The Instigator
Pro (for)
5 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Batman could kill Superman in a fight

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/20/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 938 times Debate No: 77916
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




Burden of proof is on me to prove that Batman could kill Superman in a fight.
Round 1- I lay out the rules, Con's argument is laid out.
Round 2- I lay out my argument, Con rebuts my argument.
Round 3- I rebut Con's argument, Con does not argue because I did not argue the first round. This round's forfeiture should not count against Con, because it is specified in these rules that he should do so. Con may also type something not pertaining to the debate in lieu of an argument to expedite the process and get the debate to the voting period more quickly. If Con uses the last round to argue, this should be considered automatic forfeiture of the debate on his part.


Hello, I accept your challenge and I look forward to seeing how this pans out. This will be one of my first debates on this website. For the record, I am much more a fan of Batman than I am of Superman, however I just don't think Batman could kill Superman in a fight.

I'll be primarily referencing from the comics and graphic novels to construct my arguments. The most important questions about this argument are the following: Can Superman be killed? If so, how? And could Batman be able to perform this killing during a fight himself?

Let's start by breaking down what the debate means in general.
For your argument to be sound, two things are required:
1. Batman must be able to kill Superman
2. It must be done through a fight

Now, for the first part to be true this means Superman has to be able to die. While Superman can die, there is only a couple very specific ways for this to happen. The most obvious of which is through the use of kryptonite, which causes Superman to lose his powers, suffer extreme pain, and then after, after prolonged exposure, could kill him. The second known way for Superman to die is through solar energy exhaustion, as seen in "The Death of Superman" where after a very large amount of time and energy fighting against Doomsday it seems that Superman dies. While it turns out later on that Superman was only near death and was then revived, it's still one of the only canon cases where Superman almost died.

Doomsday, however, was only able to accomplish this because he was as strong and fast as Superman, really. So how could Batman possible kill Superman like that? Sure, he's strong and has some powerful gear but only the day Batman can find some way to manufacture Superman's strength and speed into his suit does Batman even remotely stand a chance in killing Superman through exhaustion.

This leaves kryptonite as Batman's only logical way to be able to defeat Superman, and it makes a lot of sense that Batman would utilize kryptonite to his advantage as best as he could. In fact, when we actually see Batman and Superman face off in "The Dark Knight Falls", that's how he attempts to defeat Superman. Batman distracts Superman long enough for Oliver Queen, the former Green Arrow, to shoot a kryptonite arrow at Superman. As it sticks into Superman, Batman starts beating the weakened Superman up badly. Unfortunately, Batman suffers a heart attack and is unable to kill Superman before collapsing and dying. It later turns out that he didn't actually die as well, but merely went into hiding, however it did seem that in that moment Superman could be killed by the Batman in a fight.

However, I would argue that the only reason Batman stood a chance in that fight was because of Queen. With Superman distracted, Queen was able to fire the arrow before Superman noticed because he was trying to reason with Batman. If Queen had never been involved and Batman had to find a way to hit Superman with kryptonite himself, Superman never would've fallen for it. Sure, Batman would try to plan some way to do it but when it's just Superman vs Batman, no one else involved, I don't see Superman being that easily deceived. He has super vision, super hearing, super smell, and x-ray vision.

For the second part of the requirements to be true, Batman and Superman must fight. Meaning Batman, in this argument, can't just set some sort of kryptonite trap in which Batman doesn't have to physically fight Superman. If you want to say Batman would setup some kind of trap with an unrealistic large amount of kryptonite (which would be very difficult to do because kryptonite isn't some easy thing to just buy or come across), I would say that while I agree that would be one way I feel Batman would try to kill Superman, I don't consider that to be a fight. A smart and difficult trap, yes, but not a fight.
Debate Round No. 1


Hello. I thank my opponent for accepting the debate and wish him good luck in his rhetorical endeavors, past, present, and future.

Firstly, I would like to establish something very important here. We are not arguing over whether or not Batman is LIKELY to beat Superman in a fight. We are arguing over whether or not it is POSSIBLE for Batman to beat Superman in a fight. Admittedly, I wholeheartedly believe that Supes would have the advantage. He's a walking god mode. Super strength (the extent of which varies), flight, freeze breath, X-ray vision, a nearly impenetrable body, laser vision, a built-in calculator in his brain, some really weird stuff like super voice-throwing, and many more powers are on Superman's side. Batman only has a lot of money, martial arts, physical fitness, a vast intellect, some gadgets, and an indomitable will at his disposal. So, yes, Superman has an advantage. Batman is the underdog. As Luke McKinney put it, "...the instant the sun lamps fail, the Kryptonite laser is out of alignment, the power-damping chains are cut, they're out of the gas-filled pipe under the city of innocents, the serum wears off, or anything at all is one micron less than perfect, he's toast." (1) But although this is true, there is still a distinct, however small possibility that the sun lamps won't fail, the kryptonite laser won't be out of alignment, the power-damping chains won't be cut, they don't leave the gas-filled pipe under the city of innocents, the serum won't wear off, and everything will be perfect to within a micron. This is the foundation upon which I lay my argument, then: Superman has the advantage, yes, but it is still POSSIBLE for Batman to beat Superman.

The existence of any weakness of Superman's is enough to illustrate this, but since my opponent has gone over them, I would like to correct some things he said about the chinks in Superman's super-armor.

First of all, my opponent only lists two ways in which Superman can be killed. In reality, there are more ways. My opponent is right in pointing out that the most obvious way is kryptonite. I do not dispute that, and it is known that Batman possesses kryptonite. My opponent points out that another way is solar energy exhaustion. This is true as well, but he has a narrower view of it than he should have. He only lists fighting until he's out of energy as a way for Superman's energy to become depleted. There are, though, in fact, multiple ways. Just to name a few, the Sun could be blocked out, Superman could go far away from a yellow star, etc. As for the other ways to kill Superman, I will list but a few examples: magic, kryptonian weapons, being beaten to death by someone equally strong or even stronger (when Superman fought Doomesday, he was seen to have cuts and bruises all over. Had the fight continued without Superman's energy being depleted, Doomesday could have beaten him to death.), various supernatural powers, some kinds of alien diseases (but no human ones), and, depending on which series you're talking about, he could die of old age. These are just a sampling of ways that Superman could be killed.

I'd also like to bring up something that I've touched on briefly. Superman's powers change often. Sometimes he's as strong as a hundred men, and sometimes he's as strong as a hundred supernovas. At any given time, he may or may not be impervious to any number of things. Due to this inconsistency, there are a wider range of options available to Batman for killing Superman, and, when fighting Superman, Batman may be fighting a relatively weak version, increasing his odds of winning.

I'd like to touch on the scenario that my opponent brought up, wherein Batman had Green Arrow shoot a kryptonite arrow at Superman. My opponent got a few things incorrect about this scenario. The arrow didn't stick into Superman; it released a kryptonite gas that Superman could breathe in. Also, Batman intentionally caused himself to have the heart attack, because he didn't want to kill Superman, but he wanted Superman to think that he was dead. He had the heart attack right when he had won, so that Superman would know that he had been beaten by Batman. In fact, you can see exactly what happened in the video of the scenario, right here: (2)
I made the link skip past the part where it shows that Batman planned to have a heart attack, but you can go back if you want to see that part. Anyway, in the video, Batman makes it quite clear that he could've killed Superman had he wanted to, but intentionally did not. My opponent points out that Batman had Green Arrow assist him slightly. This point is trivial. Green Arrow's help was merely a matter of convenience. Batman could have easily designed an arrow-shooting machine, or even recruited Robin or someone else to shoot the arrow. Heck, he could have even incorporated the mist into his own suit. Superman was standing right next to him.

I'd like to again point out that we are not arguing over who would MOST LIKELY win, but over whether or not Batman COULD win.



Well with the existence of kryptonite technically anyone COULD kill Superman, that doesn't make it probable. If this debate was entirely about whether or not Superman could be killed, well the existence of kryptonite means there's no debate about it. That's why I assumed we were really talking about whether or not it was LIKELY Batman can kill Superman since almost anything has a chance of happening. Being possible does not mean it's probable, and in the case of Superman vs Batman, it's definitely not probable that Batman would kill Superman. Let's not forget a very important fact about Batman, he is very much against killing. I can see how with the existence of Superman why he would try with him, but as was mentioned he didn't kill Superman when he could have. Batman would only ever try to kill Superman if he were under the control of evil influences.

My opponent claimed my description of solar energy exhaustion was very narrow and said that blocking out the sun or flying away from the sun could also cause this. Solar energy exhaustion has to do with using up the solar energy that Superman currently has without absorbing any more. Blocking out the sun wouldn't prevent Superman from his powers, his powers come from how close Earth in general is to the sun. Superman doesn't act like a solar panel who needs sunlight to operate, he gets his powers from the radiation of the sun and Earth being close to the sun means he still has his powers even if it's blocked out. This is also why at night Superman still has his powers. So flying away from the sun would make him vulnerable and lose his powers once the solar energy he has stored becomes depleted, but not blocking out the sun.

As was discussed before, Doomsday nearly killed Superman and almost would've, but you have to keep in mind that Doomsday was as strong and fast as Superman without having to make Superman vulnerable with kryptonite or other means. This shows that for someone like Batman, kryptonite would be necessary if he were to try to fight and kill him. I personally don't really call using kryptonite much of a fight since Superman can't even fight when weakened by kryptonite, but it is still a fight and exploiting weaknesses is smart in fights. But using Green Arrow to hit Superman with kryptonite very much does make a difference, as opposed to my opponent saying that that didn't matter, and I would like to say "slightly assisted" is a huge understatement when it comes to using one of the only ways to make Superman vulnerable. We're not debating Batman and Green Arrow vs Superman or Batman and Robin vs Superman, we're debating about just Batman vs Superman. You mentioned Batman could've created a arrow shooting machine gun, so why didn't he instead? Well in the story Superman had accidentally caused an EMP blast, which rendered all technology useless. That means someone would've had to manually fire the arrow themselves, which as I said before makes the fight no longer just Batman vs Superman.
Debate Round No. 2


I'm sorry that you thought that this was a debate over who would be more likely to win, but, respectfully, the title does say "could." I have met plenty of people who (foolishly, I believe) think that it is literally impossible for Batman to beat Superman, which is why I started this debate. It is, in fact, over this issue, not over who would most likely win.

Addressing your entire second paragraph: Yes, Superman stores energy from the Sun so that he can use his powers when he is away from yellow stars. My point is that once he is no longer exposed, he is running on empty, and therefore it is much easier to drain him. Eventually, if it were night long enough, or the solar radiation were otherwise blocked out long enough, Superman would, in fact, be drained.

"This shows that for someone like Batman, kryptonite would be necessary if he were to try to fight and kill him." Alternative methods have already been discussed.

"You mentioned Batman could've created a arrow shooting machine gun, so why didn't he instead?" As I said, it was a matter of convenience. The Green Arrow happened to be right there at the time. It expedited the process, but didn't change its outcome.

"Well in the story Superman had accidentally caused an EMP blast, which rendered all technology useless." Firstly, E.M.P.'s only render electronic technology useless, and only within a certain area, and there are places that are protected from them (i.e. the Bat Cave). Also, Batman was using an electric suit in the video that I posted up there, so obviously the E.M.P. didn't affect his plan too much. Also, bows and arrows don't rely on electronic technology anyway. I mean, they might need an electronic trigger, but that's something that Batman would have lying around in the evidently electronically protected bat cave.
"That means someone would've had to manually fire the arrow themselves..." As stated, no it doesn't.
Additionally, this is only one scenario in which Batman fights Superman.

I really suggest that all voters watch this video (the same one I posted before). It literally has Batman talking about how he could beat Superman while Superman is collapsed on the ground from kryptonite exposure.

Also, I'd like to remind my opponent that he's not to argue in the last round. See full rules in round one.




I would like to thank you for one of my first debates on this website, it was a really interesting one and I would also like to say I can't wait for the new Batman vs Superman movie, so pumped for it!
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bballcrook21 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was the only one that used sources. The wording of the opening question, mainly "could" lessens the burden on Pro, as all you need is a hypothetical scenario in which Batman has the ability or the tools to kill Superman. At the end, Pro won the argument portion as he provided a more articulate and cohesive argument, as well as sources accompanying his claims.