Instigator / Con
11
1581
rating
38
debates
64.47%
won
Topic
#720

Theoretically, could vigilante heroes like Batman and Spiderman be allowed?

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
3
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
1
Better conduct
2
1

After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...

K_Michael
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
9
1687
rating
555
debates
68.11%
won
Description

Could unprofessional law enforcers like Spiderman and Batman be condoned in actual practice?

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Wrick-it-Ralph // Mod action: Removed

>Points Awarded: 4 points to Con for arguments and conduct

>Reason for Decision: See Ramshutu's vote

>Reason for Mod Action: The voter may not copy and paste votes or parts of votes cast by other voters. Doing so is essentially spam voting, and allowing such votes to stand would facilitate such wrongful practices as votebombing and vote rigging.
************************************************************************

[3]
Michael also points out inconsistencies in RM’s rounds as he argued that morality is relative but at the same time praises Mandela. That’s quite irrelevant to the debate imo and even non-cognitivist ethical theories that reject objective morality nonetheless permit praising people’s behaviours (i.e. a subjectivist might say “I think human flourishing is important, Mandela supported human flourishing, therefore he is moral relative to my standards of morality”, thus it’s quite an unconvincing non-sequitur that is entirely unrelated to the debate. Michael also brought up Hitler (great) and argued that he could be deemed a hero just as much as Mandela and Malcom X (even if this were true, so what?). Michael’s biggest weakness in this debate was to simply state things (i.e. “In fact, this is the biggest hole in your entire argument.” after giving the Hitler example) without supporting this with evidence or arguments or explaining the implications and relevance to the debate of his points.

Michael finally argues that RM did not address the “lack of training” argument but since this argument is not convincing unless one assumes that if vigilante heroes were allowed, exclusively incompetent people would try to be vigilante heroes, this argument fails entirely and RM’s examples of Mandela and Malcom X who were sufficiently competent to gain universal acclaim refute Michael’s arguments.

[2] Michael responds that both of these did not fight criminals but rather governments (which is a good counter-argument if the “allowed” in the debate title refers to “allowed by the government” but rather irrelevant if it is dependent on wider society). Michael further points out that vigilante heroes could “very easily go against the desires of the majority” and that their behaviour would ergo not be condoned. Although I don’t see that as a very relevant counter-point as I believe it would be sufficient for RM to show that some vigilante heroes (i.e. those who do not go against the desires of the majority) should be allowed.
Michael further argues that “without some universal code of conduct, it will just be every man for himself” but only supports this assertion with a call to “look up Thomas Hobbes” or “just look at history for an example”. As Michael neither points to any specific examples from history and did not explain Hobbes’ arguments, we have to believe Hobbes based on his “authority” as a famous philosopher. This argument was weak as it was merely stated but hardly supported by premises and seems counter-intuitive as altruism is a common human feature and we know that at least some people still behave well when they believe no one is watching (e.g. I forgot my phone in the gym recently and it was returned to me instead of being stolen although someone could easily have stolen it).

[1] The “allowed” in the debate resolution was unclear and seemed to be switching between “condoned by the government” to “condoned by society” (i.e. when Michael pointed out that Mandela was fighting against the government, compared to when he later pointed out that some vigilante heroes may go against the desires of the majority). Furthermore, it was unclear what Pro’s BoP actually was. Does he have to show that all vigilante heroes should be allowed (which is what the “training” argument implies)? Is it sufficient to show that at least some (i.e. not none) vigilante heroes should be allowed? I believe it is the latter and since RM showed that Mandela was a vigilante hero that is praised by the people, I believe that he sufficiently established his case and fulfilled his BoP.

Michael presented two arguments for his case: 1) There is no one that can hold the vigilante heroes accountable for their actions as they are anonymous and not easily replaced by the government, and 2) they would likely lack any professional training and could thus end up putting themselves in dangerous situations that they can not get out off.
RM started out with a kritik in round 1 where he focused on the “theoretically” in the resolution and argued that vigilante heroes could “function” theoretically (although he doesn’t support this with any arguments or examples) and claims that Michael conceded this in R1 (which he does not seem to have done overtly, although I can see how he might have done it through implication as there should be no issue with a hero that is publicly known and thus can be held accountable [arg. 1] and highly trained [arg. 2]).
Michael countered RM’s kritik by pointing out that the “theoretically” in the debate title referred to the assumption that people who have sufficient power to act as vigilantes exist. RM pretty much drops his kritik after this round and instead presents examples of real-life vigilantes such as Mandela and Malcom X.

I have no votes now. XD

-->
@TheRealNihilist

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Omar2345 // Mod action: Removed

>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con for conduct

>Reason for Decision: The instigator did not forfeit which is why he is winning the conduct point and the contender is losing it.

>Reason for Mod Action: Per the site's voting policy: "a debater may award conduct points solely for forfeited rounds, but only if one debater forfeited half or more of their rounds or if the voter also awards argument points." Since the voter only awarded conduct points (and not also arguments) and since only 1 out of 4 rounds was forfeited, the voter is not entitled to award conduct points solely on the basis of the forfeit.
************************************************************************

-->
@Pinkfreud08

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pinkfreud08 // Mod action: Removed

>Points Awarded: 1 point to Con for conduct

>Reason for Decision: Pro ff a round, this is poor conduct

>Reason for Mod Action: Per the site's voting policy: "a debater may award conduct points solely for forfeited rounds, but only if one debater forfeited half or more of their rounds or if the voter also awards argument points." Since the voter only awarded conduct points (and not also arguments) and since only 1 out of 4 rounds was forfeited, the voter is not entitled to award conduct points solely on the basis of the forfeit.
************************************************************************

My ~Green Goblin interpretation is apparently a bit different to what happens in the movies, I'll go into it if you want but I'll just bring up other situations where spiderman works with others.

-->
@RationalMadman

ok then...

-->
@K_Michael

https://reactiongifs.me/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/lina-walker-be-my-valentine-poem.gif

-->
@RationalMadman

I'm familiar with Sun Tzu.

-->
@K_Michael

https://themindsjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Appear-Weak-When-You-Are-Strong.jpg

-->
@RationalMadman

I was under the impression that you were a reputable debater. Something about being #1 on the site. Don't ignore a debate, even if you're afraid to lose.

-->
@K_Michael

I mostly just wanted to share the story, lol. Do your thing bro.

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

True. But if I can't have one debate that's purely theoretical and fun, then I wouldn't enjoy debate.

-->
@K_Michael

Fun fact. There is a guy in my town who used to patrol a specific neighborhood in my city wearing a Spiderman suit and this guy is like a local hero in that neighborhood. I don't think he ever really does anything though. I've never heard of him catching any one or even calling the cops but maybe I just don't watch enough local news, lol. I think he's more like a neighborhood watch guy but that's the closets I could ever imagine to actual vigilantes. The "kill you for the sake of justice" antihero types don't do well in society.

-->
@RationalMadman

Don't forget.