Batman is Partially Responsible for the Crimes of the Joker

I apologize for not presenting an opening as I did not see we have four rounds. My opponent agrees I got the format correct so I will continue, with apologies noted. Note to Voters: My opponent and I are comic geeks. I consider this to be a badge of honor not derision (my wife agrees … reluctantly). I can easily dismiss many stories as poorly written, providing bad plot devices, etc. The real reason Batman stopped killing was due to the image DC wanted to purvey and the Comics Code, etc. But these arguments are simply not sporting. All contentions are based on the comics, movies, etc. , and justifications are to be found there. My opponent's response falls in line with this so I see no need to mention plot devices, or any outside argumentation. With that said … The Creation of the Joker: My opponent and I agree the Red Hood origin is the most common and is probably correct. He rebutted my claim that Red Hood's illegal actions are the sole contributors to his subsequent chemical fall, or jump, resulting in the Joker. The Batman was also operating outside of the law and should carry some burden according to my opponent. I must disagree. Pro dismisses the nature of the illegality committed by Red Hood. He, the Red Hood, chose to rob a chemical plant; Batman did not choose the site. The Red Hood chose a costume with a breathing apparatus installed in the mask [1]. Why would one need such a device for a robbery in a chemical plant? The answer is simple – escape. The Red Hood chose to jump into the vat of chemicals and his choice of "wonderful little toys" shows this very clearly. Gotham City Police are not capable of dealing with the lowliest of criminals and save the city's population at the same time. Batman had to step in as the destruction of the chemical plant could have resulted in, not one, but many Jokers. The reasonableness of Batman's response puts all blame on the Red Hood as his premeditated crime with an unadvisable escape route (the chemical vats) made him what he is. The presence of super villains after Batman does not necessarily mean they came to Gotham because of Batman. Correlation is not causation. Pro must show they would not have arrived, but for the Batman. The Riddler may continue his failed crimes sprees, or the Penguin, or Killer Croc, but they were bad guys long before the Batman. They continue to fail because of the Caped Crusader, without him, they succeed. They are attracted to Batman because he is the only one who can stop them. Motivation of the Joker: The Joker did indeed take a hiatus in the Batman's absence as Frank Millar's award winning series explained. But Joker also came back to Gotham when Batman was gone during the No Man's Land story. The Joker is unpredictable as these two events show. His actions only make sense to him. Upon hearing the Batman was back, the Joker reemerged, but all that was necessary was being told he was back; the real Batman was not needed. As I stated, without a Batman, the Joker would simply invent one or hope for one. The Big Joke is all the Joker needs. I must concede the movie does portray the Joker as a result of the Batman so in reference to this canon, I must concede this point. Killing the Joker: My opponent accurately showed that Batman has killed before. I agree, but the killing took place very early in Bruce Wayne's career; this is clearly shown in my opponent's source. The killing stopped once Batman grew to understand his role in Gotham. By killing he becomes the very thing he despises. Batman developed an attraction to justice and maintains it. Not killing his enemies is a staple to the Batman mythos, the one Gotham's parents tell their children at night, one of an avenging crusader scaring away the bad guys, protecting them from harm. Batman stopped killing and fell into this role. He is, as my opponent states, very capable of killing and masking the crime, but he could not hide it from himself, the Joker knows this too. Batman's struggle between brutality and justice is inner, not just external. Killing the Joker kills the mythos that is Batman and may break the very thin line he walks. In reference to Darkseid, Batman did indeed fire the gun to destroy what became the persona of evil. "Gotcha" was the word I think he used; a very fitting end for both. Batman broke his seminal rule to save the universe (all of them, DC remember). Even on his worst day the Joker is not evil personified, he is sickness in the flesh. That gunshot spelled the end for Bruce … maybe, but not even the Joker and his crimes reach the level of Darkseid's deeds. I stand by the fact that Bruce cannot kill the Joker as that is exactly what the Joker wants and the results would be devastating to Gotham, as I presented in my last round. 1. . http://en.wikipedia.org...