Choose

I thank Zaradi for participating in this debate, especially considering he wasn't very familiar with Batman at the start. I hope this has made him a bigger fan!Why Pro Can’t WinBefore I recap my case and address Pro’s new argument, allow me to briefly explain how Pro has sabotaged himself in this debate. In Round 1, Pro laid out two contentions meant to prove Batman is a positive role model: Batman is a good guy and he works where the police can't. Last round, however, he dropped both of these contentions and focused only on attacking my case. In doing so, perhaps unintentionally or perhaps as a result of my rebuttals, Pro just conceded the only affirmative arguments in favor of the resolution. Without these arguments, Pro cannot prove Batman to be a positive role model, he can only hope to negate my case. In other words, Pro made it impossible to affirm the resolution. He can’t win. What Pro Has ConcededThe following list compiles the points that Pro conceded to in this debate. Combined or separate, they clearly paint the picture of what society would deem a “bad” role model. Not only are his motives and actions not to be applauded, but if they were emulated, the physical, emotional, social, and legal ramifications would be devastating: Batman is a career criminal, committing literally thousands of offences, ranging from theft to attempted murder. Batman exhibits an extremely aggressive, sociopathic, self-destructive mentality. Batman has raised and trained a half-dozen teens and pre-teens for battle, leading many to death, disability, and/or serious psychological trauma. Batman’s so-called “good deeds” are always the result of illegal and highly dangerous methods. Batman regularly interferes with and inhibits police operations in his own city. Pro’s New ArgumentPro makes two claims here. First, he states that my arguments cannot be understood by youths and thus should not be considered. However, as I explained last round, my arguments - Batman breaks the law, is crazy, and hurts kids - could not be more straightforward and universally understood. One does not need to understand the sociological implications of renegade justice to know that it’s not okay to beat people up or run from the police, nor does one need a masters in psychology to know that it’s not normal to live in a cave all alone for the rest of your life. Also, notice that Pro doesn’t mention Batman’s child abuse AT ALL. Could it be because there is nothing more obviously bad to kids than ABUSING KIDS? Pro’s second claim is really his downfall. He states that because kids think Batman is a positive role model, he is a positive role model. However, Pro already conceded that Batman’s crimes, sociopathy, and child abuse make him a negative role model. He just proved those kids wrong! Batman is a role model alright, but simply being admired does not mean he is worthy of admiration. Kids might also think bullies are popular and strong or killers are cool and powerful, but that doesn’t make their deeds positive. Pro says as much himself: “The methods, while maybe more important to older viewers, are not important to the younger viewers, who are more likely to model their actions after someone they view as a role model.”Those old enough to understand Batman’s negative traits do not consider him a role model, and those too young to understand these traits are modeling negative actions without yet realizing it. That doesn’t somehow make him a positive role model, it simply means the children have a bad role model. SummationSo that’s it. Pro conceded my entire case, his entire case, and presented a new and completely faulty argument in the last round. Batman is a negative role model. The resolution is negated. There’s really nothing more to say, except.............