Dave Galanter
December 1st 1969 - December 12th 2020
He was loved.

Comic Battle >> View Post
Post By

Member Since: Sat Jun 26, 2010
Posts: 1,369
In Reply To

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Subj: Re: The subject of the debate
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2017 at 07:20:04 pm EST (Viewed 111 times)
Reply Subj: Re: The subject of the debate
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2017 at 06:18:08 pm EST (Viewed 93 times)



    I hardly think you can equate the evidence of Galactus likely winning in a majority of fights with Thor with the evidence that Thor would likely win against Superman.

    The only difference is a matter of degree. Or are you saying there is no evidence that Thor can beat Superman?

    I know there's a chance Thor can win but I see less evidence for that happening. So therefore, I agree that Superman deserves to be ranked #1 in OP's thread. How is that hard to understand?

    It's not, but that is not what I am disputing. Every time I tell you what my argument is over - the degree of certainty - you go back to the ranking. It's like you read what I write but can't process it.



    I don't know what being ranked #1 means. Someone somewhere you don't know ranks Superman #1 on a list in which Spider-Man is also ranked #1 over Green Lantern and the Flash in what is really a thought experiment. You have no specified criteria for this determination, but you insist it's right because of one fight in one comic book

    Ranked #1 meaning he deserves to be ranked highest/most expensive in that particular category. That's what I consistently said.

    That's just a tautology. Being ranked number one means deserving of being ranked highest. Thanks for not providing any new clarification whatsoever.


    Of course. I have never said otherwise. What I have objected to is your denial of evidence that Thor can also readily beat Superman. As soon as you admit such evidence exists, then saying that Superman would win "should go without saying" becomes problematic.

    Wonder Woman can possibly beat Superman, but to me it goes without saying that Superman should be ranked higher than her. I think that's fair *shrug.

    Back to the ranking. I'm not disputing ranking. I'm disputing degree of certainty. I have been the entire thread.

So, what do you want posters to do. Have Superman be worth $3.99 and Thor $3.97? To say, I'm taking Superman, I guess? So, anyway Supes is ranked #1, deservedly so. Is that better?


    You keep repeating that, but that's not the subject of debate. In repeated polling, a majority of people on this board think Thor would beat Superman a preponderance of the time. You say their opinion is worthless because of one fight in one comic. Isn't that saying they are irrational to hold such an opinion? Please don't avoid the question.

    I am saying that I value the result of the JLA/Avenger fight over their opinions in context as it applies to the OP's post. The problem is you think that if I have that stance then I am labeling other people here who I don't know from Adam as irrational (your words) and their opinions (worthless).

    You wrote, "a single printed story is worth more than a thousand fan opinions." That's pretty dismissive to the point of finding their opinions worthless.

Well, is it true? Again, if fan opinion is the highest currency on this board, then ok.

    They're not mutually inclusive. People disagree on power levels on this board all the time. Does it mean there's a clause attached to it that you brand them irrational and devalue their opinions? To assume that, well, that I would call irrational.

    It depends on how people disagree. If you think there is a rigid rule that renders everyone else's opinion worthless, then yeah, you're devaluing their opinions and implicitly believe they are irrational for not following your rule that you think is such common sense. If people take context into account and provide multiple sources of evidence across decades of continuity, then it's understandable how people come to different conclusions. No reasonable opinions are rendered worthless from that perspective.

But Thor doesn't have decades of continuity that says he can beat Superman most of the time. If saying so hurts your feelings then I don't know what to tell you.

    Also, from what I can tell in the world of battleboards, the general rule is that the story trumps fan opinion. Correct or wrong? If you think this is wrong then we have wasted a lot of board space under the wrong premise.

    The answer to that is it depends. You want to set a rule, whoever wins a fight on the page in the comic deserves to be ranked higher, whatever that means. My take is that you have to take all evidence into account and so I have given you repeated examples that break your rule. Spider-Man beating Firelord, Spider-Man beating Hulk, Spider-Man beating Juggernaut, Thor beating Galactus. You can't answer any of them, but instead just say they are inadequate analogies without explaining why. I have asked you questions throughout this thread and you simply refuse to answer them.

You speak of context, well you very well know the context around the fights above that you mentioned. They are apples to the Supes/Thor Aardvark. What is the context around the Thor/Supes fight that makes you think Superman won't win the majority?

From his Formspring page.
Tom, who's more powerful: Galactus or a Celestial? I'd put my money on Galactus over any single Celestial.
Posted with Google Chrome 55.0.2883.87 on Windows 10