Batman is, on balance, a positive role model

I will address his contentions before reaffirming my own. Con's CaseBatman: Killer? Con claims that Batman is a killer of criminals and civilians, but this contention fails on multiple fronts. First of all, most of Con's images are inadmissible. We agreed in Round 1 to focus on the current and most common incarnation of the character: Bruce Wayne of New Earth [1]. However, the art style of Con's first three examples reveal them to be from the Golden Age (i. e. 1940's - 60's), when Batman was a gun-wielding film noir detective from another dimension [2; see Golden Age][3]. The topic of this debate is Modern Age Batman (i. e. 1980's - Present), who is a fundamentally different character and thus not hampered by Con's accusations [2; see Modern Age]. The second issue with Con's evidence is the evidence itself. Even if we ignore the fact that these images are non-resolutional, they still offer no context, sources, proof of death, or indication that anyone pictured is an innocent civilian. If Con wishes to pursue this argument, I must insist that he offer clear, sourced, and era-appropriate proof of Batman killing someone (especially an innocent person, as Con asserts). Only Con's final image - Batman shooting Darkseid and dying in the process - is relevant to this debate. Now, Darkseid was essentially evil personified, with his degenerative essence jumping from body to body [3; see Final Crisis]. Batman's specialized bullet only poisoned the villain's host body, which was soon abandoned. It was actually Superman, enraged at his friend's death, who then killed the Darkseid entity. Thus, Batman's respect for life is untarnished. However, even if Batman had knowingly destroyed the king of darkness, what is Con's point? Self-sacrifice in the name of the greater good is a negative trait? Those who defend the innocent and defeat the guilty are bad role models? An explanation is sorely needed. Batman and his Rogues Con believes Batman created his own villains. Again, my opponent's brief argument is riddled with flaws. To start, the origins of most of Batman's rogues have nothing to do with him. Mr. Freeze steals in the hopes of resurrecting his wife [4]; Poison Ivy was driven insane by a former lover [5]; The Scarecrow, like many of Batman's remaining enemies, turned to crime after a tortured childhood [6]. The list goes on. In fact, the only time Batman was even present at the "birth" of a villain involved the Joker, and he was already committing a crime at the time [7]! These monsters exist independent of Batman and each would be far more dangerous if he was not there to stop them. Con has not proven a causal relationship between Batman and his enemies. The best he could even hope to do is say Batman was so successful as a hero that his adversaries were forced to improve their tactics. This is equivalent to blaming police officers who wear bullet proof vests for criminals responding with armor-piercing rounds. Those who advance crime fighting techniques should be praised for their efforts in support of justice, not held responsible for the negative reactions of evil doers. This is all largely moot, however, as this entire topic is tangential to the resolution. Even if Batman were responsible for creating his own villains (which he is not), that does not make him a bad role model. Inspiring supervillains is not a real-world concern and Con has not provided any appropriate equivalent. Unless Con can relate this issue with some realistic negative impact on individuals or society, he has simply been distracted by fantasy. Pro's CaseThe Man Con drops this point. Extend my arguments on Batman as a champion of inspirational human traits. The Mission Con unsuccessfully attacked Batman's morals. Extend my arguments on Batman as a model for respecting justice and human life. The Mistakes Con drops this point. Extend my arguments on Batman as a realistic reminder of human limitations. My opponent left my entire case untouched and fails to establish a valid case of his own. I look forward to his expanded arguments next round. References 1. . http://tinyurl.com... 2. . http://tinyurl.com... 3. . http://tinyurl.com... 4. . http://tinyurl.com...5. . http://tinyurl.com...6. . http://tinyurl.com...7. . http://tinyurl.com...8. . http://tinyurl.com...