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

For this round, I will refute my opponent's points while formulating my own short case.C1: Stranger dangerMy opponent's first point is a strong one I admit. He argues that allowing superheroes to retain their powers allows for the putting of their loves one's in danger as a means of coercing actions on superheroes. This point however does not hold much weight as it proves too much. If the general principle of my opponent's C1 were to be applied consistently, any person in a position of considerable power or influence would need to be taken out immediately as their enemies can do the exact same thing. My opponent's contention would support the "de-powering" of politicians, businessmen, anyone with considerable wealth, etc. since there is still the possibility that someone would use that to their advantage.Sub-C1: ClashesMy opponent's next point is that superheroes and villains will inevitably clash, leaving innocents injured or dead with the police powerless to stop them. As with my opponent's C1 though, his point proves to much. For instance, the same could be said of nations at war with each other. Even the poorest nations are on par with superheroes in the considerable amount of power and destructive possibilities that they wield. The United States has nuclear capabilities that far exceed the powers of any superhero and the same could be said of a handful of nations in the world. My opponent's plan would take out one source of unaccountable power while still leaving sources of exponentially more power completely unchecked.C2: ExploitationThe main problem with this point of my opponent's is that it (like his previous points) proves far too much. For instance, superheroes are not the only ones who are experimented on unlawfully. Animals, twins, Jews, homosexuals, Gypsies and a plethora of other people and animals with marginally interesting characteristics have been unlawfully experimented on. By my opponent's own admission, 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.C3: ?My opponent seems to have skipped a contention 3.C4: Temptationmy opponent continues to make the same mistake. This point, much like the previous two, rests on a certain principle. For instance, the principle my opponent uses in this point is that superheroes will use these powers as a means to break laws which their powers make very easy to do so. However, again like his other two points, my opponent is unable to consistently apply this principle without "de-powering" anyone who has any sort of influence that would make it easy for them to break the law. Politicians are a glaring example of this rule. We hear about it all the time, politicians using their position of power to get what they want, even if it's against the law or unacceptable for a normal person to do so. My opponent, if he wishes to act consistently, would need to "de-power" politicians or anyone with any sort of influence over others which they could use to exploit them.C5: EvolutionMy opponent's next point is that super humans might evolve so that de-powering them would prove useless in the future, making attempts to de-power them in the future useless. This point rests on the premise that forcefully de-powering super humans would be a good idea which I have shown it s not. 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. The point is more advocating when we do it than if we do it.Case in negation of the resolutionBasic rights and "de-powerization"My opponent has conceded the point in his Exploitation point that super humans have basic human rights even if they have super powers. I will utilize this point to negate the resolution. For since super humans have basic rights like everyone else, the mere fact that they have super powers ought not negate those rights.One of these rights which everyone possesses is the right not to have rights infringed on unless as a response to the infringement on the rights of others. Seeing as in this scenario, super humans are being pre-emptively de-powered, we can assume they have not necessarily done anything to require de-powerization. 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.