The Instigator
imabench
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
ReformedArsenal
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Resolved: Batman would beat God himself in a fight

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 4 votes the winner is...
ReformedArsenal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/25/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,049 times Debate No: 25261
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (29)
Votes (4)

 

imabench

Pro

The debate is that Batman (The superhero) would beat God (The all powerful being) in human form more often in a fight on any terrain.

There are a few parameters that I shall set for the fight

1) Batman has full access to all of his gear and any vehicles he owns
2) I will not argue about the existence of God, It is agreed on that he does exist
3) The debate is about who would win more fights on average, please do not cling to one scenario, there will be multiple scenarios presented in the debate

And more importantly

4) Any power that is given to God in human form must be referenced to scriptures in the Bible to show that God possesses that power, you cant just make sh*t up and give it to God and use the argument "Well of course he has that power, he's God!"

5) The Con MUST use the first round to cite verses from the Bible to show all the powers God in human form has.

6) The Con may ONLY introduce the powers that God has in the first round. You cant add sh*t later in the debate.


let the debate begin :D
ReformedArsenal

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for proposing this very interesting debate.

Although I am a huge Batman fan, Batman is hopelessly outmatched when compared to the omnipotent and omniscient God of the universe, even when that God kenotically limits himself as we see in the Gospels.

There are two primary abilities that Jesus demonstrates that would allow him to handily defeat Batman.

First, Jesus is commonly seen to supernaturally know things before they happen, as well as being able to know the thoughts and secrets of an individual.

In Luke 5:22 Jesus is said to have known what people were thinking and asks questions based on this. This is only one of many references that demonstrate this ability.

In John 4:18 Jesus is said to have known that the woman he was speaking with had previously had 5 husbands and was currently living with a man who was not her husband.

In John 1:49 Jesus supernaturally percieves the location and activity of Nathaniel despite being located in a different place.

These three things combined means that Jesus not only knows exactly where Batman is, but who Batman is, and what Batman's plans are. Batman's primary strength is his ability to execute complex plans that take his opponents off guard. This would be impossible in a fight with Jesus.

Finally, Jesus demonstrates the ability to kill with only a word. In Matthew 21:18-19 Jesus simply tells a Fig Tree that it is cursed "And the fig tree withered at once."

Simply put, Jesus knows where Batman is, what his plan is, and could simply command Batman to die and he would. Batman cannot surprise Jesus, nor can he resist Jesus command.

I think Batman is awesome, but as we will see over the course of this debate... he is no match for Jesus.
Debate Round No. 1
imabench

Pro

I forgot to define fight so let me do that real quick,

Fight (A noun in this case): a violent struggle or confrontation
(just Google "fight definition" and its the first thing that comes up)

These are the powers that the Con has given to God assuming that Jesus is God in human form. Con hasnt provided evidence showing that God was Jesus in human form, but I wont dispute it, so the argument stands.

These are the powers the Con has given to God/Jesus
1) He can tell the future
2) He knows the personal past of anyone
3) He can know the location of someone while being somewhere else completely

And the fourth and final power he gives to God is that he can kill people based on a whim by citing Matthew 21: 18-19

HOWEVER, here is what Matthew 21: 18-19 says

18 "Early in the morning, as Jesus was on his way back to the city, he was hungry." 19 "Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, “May you never bear fruit again!� Immediately the tree withered."

1) A Fig tree isnt a person, and since one of the commandments is "thou shalt not kill", we cannot conclude that God/Jesus would kill Batman since it goes against everything he has taught people to live their lives.
2) God/Jesus didnt kill the fig tree out of spite, he did it because he got the munchies on the way to a party. So unless God/Jesus suddenly becomes a cannibal and sees Batman as a snack, then God/Jesus will not kill him

============================================================================

These are the powers, vehicles, and gadgets of Batman

The flying Bat Wing
The Batmobile that can drive to Batman from remote control
The Batpod (His motorcycle)
Utility Belt that carries the following:
- Batarang
- Bat Grappler (similar to when Spiderman shoots webs and pulls himself up the web)
- Flashbang Grenades
- Teargas pellets
- Bat tracer than can track people
- Bat beacon to assemble bats
- Bat darts with tranquilizers
- Night vision goggles
- Tazer
His actual suit (body armor hidden things inside it)
And lastly hes in good shape and can throw a punch

============================================================================

Here are the 5 scenarios they will be fighting in

1) An all out fight in the streets of New York City
2) An all out fight open terrain
3) An all out pillow fight in a typical bedroom
4) An all out fight on Wall Street to see who can make more money in a week
5) And lastly an all out fight to see who is better at Madden NFL 2013

============================================================================

1) In the familiar streets of New York City, Batman could quickly track down God/Jesus (who would see it coming) and the fist fight would begin. Batman is very strong whereas God/Jesus would be of above average strength due to his size (Con did not cite any scripture saying God/Jesus had superhuman strength or agility), so immediately Batman has the upper hand in terms of strength. God/Jesus wasnt cited as having an uncanny ability to evade a fight either so sooner or later a head on fight between the two would come about. God/Jesus could use his foresight to try defend against Batman's moves, but just because you can see it coming doesnt necessarily mean you can stop it. Batman's sheer strength and possible use of any number of his gadgets would help him overpower God/Jesus through brute force because lets face it, if Batman could whip Bane's huge a** then God/Jesus is in for a tough fight. God/Jesus would only be able to win if he could lure Batman into some sort of trap where batman would be forced to surrender, however his gadgets could easily help him escape any pickle he finds himself in, and in fact is famous for using his gadgets to get out of a trap. Since Batman can easily work his way out of traps and has the advantage of overpowering force, Batman could simply beat God/Jesus into submission, its only a matter of finding him in Batman's native New York City which shouldnt be too hard at all.



2) Now lets say the fight is in an open field like at a park.... Well once again it would end up being a show of force between Batman and God/Jesus, and since it would be impossible for God/Jesus to lure Batman into any sort of trap in an open field to force his surrender, it would once again be another case of Batman simply beating God/Jesus into submission. The fight in an open field would be similar to what would happen in New York City and to what did happen in the Bible when Jesus was forced to be crucified by those damn Jews (IM KIDDING, it was the ROMANS who crucified Jesus, not the Jews. F*ck you Mel Gibson)



3) In this fight, which would be a pillow fight, it would once again be a show of strength between Batman and God/Jesus, but this time the only weapons that are allowed are fluffy pillows. I was unable to find a picture of Batman and God/Jesus having a pillow fight on the internet (someone should fix that), so we'll just have to use our imaginations on this one. Most people in a pillow fight simply play until one of them quits from exhaustion, however if this is a fight to the death then Batman has this one in the bag, allow me to explain how he could do this through the use of cartoons,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.



The bigger one would be Batman since once again he has strength on his side, and Jesus would be the smaller one since he's on the skinny side. Batman would simply have to knock Jesus over and then suffocate God/Jesus into submission, or even death, for batman to win the fight.



4) In this fight to see who can make more money, Then this one would be pretty close. God/Jesus does have the ability to see things coming and I have no reason to argue why this ability to see what humans do next cannot be transmitted to see what stocks do next, so unless Batman has inside information as to what is going to rise and fall (technically not allowed since that would be cheating) then Jesus would have this fight in the bag. It all depends on whether or not Jesus can use his abilities on computers and stocks, and learn to do it fast enough to beat Batman at making more money on the stock market. I would actually give this one to God/Jesus simply because Batman's wealth comes from the company that his parents built, not through saavy investing, meaning that both of them are starting off new at this whle God/Jesus can forsee the future.



5) Lastly if there is the a fight between the two to see who is better at Madden NFL 2013, this one wouldnt even be fair. Batman specializes in using electronics to his advantage to beat his opponents and God/Jesus has never even held a gameboy. The fight to see who would be better at Madden NFL 2013 would end in a severe a**whipping (assuming that God/Jesus doesnt rage quit) similar to the a** whipping the Patriots gave the Broncos in the AFC playoffs last year. Batman would win this ones hands down



So far out of these 5 scenarios Batman would win at least 4 of them, with the fifth one about a money fight being won by God/Jesus. Since the resolution is that Batman would beat God himself in a fight on average (outlined in the very first line of the first round) on any given terrain. (The terrain in these 5 scenarios being New York, A park, Wall Street, a bedroom, and a gaming rom)

I will now allow the Pro to post his arguments about why he believes that God/Jesus would triumph over Batman in these five conflicts. (Thank you for accepting the debate by the way)
ReformedArsenal

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for his contribution to this debate, however as I shall soon show, his arguments are sorely lacking.

My opponent identifies the word "Fight" to mean "a violent struggle or confrontation. He therefore eliminates some of his own scenarios. According to his own method of defining "fight" (entering *term* + definition into Google) we see that a pillow fight is actually "a mock fight." [A] Since a mock fight is by definition not a fight, it is automatically excluded from this debate. Scenarios 4 (Fund Raising Competition) and 5 (Madden NFL 2013) are also excluded, because they do not meet the criteria of violent (part of Pro's definition).

This leaves us with scenarios 1 and 2.

Furthermore, my opponent seems to have added the criteria of what a person "WOULD" do in addition to what they "COULD" do when he noted that killing a human was outside of Jesus' moral scope "since it goes against everything he has taught people to live their lives." Since my opponent has entered new criteria, I find it within my rights to add an additional passage of evidence. 2 Corinthians 5:21 identifies that Christ "knew no sin." Indicating that he had never sinned.

Since we are including what is within the moral scope of someone in this debate, Batman would not be able to defeat Jesus in either scenario 1 or 2. Batman would never attack an innocent person who had not committed a crime, so it is nonsense to think that the Dark Knight would attack an unarmed and completely innocent man. In scenarios 1 and 2 we would then see a complete draw between the two morally upstanding individuals, as there would be no fight whatsoever. Since Pro's burden of proof is to show that "Batman would beat God himself in a fight" any scenario that results in a draw is a point to Con. Since scenarios 3, 4, and 5 have been excluded, and scenarios 1 and 2 would result in a draw, Con clearly carries the day.

Thank you again to my opponent for his contribution to this debate, and thank you to the readers for their participation.

[A] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 2
imabench

Pro

The Con's first argument uses wordplay of the definition of the words "violent" and "fight" to try to disqualify some of my scenarios.

A pillow fight is indeed defined as a mock fight by the Con's source however there is NO definition for mock fight given by the Con or even listed in the website the Con used. You cannot simply exclude a scenario just because you define it as a word that doesnt have a definition.

On the other hand, If I can show that pillow fights are indeed violent fights, then I meet the burden showing that it is applicable under the term "fight". To your right is a video of a very violent pillow fight which shows that since it is indeed violent and indeed a fight, it qualifies to be a scenario for a fight between Batman and God/Jesus.


The Con then rashly tries to dismiss my other two scenarios (including the one im giving him for some reason) because HE feels they arent violent. However, playing videos can indeed spur violent reactions from people (See second video ) and the same can be assumed for a money fight because what do you think Wall Street Investors do when they lose a lot of money really fast? They violently freak out! Seeing as how its also a competition it can thus be considered a confrontation, a clash, and even a fight

As for the rest of con's wordplay over "could" and "should". My argument was that since im intending for this fight to be as realistic as possible, it would be realistic if God/Jesus didnt kill Batman since God/Jesus preaches not killing people. The Con then replies that Batman wouldnt fight God/Jesus because God/Jesus is innocent and didnt do anything wrong.

Maybe the Con is forgetting his own sources..... In round 1 he clearly mentioned that God/Jesus killed a fig tree that did not belong to him simply because he was hungry.

Whats the relevance of that? Its illegal to do that in New York City!

City of New York Parks and Recreation Section 1-04 of Prohibited Uses section B point 1 Subpoint i clearly states:

"No person shall deface, write upon, injure, sever, mutilate, kill or remove from the ground any trees under the jurisdiction of the Department without permission of the Commissioner."
http://www.nycgovparks.org...

God/Jesus clearly did not ask for permission of the Commissioner of New York City before he killed the Fig tree, therefore he DID commit a crime, he is NOT innocent, and Batman WOULD whip his a**

(If the con doesnt buy this I can cite numerous other crimes against humanity that God has carried out to justify Batman fighting him)

Point is, the other scenarios are admissible since they can be violent in nature and thus fit the definition of what a fight is, and there would be a physical fight between God/Jesus since they have committed crimes against humanity and against a fig tree if you want to get technical.

Other than that the Con has not given any evidence at all suggesting that God/Jesus would win in ANY of the scenarios I have provided, even for the one that I admit God/Jesus would have the best chance of winning.
ReformedArsenal

Con

Simply put, my opponent's arguments reveal the desperation of a losing debater.

He claims that I am simply making up a definition for mock fight that excludes a real fight. However, I was unaware that I was required to define basic common knowledge terms. The word "Mock" when used as an adjective is defined as "feigned; not real; sham: a mock battle." [A] That leaves the term "Pillow fight" defined as "a feigned; not real; sham fight." A pillow fight is clearly, under the definition of an accepted source, not a real fight. As something that is not a real fight, it is excluded from this scenario. As far as the people in the "violent pillow fight" video supplied by my opponent. All of those people are smiling and laughing throughout the entire video. There is clearly no intent to hurt each other, and when someone accidentally gets hurt they stop hitting him. This is clearly not intended to be a serious fight.

My opponent then claims that I dismiss the other scenarios based on the fact that I feel that they are not violent. He then claims that because they can lead to violence, that they are in themselves inherently violent and constitute a fight. This is simply not correct. Anything can lead to violence, that does not make it a fight. A rabbit recently got into my garden and destroyed the tomatoes I've been working hard on, this could lead me to violently kill this rabbit. However that does not automatically make gardening a fight. Unless violence is an essential part of the scenario, it does not meet the criteria that my opponent put forward.

My opponent then begins an argument against my "wordplay over "could" and "should"" It would behoove my opponent to read more carefully since my argument was actually over a distinction between "Could" and "Would."

My opponent then foolishly points out that it is illegal to kill a tree in New York City to support his contention that Batman would attack him. However, Jesus did not kill a fig tree in New York City, he killed said fig tree in ancient Jerusalem. Unless my opponent can show that there was a law in 1st century Jerusalem against killing fig trees, my opponent still has to grapple with the fact that Batman would need to assault a man guilty of no crimes in order for scenarios 1 and 2 to result in Batman winning.

My opponent has also caught himself in a catch 22 when he intimates that God has committed "numerous other crimes against humanity." If this is indeed the case, then what would be stopping the God who has committed these other crimes from simply commanding Batman to die in the same way he commanded the fig tree to die. If God has no regard for the law, then he would simply command Bruce Wayne to wither and die as he did the fig tree.

I have demonstrated three things that secure victory for Jesus in the scenarios provided by my opponent, and therefore have secured victory for myself in this debate.

The first is that scenarios 3 (Pillow Fight), 4 (Money Raising Competition), and 5 (Madden NFL 2013 Competition) are out of bounds for this debate because they do not meet the criteria of "fight" provided by my opponent in round 2.

The second is that to attack a person guilty of no crime is outside of the moral scope of Batman, who would never willingly injure or kill an innocent person.

The third is that even if Batman were to find some kind of justification for attacking an innocent man, Jesus could simply kill Batman with a word the same way that he killed the fig tree. My opponent's argument that this is outside of the moral scope of Jesus is contradictory with his argument that God has knowingly perpetrated numerous crimes against humanity. He cannot have it both ways, either God is morally upstanding (giving Batman no justification to attack him) or he is morally abhorrent (giving him no reason not to simply kill Bruce Wayne)

[A] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 3
imabench

Pro

"Simply put, my opponent's arguments reveal the desperation of a losing debater."

Opinion. If i appear desperate its because im trying to get this debate you are trying to avoid with semantics back on course and back to the original arguments rather then dispute the semantics of why there wouldnt be a fight in the first place.

"A pillow fight is clearly, under the definition of an accepted source, not a real fight"

Then i'll classify it as a cartoonishly violent confrontation with pillows, thus it becomes admissible since it would fit the agreed upon definition.

" This is clearly not intended to be a serious fight."

Most fights at first dont intend to be serious and then escalate into a serious fight, since you admit that people can be hurt that makes it violent to a degree.

"Anything can lead to violence, that does not make it a fight"

But anything that is violent can be seen as a fight or as a confrontation, even if the violence is cartoonish in nature.

"A rabbit recently got into my garden and destroyed the tomatoes I've been working hard on, this could lead me to violently kill this rabbit."

THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU MAN? Its just a poor little rabbit, probably trying to feed its rabbit family!! And what are you doing hoarding all the tomatoes during times of hardship like this? You should be giving those extra tomatoes to those who really need it who cant afford to help themselves grow tomatoes rather than have you hoard all the wealth during these hard times. Obama 2012!

" Unless violence is an essential part of the scenario, it does not meet the criteria that my opponent put forward."

The criteria is that there be a violent fight or confrontation. what happened is that the rabbit took what was yours and hauled a** out of there. Had he stayed then there would have surely been a violent confrontation since the rabbit would have been caught red-handed. The same goes for what would happen if Batman caught God/Jesus red handed destroying a fig tree in Central Park without the commissioners authorization.

"My opponent then begins an argument against my "wordplay over "could" and "should"" It would behoove my opponent to read more carefully since my argument was actually over a distinction between "Could" and "Would."

My bad, my phone's autocorrect hates me and it does that quite a lot :P

"Jesus did not kill a fig tree in New York City, he killed said fig tree in ancient Jerusalem. Unless my opponent can show that there was a law in 1st century Jerusalem against killing fig trees"

There is such a law though, Deuteronomy 5:17 clearly states "Thou Shalt Not kill", which is a law that God/Jesus had to follow and broke when he did kill..... The fig tree.

"my opponent still has to grapple with the fact that Batman would need to assault a man guilty of no crimes in order for scenarios 1 and 2 to result in Batman winning."

God did kill many people, my argument is that in his human form (Jesus) he would commit none of these crimes because he is bound to the laws that he preached as Jesus before. Basically,

God in heaven = Killings left and right
God in the form of Jesus = Nobody gets killed.

Being the same person in a different form does not excuse him from all his acts, so Batman would have plenty of justification to beat his a** and God/Jesus, bound in his human form, would be unable to fight back.

http://www.godlessgeeks.com...

" If God has no regard for the law, then he would simply command Bruce Wayne to wither and die as he did the fig tree."

Its not that God has a complete disregard for the law, its that when in human form God is bounded by those laws and that he is unable to violate. Since God is supernatural it can be argued that in his omnipotence he can both created laws he is bound by and violate them at the same time. However when God is in his NON-omnipotent HUMAN form, those same laws bound him and his actions, limiting what he can and cant do since he is no longer in his omnipotent form.

Imagine if you will that the laws God preaches are like a fox trap. God can make the fox trap and do whatever the f*ck he wants and the fox trap cant get him because hes in his omnipotent form, but if God is in human form and is not immune or all powerful, then that same fox trap could then screw over God since hes in human form.

"to attack a person guilty of no crime is outside of the moral scope of Batman, who would never willingly injure or kill an innocent person."

He doesnt have to kill them, and its more than possible that Batman doesnt know who Jesus/God is when he fights him. Have you seen how many hippies there are in New York City who have long brown beards, brown hair, really skinny, against violence, and likes to smoke peyote? Batman wouldnt be able to pick Jesus/God out of a lineup of hippies so he could more then easily mistake Jesus for a hippie and then unwillingly beat him up.

"even if Batman were to find some kind of justification for attacking an innocent man, Jesus could simply kill Batman with a word the same way that he killed the fig tree."

I can see how my lack of clarity before has caused some confusion, welcome to my life. Jesus is capable of comitting a crime by killing something that isnt his, however it is still outside his moral judgement to kill an actual PERSON like Batman. Killing a fig tree =/= killing a person BUT killing a fig tree = committing a crime which would allow Batman to justifiably attack God/Jesus for committing a crime but God/Jesus wouldnt be able to kill him because they are bound by God's omnipotent laws.

============================================================================

This is my final round so let me make my final points.

1) This debate is about who would win in a fight, not about who would win in a fight and who started it and why did they start it and who would throw the first punch.
2) In order to try to do point 1 I have played the Con's game to argue the following reasons about why Batman would attack Jesus and why Jesus couldnt strike him down
- Batman could have mistaken God/Jesus for a regular hippie and started the fight, Batman doesnt necessarily have to know who he is fighting and everyone makes mistakes.
- It can be argued that God is bound by his own omnipotent laws when he is in non-omnipotent human form
- Jesus/God do not have the physical strength or powers to defend against themselves against a physical attack by Batman meaning he would win a physical fight against them
- The other three scenarios can be one way or another classified as violent (which can be real or cartoonish) as a fight (harm being done somewhere) or as a confrontation (which could or could not escalate into a physical fight but is in itself a fight) which means they qualify as part of the agreed upon definition of what a fight would be, and are thus admissable
- Batman would win in at least two of these other three scenarios and the Con did not offer evidence as to why he wouldnt.

Ill end now.

I really really thank the con for making this debate wonderfully entertaining and I would like to thank all the open minded people (who wont votebomb this debate because they are not controlled by their religious views while voting) for voting.



To those who will vote on this debate squarely based on their own values of God and dont even bother reading our arguments and vote anyways,

"Thou shalt go f*ckith yourself" - 11th commandment
ReformedArsenal

Con

I could respond to Pro's points one at a time, but that would be overkill and quite boring.

Here is the simple truth. My opponent seems to want to have things both ways. He can argue about why Jesus WOULD not simply command Batman to die, but I cannot argue about why Batman WOULD not attack Jesus. Inconsistent. My opponent argues that Jesus would not break a law when he says he would not command a person to die, but at the same time argues that he did break a law in commanding the tree to die. Inconsistent.

These are the only two possible scenarios: Either Jesus would never break a law, and thus Batman has no reason to attack him... or Jesus did break a law and Batman would attack him.

If he did not break a law, Batman would not attack him. My opponent argues that perhaps Batman attacks because of mistaken identity. Really?!? The greatest detective in the world, holding multiple degrees in criminal science and law? He wouldn't do his research and ensure that when he "beat God/Jesus into submission" that he didn't have the wrong person. This is a ridiculous argument. Does my opponent really want you to ignore that Batman is not stupid?

If Jesus did break a law, then we have no reason to believe that he would follow the other laws. If it is a sin to kill a tree, why is it more of a sin to kill a person? If he respects the second, why would we believe that he does not respect the first? Furthermore, since it is out of bounds to talk about what a person WOULD do (since my opponent considers this to be a semantic argument), then we are only considering the abilities of Jesus. It is clear that Jesus has the ability to command a living being to cease living, so all he must do to win the fight is command Batman to cease living. His moral preclivities against such an action has been determined irrelevant by my opponent.

To summarize: It would be impossible for Batman to WIN in a fight. It is outside of his moral scope to attack an innocent man, and if Jesus were not innocent such that it was okay for Batman to attack Jesus would not be concerned with the moral implications of commanding Batman to die (I am not saying Jesus would do that, but in this contrived scenario in which Jesus is not a respecter of the law this would not be an issue). So the fight either results in a draw or a win for Jesus. Neither of these is a win for Batman, therefore my opponent has not fulfilled his burden of proof to show the resolution true.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by JonK 4 years ago
JonK
pro almost got as many points as con? i havent read the debate; at least not yet, but this had to be a good showing by pro because, if you are talking about the Christian God then you're talking about a deity that can do literally anything.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
You're welcome, i had fun.
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
Thank you SOOOOOOOO Much for making this a great debate RA :D
<3
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
Wiscon,

You're not helping the cause of Christ by acting like a tool on a debating website.
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
If you use that as your entire RFD it will clearly be seen as a votebomb and countered, just so you know
Posted by Wiscon 5 years ago
Wiscon
Batman will lose not matter what.As i mentioned before also in my comment that an invention cannot outwit it's inventor.
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
I was waiting for one of you to come out of the woods....

The debate isnt supposed to be about WHY batman would fight god (but its turning out that way) its supposed to be about who would win should they fight
Posted by Wiscon 5 years ago
Wiscon
God is the creator.He is the source of every power.
We are his invention.An invention can never outwit it's inventor so God wins.
Fate is in the hands of God.
Even in human form God can win.But why would batman a mere human fight God the almighty.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
Why multiply words when few will do?
Posted by AlwaysMoreThanYou 5 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
I'm surprised Con declared so few powers.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by igaryoak 5 years ago
igaryoak
imabenchReformedArsenalTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: It seems like Con danced around the resolution by not actually addressing the fights and Pro eventually danced with him. The unaddressed scenarios in which Batman wins brings the total to 2-0-3 in Batman's favor.
Vote Placed by Yep 5 years ago
Yep
imabenchReformedArsenalTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Ummm wow...
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
imabenchReformedArsenalTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Hmm...other than the obvious supernatural advantage offered to our lord and savior, there is Pro's sloppy correlation of his scenarios with his provided definitions in defining a specific conflict, inconsistency and baffling bilateral case (which were full of contrivances--the extension of divine law to the state jurisdiction, division between divine and human character and the subjection to laws, and so forth...A fun debate indeed, but Batman needs more than an Imabench to win here...;)
Vote Placed by ScottyDouglas 5 years ago
ScottyDouglas
imabenchReformedArsenalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a interesting debate. It never got fully going into the fight senarios because Pro failed to properly define his position and Con exploided it. Con further showed how Batman could not ever beat Jesus in a fight and further more that Batman had no reason to fight Jesus to begin with. Pro went back and forth trying to determine his position to continue the fight senarios but couldnt because Con picked away piece by piece his entire argument through improper definitions.