebuttal? : 1. Pro points out again why the Batman hasn't killed the Joker in the past, but I've already refuted that. 2. "An accidental death would not fullfill killing each other. the burden of a death doesnt fall on someone just because he was involved in the accident." This is completely wrong. An accidental death ABSOLUTELY fulfills killing each other, if they did in fact kill each other. Why does it matter whether it was an accident or not? The resolution does NOT reject this situation. Further, I don't know where Pro comes from, but the burden of death does fall on someone even if the death was an accident!!! Think of fist fights that turned deadly. Sentence? Murder. Consider the 15 year old kid who was play-fight wrestling with a younger kid and accidentally killed him. Sentence? Murder. Drunk driving accidents? Yep, the drivers are at fault (even if it was an accident). This point is laughably inarguable, and goes to the Con. -- Opponent's Point: "Batman wont just give up and let it happen. He needs the joker as much as the joker needs him. The joker gives him a villain to constantly look for, fight, and match wits against, thats what he does." This suggests that the Batman is the Batman for fun or for sport; that he enjoys doing what he does. I disagree. While being Batman most certainly has its perks, consider all that Bruce Wayne has given up for the role: normalcy, no credit for his action, an immediate turn on him from the public after one misunderstanding after years of service, and most notably, Rachel Moss. I believe that Batman is Batman because he knows it is the right thing to do. He knows it is the right thing to protect the citizens from Gotham as much as he can. It's almost a calling, and it would go against his moral code if he were to just give up when he knows he could make a difference and save lives. He wants to protect people. It has nothing to do with competing with the Joker and seeing who can outsmart the other. Fighting the Joker is DANGEROUS and Batman's life is at risk every time. If he dies, Gotham's hero dies. And as I've pointed out, being good for Gotham is his #1 priority. He establishes this throughout the film The Dark Knight AND in other endeavors. For Pro to express that the Batman NEEDS the Joker, he's going to have to do a little more explaining than that...