Fictional debate: should the avengers movment be passed and why?
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
All of my reasons will be in the arguments, but here are my stances.
1.) Don't submit the avengers to bureaucracy and laws.
2.) Don't force non-avengers to be a lesser state than the avengers. (Pre-homecoming spider man, pre-infinity war doctor strange)
3.) Don't force non-avengers to reveal their identities.
4.) Don't attempt to influence or reduce what the avengers can do.
This is kinda-sorta roleplay, but pretend that the avengers movies were actually documentaries released to the public. (Minus Civil war)
You get to make one example superhero that is in any circumstances you may want, for the sake of the argument.
Pick an avenger to support your cause and testify.
It was revealed in Amazing Spider-Man #535 that unregistered individuals are sent to a prison in the otherdimensional Negative Zone indefinitely until they agree to register. Iron Man claims that as this is off United States soil, they have almost no civil rights unless the United States Supreme Court explicitly rules otherwise—and he knows they won't. This leads Spider-Man to re-evaluate his support of the act.
- You’re a corrupt superhuman who wants to stay anonymous to enable you to ruthlessly harm humanity and get away with it.
- You’re a naive privacy advocate.
- What would happen to superheroes that need to hide their identity to keep their loved ones safe?
- Is there a waiting period between discovering powers and joining the act, or do you go immediately into the negative zone?
- The entire monk argument, (I would like at least one reason why this is an unreasonable argument and not a realistic, important thing.)
- If superhumans spend our time testing, we will not get: free time, privacy, space, home life, etc. We will have to explain to everybody that wants to spend time with us that we are busy nearly 24/7, and they will likely guess what we do when we "can't hang out" (See below argument between bold lines ------------)
- The tech we use makes the things we do entirely possible. Wakanda's help made it so that the world has access to new, never-before-seen things that will likely catapult us towards the new space age. But what about Kree energy cores, Iron man's suits, Ant man's nanotech, or my webs? Yes, that tech can be helpful, but it can also be very harmful. We don't want a world where battles are carried out exclusively between intentional robots, super soldiers, and hulks. Not to mention the possible issues arising when people start hooking patented SCOTTY(TM) cameras up to flies and spying on their exes, or thousands of other possibilities that can arise from the secrets we hold.
Slowly, the ones with sinister motive are going to abuse ‘normal humans’ and even inferior or countered superhumans as they please, relishing in their power.
Con seems to be presenting to you a case of heartfelt emotion while accusing me of the very same, saying that his high-school debating coach told him that's used by the side that's lying
that is the most manipulative way of speaking for when your argument cannot be supported by logic.
On top of this, it demonstrates the potential harm of criminals and malfeasants controlling government with this information.
In pros final round, it’s not too clear what his point actually is: he again doesn’t not address or even acknowledge cons main points and instead appears to make an argument related to anonymity.
Pro starts by stating the notion that there is potentially an issue or notion that super villains would remain anonymous. He also states that this is only a problem if you assume there wouldn’t be truly “good” superhero’s to fight them.
This is, literally, cons case. That there will be loyal, benevolent superhero’s to fight them. Blam: To try and argue the point pro shoots himself in the left foot.
Pro also argues that con is assuming anonymous supervillains will not be able to outfight or outsmart the good guys. This is again not pros contention - and worse, given that the anonymity is in party there to prevent individuals from going bad, pros argument gives the appearance of undermining pros own argument. Blam. Pro shoots himself in the right foot.
From this all: pro mainly made bold assertions, largely ignored the detail of pros case, and misrepresented cons position.
While con somewhat addressed pros point about needing to be accountable, this didn’t go far enough imo, however this was dropped by both side.
Pro drops too much here: con outlined key harms, why the law is unnecessary, and presented credible issues and threats that warranted rejection of the registration, notably the hydra issue and safety of friends and family.
As a result, arguments go to con.
All other points tied.
Pro asserts that con is arguing that superhero’s deserve more anonymity (as con goes onto state - this is not the case - it’s equal anonymity), that rule should be “might is right” (this is not the case - cons case is that is more harmful to the world if governments have access to this information), and that those that would hold the information would be more sinister than benevolent (the case is that the information being accessible would likely be easy to exploit and damaging - and provides justification of its likelihood when referencing hydra)
Pro ignores the key hydra part, the issues of tech and he untrustworthiness of Government.
Con goes on to state his closing arguments. Pointing out he’s just asking for the same level of anonymity as other individuals.
Con used an excellent example of secret police being misused to take down a good super hero. This example is a brilliant example that harms pros premise of superhero’s being anonymous leading to them becoming evil.
Secondly, con references a lesser harm: that the potential for slow reaction, and bureaucracy impeding intervention. This is much more hypothetical and not referencing the specific act in question - but some future possibility. The imposition of a chain of command does seem to potentially have an impact, but con needs to be more specific here imo.
Thirdly, the potential dissemination of tech and powers on an unsuspecting world is raised by con. Again this is not well thrashed out, it is plausible, but the probability is not well assessed by con. The idea of hydra being part of the government raised does appear to implicitly increase the chances of this leading to harm on the population, but this is not well defined by con.
What con does at the end, is to challenge pros central asserted premise - that those on the fence would be pushed towards villainy.
Pros response again ignores every key point raised.
Con raised legitimate issues specific to superhero’s that necessitate anonymity. Con also raised legitimate concerns that not allowing anonymity will cause some to turn on the government. Cons point on hydra infiltration was wholly ignored by pro - who seemed to mostly assert that pros argument boils down to three misrepresentations.
In his opening round: pro doesn’t address any of these key points.
More importantly, pro doesn’t show what the explicit benefit of the plan really is.
Pro asserts that only evil super humans will make the most of anonymity. Pro doesn’t give any justification for this assertion, and given the marvel universe and specific examples of Batman, spider man - and others known in the marvel universe, it seems that pros assertion is contrary to obvious reality - as pros contention would still apply prior to the policy being discussed.
This primary argument is largely without warrant.
Pro makes a smaller point that everyone should be answerable to someone. This seems to be more valid, but pro spend almost 0 time justifying this, showing harmful possibilities, or how this act will resolve it. For example, if an avenger makes a bad decision, for what reason could they not held accountable for it?
Cons second round adds some more meat on the bones. Con references hydra infiltration. This is a major point that enhances cons point by adding potentiality to the harm he mentioned in R1. This has a major potential harm element.
This was an interesting debate. I can’t really judge the role playing aspect. Pro outlined that it kinda sorta was roleplay, but I felt it more important that the information in the debate topic.
The main points con bought forth was the danger faced by the super hero’s and family were their identities to be revealed.
Con states that the law is counter productive, as it turns superhero’s that don’t want to reveal their identities against the government by forcing them to flee/hide or make the government their enemy.
Con also states that the purpose is unnecessary, as the loss of life were primarily related to military action in the cause of defending the earth from major problems. This is primarily the least warranted part of cons argument, and I feel this could easily be attacked.
This argument sets up clear harms of the plan; and erodes the supposed benefit by showing the issue it’s trying to resolve isn’t valid.
Fuck, you know you got some hardcore marvel fans when you put a Stan Lee cameo in an online debate.
2 hours left dude, I don't want to have another FF win
In the comics I turned against the act when Luke Cage was attacked at midnight in his home having not used his powers. Yet I do understand the dramatic tensions were needed, so Iron Man had to go about things in the worst possible way.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE SPOILER DUDE, SO MUCH
You mean the Sokovia Accords?
/whoosh, I think. Do you have some strong opinions about Vercingetorix? Because I'm a big fan of strong opinions about Vercingetorix.
I will submit my first argument tommorrow
Wait, nevermind, it actually was an error oops
1.) I hate you for intentionally choosing an error as your profile pic.
2.) lol hulk smesh
More so than any other avenger, Black Widow seems to always have a plan.
I will be roleplaying as Black Widow. She likes to show her sensitive, feminine side quite often in public matters as opposed to her ruthless one. I will mix it exactly how I perceive she does.
I am really tempted to take this debate and roleplay one avenger thus:
R1: hulk smash
R2: HULK SMASH!
R3: unh, HUULK SSMAAAAAAAAASH!
I'd be more interested in this in the forums... But what precisely do you mean by the Avengers Movement? I feel like you mean the Superhuman Registration Act, but it is unclear.