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

Thanks for the reply, again in the nick of time. Here I was, hoping for a forfeit. How silly of me. Anyways, I will defend my previous arguments, as well as refute the short paragraph that is my opponent's case. Defense of Previous ContentionsD1: Stranger DangerCON makes a feeble attempt at refuting my argument by saying it proves too much, as hostages can be used against businessmen and politicians. Viewers and voters please note, that this is a straw man fallacy. . http://en.wikipedia.org...I may be supporting that politicians and businessmen should be depowered, but that would not relate to this resolution, as this resolution, I remind you CON, is that we would depower all superhumans. Please be aware that businessmen and politicians would not fit in this superhuman category. Furthermore, we have no method of depowering businessmen and politicians, unlike with superhumans as we have the EMR. Therefore, we would not be able to even depower politicians or businessmen. It is obvious that CON's refutation is not logical nor is it strong. Therefore, my argument still stands. Sub D1: ClashesAgain with the straw man fallacy. CON believes that saying: "My opponent's plan would take out one source of unaccountable power while still leaving sources of exponentially more power completely unchecked. " is a sufficient enough refutation. First, let me say that nations at war with each other have nothing to do with depowering of superhumans. CON is obviously misrepresenting my argument. Furthermore, CON says that by taking out one source of power (superhumans) we would still leave other powers unchecked (countries). This is a red herring logical fallacy, as CON introduces the argument of leaving other powers unchecked, which has no relation to the original topic. . http://www.nizkor.org...CON's case is that we should not depower the superhumans, not depower country's nukes. Moreover, CON supports the notion that we should not use the EMR. By not using the EMR, we would still leave sources of exponentially more power, as CON says, unchecked. In fact, it would be much worse, as we would have these sources of unchecked power as well as the power of the superhumans. D2: ExploitationCON brings up the point that superhumans are not the only ones that are experimented on. I must remind CON that "We" are the United Nations of the world of Capcom and Marvel. (Look at round 1)CON accepted these terms in round 1, so he can hardly contest them now. Jews, homosexuals, etc. may be experimented on in our world, Earth, but not in Capcom or Marvel. If CON does not believe this, I challenge him to find a comic by Capcom or Marvel that depicts these groups getting experimented on. Therefore, CON's refutation of "it would be the moral option to render homosexuals as heterosexuals, force conversion from Judaism, etc. This point is to show that even if the consequences might seem desirable, the effects on the characteristics that make that person "them" must outweigh the desired consequences" is invalid, as there are no homosexuals in Capcom or Marvel, so homosexuals would not be rendered heterosexual, and we would not force conversion from Judaism. Therefore, CON's refutation is invalid. D3: TemptationI apologize for the skip in numbers. I do have trouble counting. Do I sense straw man? I sense straw man. Again, the depowerment of politicians does not relate to the resolution at all. It is the depowerment of superhumans. When politicians use their position of power to get what they want, they should be arrested. Furthermore, politicians differ from superhumans because of the fact that they are elected into power. Therefore, it is much worse if a politican uses their power to get what they want, as they represent the populace. Just to add on to my point, most superhumans are merely teens or young adults (Spiderman, many of the X-Men characters such as nightcrawler). During this time, they are still growing, and do not truly recognize the full extent of their power nor are they fully mature. As adolescents, they are more prone to temptation. We see this when underage teens drink and smoke, because their peers do and they want to fit in. As a result, these superhumans are much more likely to use their powers for not so good causes than a mature adult politician. D4: EvolutionCON attempts at a refutation here by saying: "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 clearly shown that this is a good idea, as all my points still stand. This is a good idea because innocent lives may get harmed, these superhumans may be exploited, and these superhumans may use their power for not so good causes. I have shown that we ought to do it now because like every living being, the superhumans will evolve in the future. These evolutions may include the resistance to EMR, and we would not be able to depower them. Also, by depowering them now, we save more innocent lives, we save more superhumans from being exploited, and we save more superhumans from succumbing to temptation than if we waited. Therefore, as CON says, my point holds weight. Refutation of CON's Case. R.1: Basic Rights and "De-Powerization". CON says, "super humans are being pre-emptively de-powered, we can assume they have not necessarily done anything to require de-powerization"I must stress that this is not true. Superhumans are not being pre-emptively depowered. They have done things in the past the require de-powerization. The main thing that comes to mind is the many fights that have occured. If you look at the video I posted last round, you can see Spiderman fighting Sand Man. This fight puts many lives in danger, including the lives of Mary Jane and the many bystanders. It is actions like these that require depowerization. It is actions like these that prove that superhumans are not being pre-emptively depowered, as they have endangered lives before. CON also says: "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. However, seeing as my opponent's scenario involves pre-emptive action, it is not moral. "Superhumans do infringe on the rights of others, though. As I have proved before, supervillains tend to kidnap hostages, as you can see with Mary Jane. This kidnapping is a clear infrignement of Article 3 and 9 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. . http://www.un.org... "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. ""No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. "By being kidnapped and held hostage, then the hostage does not have liberty, nor the security of person. Furthermore the act of kidnapping is an arbitary arrest, as the hostage is taken into custody. As I have just proved that my scenario does not invovled pre-emptive action, and as CON himself stated if the actions of superhumans infringe on the rights of others, the depowerization of superhumans is moral. ConclusionAs a result of several logical fallacies presented by CON, and the fact that he agreed if I could prove that superhumans infringed on the rights of others, I have clearly won this debate.