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

DC's Comic Books are better then Marvels Comic Books

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 11/19/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 936 times Debate No: 65467
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (1)




I believe that dc has far superior comic books but marvel has better movies what do you think?


Neither publisher has comicbooks of significant value, both are equally pointless. Same goes for the movies.

State your case, if you please.
Debate Round No. 1


May I ask you a question, What was the highest grossing movie last year? The avengers. And I do not believe that they are pointless. Have you ever even read one single comic book by either of the companies? They are fantastic, I just believe that comic books are just a fun read in general. And how are they pointless again? it teaches you that you have to rely on your team or your friends. so it brings up moral values. So there's my case.


Financial success has nothing to do with quality or meaning. If that WERE the case, then McDonald's and Burger King would be serving the best and most "meaningful" (?) food in the world.
I've read enough comics to know Stan Lee's onvincing argument on why you should write "comicbook" rather than "comic book".
None of those were "fantastic". Take, for example, the death of Gwen Stacy.
How is the tragic death of an innocent girl a "fun read"? How cynical does one have to be to ENJOY a depiction of wasted life, at the hands of a so-called "superhero" and her boyfriend?
What does any of this teach other than that superpowers WOULD bring death and destruction? IF they were real, which they are not, which makes it all meaningless. Where's the moral values and relying on your friends?
There are countless other examples.
Debate Round No. 2


Crazyjumper forfeited this round.


Sadly, what could have been a fun, intense, short debate became another forfeit.
All that remains is to point out that my opponent did not present a single argument for her resolution that DC makes better comics and Marvel better films. All she said was that Marvel made ONE successful movie. No word on the comics.

While I pointed out that ALL superherocomics depict something that does not even exist, making the comics and films equally pointless.

There remains not a single bit of evidence that DC makes better comics or Marvel better films.

Thanks for reading!
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DudeHouse 2 years ago
If Boggy is down, then I'm down.
Posted by Crazyjumper 2 years ago
I feel like that little showdown between you two was very amusing. one of you should make a debate about this and then the other one join. that is my personal opinion.
Posted by DudeHouse 2 years ago
Boggy? Where are you Boggy? I miss you Boggy.
Posted by DudeHouse 2 years ago
You can't even define what civil rights are. The term "civil rights" is something that you reference in argument, but you just reference that term without knowing what you mean.

You're placing the idea of civil rights as sacred, almost giving it religious qualities for you, same way a hard core Christian believes everything in the Bible is true, just because it is written in the Bible.

In our discussion, I'm placing human life over civil rights, where your placing civil rights over human life.
Posted by BoggyDag 2 years ago
You fail to understand.
This is not a discussion anymore - since you're incapable of understanding the utmost importance of civil rights. I've moved on. Just came back here to leave you this reply so that you understand that I deliberately turn away from this pointless exchange of words.
Posted by DudeHouse 2 years ago
"this discussion is over" - DaggyBog

haha, you argue like a chick.

First of all, I didn't make a statement. I asked you a question: "Yeah but how did that hurt anyone?" You didn't answer it.

Let me make this simpler for you:

Let's say that someone's life was in danger, and you intercepted a text that gave their whereabouts and would allow you to save their life. This text message was not intended for you, so if you read it you are technically spying on this person.

Are you telling me that you would let that person die so you don't violate their civil rights?
Posted by BoggyDag 2 years ago
You just said that violating the civil rights of people doesn't hurt anyone.
Sorry, but this discussion is over. If you don't understand the trouble here, we're living in totally different worlds.
Posted by DudeHouse 2 years ago
"What do you mean by "not hurting anyone"? Batman basically forced Fox to turn everybody's cell phones into spying devices, violating the civil rights of an entire city."

Yeah but how did that hurt anyone? The technology was there. He had to make a split second decision about whether to use it or not. He didn't ready anyone's text messages, just used it to ping Joker's location. He found Joker, kicked his arse, and then destroyed the system.

I'd have made the same decision (but maybe that's just the latent Batman inside of me talking)
Posted by BoggyDag 2 years ago
What do you mean by "not hurting anyone"? Batman basically forced Fox to turn everybody's cell phones into spying devices, violating the civil rights of an entire city.
That's not heroism, it's self-righteousness.
And as I said: the problem is that the "sacrifice" amounted to nothing, as it were Batman's heroics that were the CAUSE of the city's fate in the third film: deth and destruction.
There were lots of things wrong with the film.

Joker totally missed the point of the original character. The original Joker would have given the people either triggers that would unbeknownst to them blow up their own ship or have no effect at all, and both ships would have exploded at the set time, no matter what. This was awfully rigged so that the people wouldn't die in spie of Batman failing to save them.
Actually, Batman didn't save a lot of people in that film, except for the accountant who would have ratted him out (which was Batman's fault for not coverig up his accounts better!): his girlfriend died, Dent became Two-Face because Batman never bothered him again after his injuries (imagine how he would have come to better grips, had Wayne given him a proper visit to grieve together, making amends and planning revenge together!), the people on the two ferries (who ships a load of inmates at NIGHT anyway? What an awfully contrived plot convenience!) saved themselves, the abductees in the building in the end were perfectly safe until Batman turned up there after using his illegal device to find the Joker's lair. He killed Dent (!), hich is something Batman would NEVER have done in the source material...

The film's a mess, front to end, in execution and message. One of the worst films ever made, topped only by its successor, Man Of Steel and Dragonball Evolution.
Posted by DudeHouse 2 years ago
Sorry about that DoggyBag,

Was it the message of the movie that you didn't like? Or was it the filming? Or the acting? Or everything?

Batman takes this view that he will sacrifice himself for the city, even ruin his own reputation to make Harvey Dent look good because he believes that will make the city better. Do you think that message is completely bad? - self sacrifice and lie that doesn't hurt anyone to ultimately do the right thing
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture