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

Comic Battle >> View Post
Post By

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 12,583
In Reply To

Member Since: Sat Jun 26, 2010
Posts: 1,369
Subj: Re: Whether Superman is above Thor goes without saying
Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 02:41:53 pm EST (Viewed 256 times)
Reply Subj: Re: Whether Superman is above Thor goes without saying
Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2017 at 01:14:11 pm EST (Viewed 267 times)


      Just because that hasn’t been the subject of my concern, doesn’t mean I agree with you on that subject. You just engaged in the logical fallacy known as affirming a disjunct. My take is that the criteria for this ranking in indeterminate. If it wasn't clear to you before, I don't even know what it means to be ranked higher or lower here, and apparently you don't either because when I asked you to explain, all you could say was being ranked higher means being ranked higher. Your only stated criterion is who would win in a fight, yet Spider-Man is ranked #1 over Green Lantern and the Flash, so I'm not sure that's the case.

    So, you do object to the ranking?

I neither object nor affirm the ranking because there is no established criteria for the ranking. I think the whole thing is just a resource management thought experiment for people to figure out how to get the best team based on what they can spend, so the person who developed the ranking purposefully put better buys lower in the rankings, thus, no one should ever take Spider-Man at $5 over Green Lantern at $3 if one wants to max out your team. Similarly, no one should take Superman at $5 over Thor at $3. And for the vast majority of responses here, that held true.

    Where did I say being ranked higher means being ranked higher?

You stated that tautology right here:


You wrote, "Ranked #1 meaning he deserves to be ranked highest/most expensive in that particular category." Ranked #1 means he deserves to be ranked highest. Really?



        And I repeat for the 100th time, I'm talking about degree of certainty. I'm not saying my reasons are absolute proof that Thor is a favorite over Superman, only that there is sufficient evidence that people could hold that as a sensible opinion. You're saying, nope, that one fight in one comic trumps all. That even though the majority on this board holds that opinion, that opinion is completely whacky because nothing remotely close is as important as that one fight in that one issue.

    Again, why do you assume I am formulating my argument singularly on that JLA/Avengers?

Because that's the only source you've ever gone to citing. You even went so far as to say the rest of Thor's and Superman's histories don't matter.

    It is not so. It does carry the heaviest weight as far as evidence goes and combine that with who Superman is then I am quite comfortable to say that Superman would/should be ranked higher.

Which for the 101st time, is not what I am concerned with. I am discussing the degree of certainty, whether Superman being above Thor goes without saying.

    If you think that differing opinions other than mine are whacky then those are your words, not mine. LOL.

Then answer this question: Can an informed person reasonably and sensibly hold the opinion that Thor should beat Superman a preponderance of the time given the evidence in comic books?


      You say it pales next to the hard evidence, but you can't explain why. This entire thread is you just asserting without explaining, basically just repeating, it just does, it just does, it just does. Why aren't Thor's victories over Gladiator, Hyperion, and Captain Marvel (Billy Batson)(which was not fan-voted) good evidence that Thor can also beat Superman? Why aren't Thor's victories over Galactus, Ego the Living Planet, and Glory good evidence that Thor can also beat Superman? Why does Spider-Man beating Firelord not count but Superman beating Thor counts? Also, I’m not “bent out of shape” and am quite enjoying this exchange of ideas. I enjoy debates.

    I have explained why I think your evidence is not up to snuff in my books, you just don't listen. I value direct results above circumstantial AvsBvsC ones.

You haven't explained that until just now. Before when I brought up these examples, here was your response:


"Again with the mental contortions." See, that's just ad hominem that doesn't explain anything. But you keep bringing this back to you. My original point was whether Superman being above Thor "goes without saying." The "goes without saying" part is what I have trouble with. I think there is plenty of evidence for people to believe that Superman would beat Thor, but I also think there is plenty of evidence that Thor would beat Superman, so I don't have the slightest problem with someone who believes the former. I have a problem with someone stating there is no substantial evidence that Thor would beat Superman. That's where the "goes without saying" comes in. That you seem not to understand this seems deliberately obtuse of you.




          Are you saying Superman hasn't beaten any foes more powerful than himself or Thor? Somehow, I doubt that very much. As a matter of fact, I think he does it quite often over the course of his history. Both characters have also lost to foes that they should have beaten. That's the nature of the comics. Their histories should cancel each other out and guess what we're left with. Yup, the story.

        Nonsense. Histories don't just cancel each other out. Characters' entire histories is what we use to evaluate them. Every hero has beaten more powerful foes, that doesn't mean every hero's history cancels out. If that's the case, then Spider-Man is superior to Firelord.

    Again you misrepresent what I say. I didn't say every hero's histories, I said Thor and Superman's. It wasn't like Superman was featless and didn't have great victories going into JLA/Avengers.

Ah, so we have another rule. Other characters' histories matter, just not Thor and Superman's. Just like other evidence matters when Spider-Man beats Firelord or Hulk, it just doesn't matter when it comes to Thor and Superman. How convenient.



        The story that showed in a direct and fair fight for the highest stakes that Supes pulled out a hard-earned but undisputed win. I think based on that story, it is very fair to think Superman would win more often than not.

      My whole point is that there is more to it than that one issue.

    Yes, but t I'm comfortable to say hat issue and everything else supports my opinion.

So then you agree that "and everything else" matters. Good. Because when I bring up ANYTHING else, you don't think it matters. Then Thor and Superman's histories do matter, because you can't have it both ways.


      I just explained to you that no, I don’t know what any big difference in context is between my examples and the Thor-Superman fight and asked you to explain the difference. And your response is exactly the same, to claim that I actually know it. I don’t. Tell me.

    So did Spiderman not trick Juggs into cement? Context.

Is it not a fair fight to use your environment against your opponent? If Thor or Superman knocked each other out with a nearby boulder would it not count? Juggernaut could have tossed Spider-Man into the concrete if he wanted to use that tactic. There's nothing unfair about it.

    Did Firelord not turn off his other cosmic powers when he lost to Spiderman? Context.

When and why would Firelord turn off his cosmic powers while fighting Spider-Man? I'm pretty sure this did not happen, which I will check on when I get home to the actual comic.


      Of course. And this context provides reasons why someone can sensibly believe Superman should beat Thor, but it also provides reasons why someone can sensibly believe Thor should beat Superman. My entire argument is that the degree of certainty going one way or the other is not something that “goes without saying.” I don’t care that your opinion is Superman should be ranked higher. I’m care whether you think that “goes without saying,” and if that is the case, I’ve given you lots of evidence as to why it shouldn’t “go without saying.”

    Well, what was the context that Thor lost?

For one thing, we know that Thor holds back in the vast majority of his fights. In my scan of his fight with Gladiator, they are fighting evenly until Thor says he will no longer hold back, and then right away he knocks Gladiator into semi-consciousness. After that, Gladiator refuses to try to kill Thor again because, as Gladiator states to Zarkko, "He's too strong." Thor also fought Superman without using any versatility. I think it's a given in a rematch, Thor would use a lot more energy projection, Mjolnir's defensive capabilities instead of just wading through Superman's heat vision, even teleportation. If it were truly a fight of the highest stakes, Thor could even use a godblast. Ocean Master took down Superman with lightning not that long ago. There's no reason why Thor couldn't do the same.



        I'm also surprised that you would think I would formulate my opinions in a vacuum. Why would you think those stories you mentioned would be the only guidelines on how I should formulate my opinion with those characters and how they would do against each other? Dear me, whoever said that JLA/Avenger is exclusively the reason why my opinion is, LOL?

      You’re joking, right? Every time I’ve brought up anything else in this thread, and I’ve brought up a lot, you immediately dismiss it as unimportant and you point only to this one issue for your opinion. You just wrote above that Thor and Superman’s histories cancel each other out and that leaves only this single story! That’s the definition of you saying JLA/Avengers is exclusively why your opinion is what it is.

    Nope. You've brought up stuff that was extraneous. I already told you that JLA/Avengers AND everything else is what makes me comfortable with my opinion.  With JLA/Avengers being the PRIME piece of evidence. Even without JLA/Avengers one could muster a very good argument for Supes. JLA/Avengers just brought it solidly over the top. Not sure why you are pushing for exclusivity.

Are you not the one who said that Superman and Thor's histories cancel each other out and so we don't have to take those into account, and only that one issue of JLA/Avengers is what we're left with? And if what I've brought up (Thor beating Gladiator, Hyperion, Captain Marvel, and others much more powerful than Superman) is extraneously, what is less extraneous than those examples that makes you think Thor can give Superman a good fight? Or do you think there is no evidence of that and ALL evidence is on Superman's side?

How to make an entrance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfMiOlIUGQw
Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2021 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2021 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2021 Powermad Software