Instigator / Pro
7
1502
rating
41
debates
35.37%
won
Topic
#5086
It is preferable to have Batman's Skills than to have Superman's Superpowers
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
gugigor
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 4,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Con
4
1731
rating
167
debates
73.05%
won
Description
Burden of proof is shared
Con will argue it is preferable to have Superman's powers than to have Batman's skills.
Resolved: Given an "otherwise Average person" (they are well meaning, not a villain!), it is better that they have Batman's skills and abilities, than to have Superman's powers. Assume this is happening in the real world.
Use all Batman comics, but not including whenever he gained powers. His abilities include: incredible stamina, speed, durability, master martial artist, genius intellect, expert acrobat.
Superman is standard Superman, not Cosmic Armor or anything crazy. His powers include: Flying, Super Speed, Invincibility (except to Kryptonite and magic), Laser eyes, frost breath, X ray vision, super strength, so on and so forth.
Round 1
Pro
#1
1. With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility
The average person can't possibly handle the responsibility that comes with being Superman: you'll inevitably get massively compared to the legendary hero and criticized. If you can move at crazy high speeds, win any gun fight, and have insane strength, the pressure will be severe. A well meaning person will be conflicted between their selfishness and relative sense of wanting to live their own life, and using Superman's incredible powers. You will get a lot of bad reputation for having Superman's powers and not using them. And even if you do, you'll still only be one person. Superman's super hearing only complicates this and makes him have to suffer the idea that he knows everyone is calling for help, and he just can't go save them all the time. Batman on the other hand, is merely the pinnacle of skill and physique that is humanly possible (or maybe even just slightly beyond that, based on some comic feats). But we don't expect Batman to be able to show up on the other side of the world and solo the entire Russian Army. The Batman Skill person would be able to adopt to his sudden gain of incredible abilities much better than the Superman person.
Also, we see very often in shows Powers are hard to handle. Everything has to be learned. Nobody on earth knows how to Fly, shoot laser eyes, use frost breath. Since this is the first superman in the world, we'd just have to blindly trust them to watch superman shows and hope they understand how to use their powers without causing massive damage. And here we thought accidentally falling off a bike was rough...
2. Superman Powers are Useless
Have you seen the funny comic where Superman's ability was revealed to only be useful powering an incredible machine that generates his raw power into electricity? Well yeah. All his insane powers are really good at destroying/incapacitating bad guys or stopping massive disasters. But what are you gonna do about Poverty? What about Disease? Superman's big showy abilities are best in the comics where Doomsday arrives to destroy the planet, but that doesn't happen in real life. There aren't any crazy strong aliens that humans cannot defeat. And natural disasters? How likely is it that we'd be able to predict it suddenly and have Superman show up super fast to save everyone? Look at Batman, he's become the richest man in Gotham, and they say the only reason he hasn't resolved crime is because there's a weird curse going on. Realistically, with his soft power and ability to employ trusted guards, create infrastructure, and invent crazy gadgets and suits, Batman's skills would be far more useful than Superman.
3. What if Superman Goes Rogue?
Magic doesn't exist in the real world, and Kryptonite (the real world variant anyways) is quite rare. The prompt does say the man is well meaning, but he is still mentally human. Gaining the Superpowers doesn't instantly make you wanna be good. What if you're frustrated at public? You're so powerful the law can barely do much to stop you? To gain enough power to stop Superman would be an incredible feat from armies. It would be very easy for the Superman to be tempted... if he just has a bad day due to all the protestors, to unleash his wrath. Nobody can hold him back. We would lose a lot of lives and the buildings' collateral damage would be great. Batman going rogue on the other hand is much more controllable. Despite his incredible physicals, it isn't that much higher than what we see in the real world. It would still be entirely possible to contain Mr. Batman skills, so he won't be tempted by his incredible riches and genius intellect.
Now, onto con.
Round 2
Con
#4
What is the topic?
Remember, the topic merely asks whether if you want Batman's powers or Superman's powers, there is nothing said about the assumed role you will have on society. In other words, people would not automatically know that you have the powers of either, especially since social recognition is not listed in either character's ability profile by Pro himself.
Resolved: Given an "otherwise Average person" (they are well meaning, not a villain!), it is better that they have Batman's skills and abilities, than to have Superman's powers. Assume this is happening in the real world.Use all Batman comics, but not including whenever he gained powers. His abilities include: incredible stamina, speed, durability, master martial artist, genius intellect, expert acrobat.
Superman is standard Superman, not Cosmic Armor or anything crazy. His powers include: Flying, Super Speed, Invincibility (except to Kryptonite and magic), Laser eyes, frost breath, X ray vision, super strength, so on and so forth.
Therefore, we are not comparing whether "being superman" is better than "being batman", but merely which characteristic set of abilities is better to have than the other, using the two superhero names as directory to said sets.
I reiterate, you have the choice of not letting society know that you are a superhero even if you have superhuman abilities and that is not against the topic's confinements.
Invincibility
Remember, you have just granted Superman's ability upon choice, and you have the right to not contact the exoplanet Krypton so they will sent kryptonium to nerf you(idk if that is how that works, but regardless it is preventable alas). In fact, you don't have to be kryptonian altogether! The ability set says nothing about the holder becoming intertwined with the Kryptonian planet or having kryptonian or magic stuff spawning over the world, therefore the two can simply be naught concerns if intended.
What else? Other than the two kinds of material or simply effects that we can simply choose to not bring upon ourselves, we are pretty much invincible to everything else. Does Batman have this as well? No.
And don't worry about "immortality = can't die" dilemma. Spiderman can simply take off his lead suit at will. If you want to die, you can just expose yourself to a piece of kryptonite. But fear not, you also have the choice of not doing so.
Real world: There is discovered no kryptonite or magic in the real world. Which means we can not worry at all if we ever got into that dilemma and chose Superman's powers.
Laser Eyes & Frost Breath & X-ray vision
Batman cannot do that.
These abilities are actually useful, especially in specialized mass-oriented combat such as warfare. Superman, with his laser eyes and frost breath, could easily take on possibly 10-fold or even more of what Batman can handle with his nothing more than tech gadgets and general superstrength. Let me give an example: only one out of the two sets of abilities can make Soviet soldiers fear Finnish snow AND ice if the Finnish side only has one person.
Flying
Superman can fly, batman cannot, according to the presets of this very debate.
In other words, Batman still has to deal with 4-lane traffic or having to rebook a flight whereas Superman would have already eliminated these problems by being able to...fly everywhere. Batman has money, Superman doesn't need money. Batman can pay for electricity, Superman can generate his own electricity. Without the batmobile and bat-suit, and Batman is pretty much at the level of Mr.Satan from DBZ. To give you a scaling perspective, Superman is arguably Goku-level or above and can easily shatter the batmobile if he wanted. He just never intended to do such a thing because the two of them are never on the opposing sides at the same time...at least for the canon non-AU events.
Conclusions:
- Superman's powers are better both in terms of depth and breadth
- Superman does not need to worry about kryptonite or magic
- Vote CON!
Round 3
Pro
#5
I see, so con is going for the selfish approach. On a personal gain level, it seems incredible to have Superman abilities, but con has still failed to say why you should prefer the persons own gains rather than how society reacts to it. Even though the hero genre is fictional, we all know how real life people have been urging all the powerful politicians and men to take action instead of being selfish. To society as a whole, I see no reason why you shouldn’t try to eliminate crime and poverty on a large level.
To shortly counter: invincibility is double edged since we don’t even know if real life “kryptonite” works on the Superman, making them unable to be held down by the chains of law. Unless con can prove any average person will be a paragon and always obey the law, rather than risk lashing out and causing immense collateral damage, there’s always the risk of something going wrong.
As for Superman’s incredible scaling and freeze breath able to destroy armies, that brings into question what Con wants to do exactly. Does con expect Superman to take sides and suddenly take a short cut through war? Akin to an indestructible drone who you employ just to go and kill all the terrorists in Iran? Will Superman do his own research to make sure he doesn’t accidentally kill hostages? What if he becomes motivated by money or fame and chooses the government that can make him more recognizable to people? Superman’s immense power makes him a liability since con’s only point here is the focus on his brute force. We are basically saying it’s worth trusting an incredibly strong man with unknown alliances and motivations. Plus, all the problems he solves is vague on cons side. At least for Batman I can say he can build more infrastructure, his ability to make Gadgets and succeed in Bruce Wayne makes him an inventor who has more solid potential. Is con implying it’s better to send an invincible soldier to obliterate Russia, a short term problem and solution? Rather than focusing on bettering the poor areas that need the soft power that Batman is able to use with his money and resources?
Con still hasn’t refuted my arguments yet. While it’s true you can hide your abilities, there doesn’t seem to be a good reason for Superman’s potential to be wasted on tanking normal hits. But sending him as a soldier into war also seems dubious since you can ask him to kill anyone and get away with it. If the terrorist organization is very convincing or if he loses his way he can be convinced to turn against the world. He can’t be punished, he can’t be jailed. He’s too powerful for society. The Bruce Wayne example is more seen in the top billionaires in the real world, at least we can be confident what will happen with his skills and inventions.
Con
#6
What I have demonstrated:
- That Superman's powers MASSIVELY TRUMP Batman's.
Pro did not even try to contend such a fact, merely that such great powers would become a burden.
I see, so con is going for the selfish approach. On a personal gain level, it seems incredible to have Superman abilities, but con has still failed to say why you should prefer the persons own gains rather than how society reacts to it. Even though the hero genre is fictional, we all know how real life people have been urging all the powerful politicians and men to take action instead of being selfish.
To be fair, one can always disguise oneself, namely in Superman's costume, when one decides to act like the real superman(and yes, the abilities panel assumes immediate mastery obviously). You can simply deny any allegations by hiding the superman suit away whenever people visit...in the nick of time.
Superstrength means superspeed too, since the ability would be applied to one's legs too when one moves. And the extent of such super strength is nearly infinte for us plebians who do not possess such abilities.
Plus...even if they caught you, you could go with them...and explore the boundaries of science. Since Superman is indeed much stronger than Batman(this is at this point a consensus of both parties here) the extents could be broadened further, let's just say.
As for Superman’s incredible scaling and freeze breath able to destroy armies, that brings into question what Con wants to do exactly. Does con expect Superman to take sides and suddenly take a short cut through war?
Anything. This doesn't matter. It would be up to the authorities to decide what would be done for Superman, not superman the man himself. Though personally, if I were superman, I would become a experimental subject, but that is beyond the question. The thing is: Superman can survive even if the society is turned against him.
I want everyone to stop for a second and think about why we need the society at all. Because we depend on it in many ways, food, water, shelter, etc. Superman requires none of those. Superman can live even if the entire earth has come to ruin. Superman has trancended humanly needs.
What is the topic, again?
It is preferable to have Batman's Skills than to have Superman's Superpowers
"to have" directly implies that "preferable" is within the lens of whoever will be granted either of the two's powers, or essentially, the individual. This means exactly that the topic's interests are to be considered in the perspective of the individual. For obvious reasons, Batman requires infrastructure of the society, Superman needs none of these stuff. Superman's interests would not be torn regardless if he wants to destroy society or not.
Remember, the reason we are more or less "aligned" with the society is that they will treat you badly if you treat them as the bad guys. This applies to the US, China, Islamic countries, or even gangs. The thing is, Batman's dependency on infrastructure would limit the things he could do, whereas they would not exist for Superman.
Plus, all the problems he solves is vague on cons side.
Because his skills are so versatile and omni-purposed that he could solve anything voluntarily. I rest my case.
Conclusions
- The topic frames itself within the perspective of the individual in question
- For the individual, Superman's powers are much more versatile and is generally more desirable for any individual
- Therefore, for the individual in question, superman's powers are preferable
- Vote CON!
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
There really isn't much to this debate since neither side is challenging the others' arguments. The only real question is whether Pro or Con have the framework right. Pro's framework is that it should be based on how such a person affects the society they are in. Con's framework is that it should be a question of whether it is preferable for the individual with the powers. I don't think either side made all that convincing of an argument for why their view should be preferred outside of resolutional analysis (Pro basically just says that it's going to affect the broader society, Con says it won't, and the hypotheticals just balloon from there). So, I'll focus on the topic.
"It is preferable to have Batman's Skills than to have Superman's Superpowers"
That's not particularly clear. Much as Con ends up pointing to it in the final round (too late) to argue that "preferable to have" implies a "for the individual with these skills" somewhere, that doesn't seem like a better approach than "for their society." Neither seems clearly implied. What Con fails to mention, though, is the extended resolution in the description:
"Resolved: Given an "otherwise Average person" (they are well meaning, not a villain!), it is better that they have Batman's skills and abilities, than to have Superman's powers. Assume this is happening in the real world."
This not only challenges Con's approach to the resolution, given that it is now referring to an external "they," but places it in the context of being an average person in a broader society. I think there is a case to be made here that even this framing should place focus on what is better from that average person's perspective, but I needed to see that laid out and in Con's first published round. In the absence of that, and without either side giving me much in the way of further resolutional analysis, all I see is the societal context of that average person. And given that Pro's the only one really arguing from that perspective, I vote Pro.
I’ll work on it
anyone?
Sadly last week I was too caught up in the college apps, but by inspecting your args for 30 seconds, I firmly believe that I know what do do.
It's nice to see you around