Choose

As I don't have as long as I would like, I will make this quick and go down my opponent's points and defend my own. His argument to reject the talk of 10 and under is flawed. Even if you're not buying the restrictions I place, I'm still going to be outweighing in terms of impact on younger society than he is on older society. We can warrant this through his own defnition, as it says that role models "especially impact younger kids". Thus, more kids of younger ages are going to be impacted, thus the argument still holds ground and ought to be considered. Batman, a criminal? The one flaw that my opponent makes is that he claims that the ends never justify the means, but doesn't back it up at all. The ends do justify the means, as we can clearly see from laws such as the law of self-defense, where it becomes legal for us to kill in order to defend ourself or our property from illegal attack. Without it, we wouldn't be justified in defending ourselves if a robber were to break into our homes, which is clearly false. I can go into further explanation if needed, but this is a basic justification for it. Let's go down his list of supposed crimes and see what Batman should really be held criminally responsible for:Tresspassing - Ends justifying the means. If tresspassing lets him stop a major criminal, then it would be permissible. Breaking an entering - Same as above. Tampering with a crime scene - Would it matter if he tampered with the crime scene if he still brought the criminal responsible to justice? If anything, he's saving time for the Police to work on other cases. Tampering with and/or theft of evidence - As this is basically the same thing as the above, I'll just refer you to the above answer. Concealing and use of deadly weapons - When did concealing a deadly weapon become illegal? Last I checked, it was perfectly legal, supposing you have the proper licensing. And a deadly weapon only truly becomes deadly if the wound it inflicts causes the person to die. I. e. if I shoot you in the foot, I did not cause you to die, thus the gun I shot you with cannot be classified as a deadly weapon, as it did not inflict a deadly wound. The potential to inflict a deadly wound doesn't apply because anything has the potential to do x action. I potentially can kill someone with a toothpick, but that would not classify it as a deadly weapon, unless I actually used it to kill someone. The wound/damage it inflicts classifies it as deadly. And since Batman's sole creed is that he never will kill, he can never use a 'deadly weapon', as any wound he inflicts is not deadly. Public Endangerment - Ends justifying the means. If he has to drive recklessly on a sidewalk in order to catch up and apprehend a major criminal, it would be justified and permissible. Assault and Battery - So police officers are allowed to beat up criminals, but Batman isn't? Talk about hypocracy. Moreover, even if it weren't, the ends would still justify the means. If Batman had to beat up a criminal in order to apprehend him and turn him in to the police, it would be justified and permissible. Kidnapping - Really? A) When? B) If the kidnapee was a criminal, then the ends would justify the means, if the intent of the kidnapping was to discover the location of a larger criminal, and turn in the kidnapee afterwards. Moreover, he claims that endorsing vigilantism is actually bad, but never warrants why it's bad, other than "it's vigilantism. 'Nuff said". This isn't an actual warrant. Batman's mental! You can TURN this argument in my favor. The fact that he has this unstable mind and is still able to act in the public's benefit (i. e. taking down major criminals and trying to clean up the streets) proves that he's trying to be a good person and get past his past and move on in the only way he knows how. This proves that he would be an admirable role model for the effort he displays. His side-kicks are dying! Woe be ye! There really isn't any offense for my opponent to leverage here, as Batman never forced any of them into becoming his sidekick. Their choice of becoming such a thing makes the end result of it, whether it be serious physical trauma or death, is on their hands, not Batman's. The fact that he tried to train them and teach them how to survive is a testament to his attempt to make sure they stayed safe in the line of work he participated in, not his recklessness or his lack of care. Now to defend my arguments. Batman IS a good guy! No, as the Joker's intended end was to commit more crimes with the increased power he would gain by removing other major criminals. The end being bad makes the means not good. And there was nothing the movie to suggest that the tatto'd man was a murderer. He could simply be in there for some minor offense, and was just physically imposing. His act of allowing the civilians to live would classify him as a good guy. The fact that Batman is doing good, via the ends justifying the means, makes him good. Batman v. PoliceAgain, the 'vigilantism bad' argument without an actual warrant why vigilantism IS bad. However, you can also extend my argument of in the Dark Knight, when the end of the movie came about and Batman turned himself into secrecy in order to give the city a person to hunt for and a person to hate, it is an atonement for the 'crimes' that he had done, and it was bettering societal good and helped maintain order. So his argument there doesn't stand. All arguments against my case have been refuted. Extend my case. His case has been refuted.