CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
In this context, what does Batman represent.
In the Dark Knight trilogy, the first villain (Ducard) represents a tyrannical Right wing, the second villain (Joker) represents anarchy, and the third villain (Bane) represents a tyrannical Left. What does Batman represent?
HOW IS BANE LEFT WING LMAO, just your average biased right-winger's take on batman. Joker is actually a violent communist who hates money in the same way FM does. After robbing the bank he set the majority of the money he got on fire.
Bane is right-wing conservatism embodied. Batman represents anarchy actually. You have this backwards.
No he isn’t. His rhetoric is all leftist. His values are based in emotion. He brings to Gotham a revolution which mimics every bloody communist revolution and the French Revolution all in one, complete with forced sharing of everything and kangaroo courts for the wealthy. I don’t have it backwards at all.
The Right winger is Ducard, who favors order for the sake of order. Who will destroy entire cities, in his tradition stemming back to Sodam and Gamora, that are too wayward of his traditional sense of decency.
Joker is actually a violent communist
And Joker is no socialist. He destroys money to illustrate his nihilistic lack of values. This illustrates the nihilism at the root of anarchism. Alfred explained it ahead of time, just in case the audience wasn’t attuned to subtlety, when he talked of the jewel thief who threw away the jewels. “Some men just want to watch the world burn”. Your confusion on this topic is common, as communists promise an anarchistic utopian end-goal. Early Communism shared much with early anarchism.
But Joker is clearly the anarchist. His only value was to prove that everyone else would lack values too when the rubber met the road. Joker sought to destroy social structure and this made him think he had a kinship with Batman, who was above social structure. But Batman was no anarchist.
Batman represents objective Justice. If he were an anarchist, he would be the first anarchist to regularly work hand in hand with the cops. He always works with cops so long as they are not corrupt. Which is to say, so long as they represent actual Justice.Since Gotham is so corrupt, Batman often battles even the police. But if Gotham were a Just society, maintained by Just men such as Dent in the criminal justice system, then Batman would not be necessary. That’s nothing like anarchism.
I can mostly get on board with that. Except that he puts himself in harms way, in a singularly unique way, in order to benefit the world around him. That’s not exactly a common sense thing to do.
I think morality is what drives him, not a specific ideology.
That’s pretty close to what I came up with in my response to Ming. I said he represents “objective Justice”.
Does he have to represent a certain ideology?
No, but it would be cool if we came up with one. I don’t think Batman could function as Batman under some ideologies, such as those which necessitate oppressive regimes. Which means he arguably could stand for ideologies in which he can function, such as Gotham’s system if people were more individually moral.
That’s pretty close to what I came up with in my response to Ming. I said he represents “objective Justice”.
He's a dangerous vigilante who has killed at least 15 people. If Batman actually existed you would enthusiastically be using lines like this to describe him, on account of you being one of the most corrupt and dishonest people presently alive in the world. You would probably be quite high on Batman's list of people to execute.
No, but it would be cool if we came up with one. I don’t think Batman could function as Batman under some ideologies, such as those which necessitate oppressive regimes. Which means he arguably could stand for ideologies in which he can function, such as Gotham’s system if people were more individually moral.
I'm not sure if I get what you mean by "under some ideologies which necessitate oppressive regimes".. do you mean batman representing the ideologies or the ideologies imposed on the general public?
In the first case, certainly, he wouldn't be batman under either a far left or far right perspective..
an interesting point to note is: when we move too far right or too far left, we see a decline in moral values in objectives..
and if he actually represented an ideology, albeit custom made, it would certainly have as its feature, a sound sense of morality.. this brings me to another question.. would we have batman if not for a lack in sense of morality among the public?
do you mean batman representing the ideologies or the ideologies imposed on the general public?
I mean the ideology innacted or imposed.
would we have batman if not for a lack in sense of morality among the public?
I think he represents the fight against immorality in an otherwise Just system. So no, we wouldn’t have him if people were more moral. He supported the moral Harvey Dent as the District Attorney, Commissioner Gordon, and the Judges that passed Just rulings in Dents cases (targeted by Joker).
Batman wouldn’t even be there if it was only the public that was immoral. He became necessary when the representatives of justice became corrupt and immoral.
Independent with common sense and objective morality, I would think. Or Chaotic good.
Side note, I just finished reading Batman: White Knight and it was actually really good. It brought to light a lot of things we never really think about and pointed out that the rich actually make money off the damage Batman does....which of course pisses off Bruce.
Yes it did and let me see if I can fully remember. Basically property value's are lower around the area's where Batman usually fights criminals. Lower income = more crime. There is a particular area in Gotham where crime is lucrative for Batman. Those who don't want to live near or around there anymore usually sell their property, but since middle class/lower class can't afford or don't want to buy there, the rich purchase it at a low low price and either convert it into something or sit on it. There is a Batman recovery fund that was set up on the sly and those who have property damage done by Batman (kind of like insurance) in his quest for apprehending criminals get compensation, so if someone owns a house that they just don't care about, don't live in or anything yet gets damaged, they can get money for it, even if they don't fix it back up. I can't explain it better without having the book in front of me but it was fabulous how they blind sided Batman/Bruce in this.
So it sounds like slum lords who refuse to fix their housing still receive money for the purpose of fixing housing. Is that correct?
Lower income = more crime
This is a bit off topic, and relates to a debate I posted elsewhere. The correlation between crime and poverty is well established, but the causal relationship is not.
Do you think it is more the case that poverty leads to more crime, or does crime create more poverty?
I don't think I have the full and proper reason in there but I'd have to get the comic to read exactly what they say.
Do you think it is more the case that poverty leads to more crime, or does crime create more poverty?
It's an interesting question, I think it's a cycle. Crime can create poverty, which in turn creates more crime. But it's in no way a guaranteed cycle. There are plenty of impoverished people who don't turn to crime, and there are criminals who don't live in poverty. When one doesn't have much to lose, they may turn to crime, when one has everything to lose they may just be smarter about the crime they commit.
There are plenty of impoverished people who don't turn to crime
Most actually.
Crime can create poverty, which in turn creates more crime.
It's easy to see how crime can impoverish. It's less clear how poverty leads to crime, especially given most poor people are not criminals.
The wealthy Bruce Wayne might have considered buying out the slum lords, and improving the housing himself. In that way, his crime fighting efforts could potentially see a positive cycle lifting the residence out of the crime/poverty correlation.
It's less clear how poverty leads to crime, especially given most poor people are not criminals.
I agree with the latter, with the former, when one is in a dire straights or feels like the world is stepping on them, it's quite easy to want to last out. Be it stealing food for your family or committing petty theft.
Yet you agree that most who are in dire straights do not succumb to criminality. That means there is something we are missing in our consideration of the crime/poverty dynamic. There is something else that accounts for higher criminality among the more impoverished.
Sorry I didn't realize I disputed in the last one.
Yet you agree that most who are in dire straights do not succumb to criminality.
Yes I do. I believe it only looks that way because we only put criminals on the news.
I don't think there is just one thing missing in our considerations of crime and poverty, I think we have an issue on many different fronts that we need to explore, but (and this is me thinking poorly of people) it's easier to put sole blame on the poor than it is to find and fix the many many reasons for it. People find it much easier to blame then to fix.
I believe it only looks that way because we only put criminals on the news.
I’m not sure what you mean here. The correlation is real and unrelated to the news. At the same time, most impoverished people are not criminals.
I think we have an issue on many different fronts that we need to explore
I agree. One possibility is that the short range mindset required to act on a pattern of violence and common property crimes is not conducive to building wealth (not to mention getting caught is expensive). In other words, the poor don’t tend to be criminals so much as criminals tend to be poor.
it's easier to put sole blame on the poor than it is to find and fix the many many reasons for it. People find it much easier to blame then to fix.
Do people blame the poor for criminality? Or do people blame criminals, who are often poor?
So, on the one hand, you spend your days diligently propagandising a system rooted in the nurture of individual greed, power and ego, and on the other you say it is unclear how poverty leads to crime?
It is not unclear. American ideology is teaching people that personal wealth and status are the most important things in life and then dumping millions of those same people into overpopulated, impoverished urban ghettos.
So, on the one hand, you spend your days diligently propagandising a system rooted in the nurture of individual greed, power and ego, and on the other you say it is unclear how poverty leads to crime?
You couldn't know this unless you are Nom.
It is not unclear. American ideology is teaching people that personal wealth and status are the most important things in life and then dumping millions of those same people into overpopulated, impoverished urban ghettos.
Hey look. Exactly what Nom said earlier. It even led to a "there is no American ideology" debate, which you got destroyed in.
But most importantly...this coming from the same Nom who likes to accuse people of alts. Tsk tsk. The lowest lifeform is the blind, raging hypocrite.