The Instigator
Logical-Master
Pro (for)
Winning
151 Points
The Contender
solo
Con (against)
Losing
71 Points

Resolved: In a fight, Darth Vader would easily vanquish Superman.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+14
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/7/2008 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 9,964 times Debate No: 1478
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (23)
Votes (56)

 

Logical-Master

Pro

I'm a big fan of both fictional characters, but I'm afraid that if the two were to trade blows, Vader would easily wind up as the victor.

I will perform this debate by stating how the dark lord of the sith would counter Superman's powers.

Strength: People claim that Superman would dominate Vader due to his sheer Super strength, but I am one to disagree. Vader can easily move objects which weigh over 100 tons. Proof: In "The Empire Strikes back", we saw an old and weakened Yoda lift Luke Skywalker's X-Wing out of the Dagobah swamp. Luke's X-Wing surpasses the size of a jumbo jet. Not to mention that the space craft was doubt heavier due to the sheer weight increase there is when removing it from a swamp. Let us remember that Vader was by far more powerful than Yoda at this point. So, if Superman attempts to punch vader with one of his powerful punches, Vader can reflect his blow with a force blast.

Speed: Now we all know that Superman can move at the speed of light. That much is understood, but how often does he do this? In the first film, Superman could have easily evaded Lex Luthors dastardly kryptonite trap if he had moved at light speed, but the mighty man of steel easily fell for the trap. In all the films, there isn't one point at which Superman uses to full extent of his speed during a confrontation. This leads me to believe that he certainly wouldn't use it in a battle against Vader. However, even if he did, we must remember that all Jedi has shown themselves able to deflect a barrage of lasers with their uncanny light sabers. Also, during the second and third prequel, Yoda had shown himself able to deflect Lord Sidious' lightning spell with his hands alone. Scientist have estimated that a lightning bolt moves at half the speed of light or more. My point: Superman likely won't use his speed, but even if he did, Vader would easily counter it no harder than he had countered Han solo's laser blast in second film of the original trilogy.

Heat Vision: Basically the same as the criteria covered in speed.

Ice Breath: Vader should be able to dispel it with a simple force push.

Invulnerability: In the comics, it is noted that Superman's invulnerability can be bypassed by any magical force. The force in the SW universe could be defined as magic, thus it could be used effectively against Superman.

Finally, in Return of the Jedi, Darth Sidious tells Vader that he had foreseen Luke Skywalker's arrival on Endor. This justice that force wielders can see into the future. If that is the case, Vader could simply prepare for this fight days in advance.

Any way you look at it, Vader would be the champion in a brawl with Kal-el of krpton.

I now stand ready for my opponent's case.
solo

Con

<>

I doubt Vader would triumph with ease, as you've indicated, if he could at all.

easily (http://dictionary.reference.com...)
1. In an easy manner; with ease.

<
Strength: People claim that Superman would dominate Vader due to his sheer Super strength, but I am one to disagree. Vader can easily move objects which weigh over 100 tons.>>

Vader never did this because he was unable to and you cannot give an example where he did perform such a feat.

<>

We saw Yoda do this, not Vader. Also, Yoda's physical body does not reflect his ability to control the Force. He was a Jedi Master on the Jedi Council LONG BEFORE Vader was even born, so Vader couldn't have ever been able to match Yoda's powers.

<>

Luke's X-Wing was tiny compared to a JUMBO JET. Jumbo jets can hold many, many people. The X-Wing was a one-man craft that couldn't even house it's R2 unit on the inside!

<>

He may have had more military power, but he was never more powerful when it came to the Force. But none of this matters because the argument I'm proposing is that Vader couldn't "easily vanquish Superman".

I won't dispute the irrelevant power usage analysis, at this time, but I will comment on one and then fill-in where you did not.

<>

The Force is not magical. It is defined that way by people who do not understand it. Light sabers, also not magical -- Superman would be impervious to attacks by them. Nothing in the Star Wars Universe is magical, as it is all based in Science and Technology. That's why the Jedi's need space ships to roam the galaxies and they don't just ride magic carpets or any nonsense like that.

<>

The Siths wouldn't have met their demise if they could accurately see the future. I'm going to further negate this argument with the fact that Superman could just reverse time where ever Vader was, as he did in Superman (1) when Lois Lane died in the earthquake.

<>

Possibly, but Vader isn't indestructible. That's why he's in a special suit. Also, Superman can fly. All he has to do it is rip off Vader's arms and legs, so that Vader can't move on his own, then fly behind Vader, take him up a mile or so into the sky and then let him go. Vader died by falling, so it stands to reason that gravity would be his undoing again.

Vader "could" win, but it wouldn't be an easy victory as you suggest.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
Logical-Master

Pro

My opponent states that he doubts Vader would be able to triumph easily, but I will show otherwise in my refutation of his rebuttal.

Usually, I would question such a source as dictionary.com, but I see no problem with his definition of easy, so I accept it as the standard definition for the remaining rounds.

The negative side states that Vader never lifted an object of 100 tons because he was unable to. This is incorrect as there is no evidence to suggest that he was unable to. On the contrary, there is evidence to suggest that he had this ability. Conveniently, this evidence concerns my opponents problem with my comparison of Vader and Yoda. He claims that Yoda was superior to vader. First, I would question what evidence there is to suggest this. Second, I would like to present evidence against his claim.

In the SW universe, it is acknowledged the Dagobah is a planet infested with the energies of the dark side. This is explained in the SW comics when a member of Yoda's race had defeated a Dark Jedi on this planet long ago. In the game "Jedi Academy", Dagobah is also listed as a planet infested with the energies from the dark side of the force. Finally, this is stated in the film when Yoda tells Luke of the cave which happens to be the source of the dark side energies on the planet. That said, in the third prequel, Mace Windu and Yoda have a discussion concerning the current events and they allude that their force-abilities have weakened due to the presence of the dark side which was lurking in Coruscant. Therefore, I submit to you that yoda (having spent 18 or more years on the planet of Dagobah) force energy had decreased. I can speculate the reasons why, but don't believe they would have any bearing on this debate.

My opponent also states that his reasoning for Vader being inferior is that Yoda had long been a member on the council before Anakin had even been born. However, in the SW, age means nothing. In the third prequel, it was Anakin who defeated Dooku. Keep in mind that Dooku was old and had far more experience than Anakin. The ability to use the force is determined by the number of the midcholorians (sic) in ones body. Anakin had voluminous amount (see Quigon and Obiwan's conversation concerning Anakin in the first prequel). There's also the fact that during the battle between Yoda and Sidious, Sidious stated that Anakin would no doubt surpass them both.

My opponent makes a valid point in that Luke Skywalker's X-wing was inferior to the size of that of a jumbo jet. However, my point of contention was that Vader could lift more than 100 tons through use of the force. Thus, I would say that my concession concerning my previous statement holds no real weight on this debate.

My opponent states that the remainder of my power analysis is irrelevant but that he will return to it later. If he does not, I expect that he provides his reasoning concerning why it is dismissible.

My opponent contends that the force cannot be considered magical and that the SW universe is most known for utilizing science and technology; he makes it clear that it is no way comparable to the magical or superstitious. First, I would like to remind him of a scene presented in the first SW film: http://youtube.com... . The point being made here is that the force is viewed as superstition/religious/unscientific by some. Since a majority of the individuals in the SW universe are not force wielders, we can assume that a majority lacks an understanding of it. Of course, even in Superman's universe, the only ones to truly understand magic are the users of such (Faust, Black Adam, Dr. Fate, etc). Since my opponent is defining magic as anything outside the realms of science as well as what is understood, his definition in no way contradicts my previous statement concerning the force.

Expansion on the invulnerability argument: By the 1970s, Superman was given a bio electric aura. This aura serves to be his source of invulnerability and it is the reason his suit is never damaged. It is acknowledged that SW characters can bypass fields "barriers" and use the force to their heart's content. For instance, the force choke is performed by directly bypassing one's flesh and squeezing one's larynx. If it is indeed possible that the force doesn't serve as the equivalent to magic, Vader could just bypass this aura use the force to dispose of the kryptonian.

My opponent states that my argument concerning Vader's precognition would not be effective in a battle against Superman.

First, he states that the force cannot accurately see into the future as the Sith would not have accurately met their demise if they truly had this ability.

Second, he states that Superman could just counter Vader's precognition by spinning the planet and reversing time.

In response to his first problem with my argument, I would agree that the sith were not able to predict their demise, however, that doesn't negate my argument. Keep in mind that my argument was that Vader could use precognition to foresee that he would be fighting Superman. As one might notice, I never stated anything about Vader foreseeing the conclusion of the battle (as that would be the wisest choice). Keep in mind that Sidious predicted that Luke would arrive on Endor and go to Vader. Anakin predicted that Padme would die while giving child birth. In both of these situations, these skilled force wielders were not able to foresee the OUTCOME of the events which they saw. Vader knowing that he'll fight Superman is more likely than him seeing that he will win/lose to Superman. Point of my contention: If Vader could foresee a fight with Superman, he could certainly prepare. Given the numerous means of preparation, my claim that he would easily win the fight is all the more supported. For instance, he could hire a bounty hunter to research Superman, capture lois lane, and find some kryptonite. With preparation, he wouldn't even need to lift a finger while battling the man of steel.

As for my opponent's second problem with my argument, I'd like to advocate that this battle would be over before Superman had the chance to pull such a last resort method. Given that Vader only needs one successful technique to win (example: a successful force choke or mind trick). Besides, time travel is no different than his usage of light speed on the battlefield; Superman is unlikely to utilize it (heck, he only used time travel in one film).

Lastly, my opponent argues that Superman could just rip Vader's arms and legs off or take him a mile into the sky. Firstly, both of these tactics would no doubt kill Darth Vader. If Superman were so easily willing to kill his enemies, why hasn't he killed (his arch enemy) Lex Luthor? Second, as I've been advocating, Vader only needs one move to defeat Superman. Since I've already established that Vader can counter light speed movements, I will proceed by advocating that a mind trick or a force choke could be done before Superman was successful in either assault (and as noted previously, whether or not the force could be considered magic, the force could still work against Superman). Also, my opponent is incorrect concerning Vader's death as the Emperor was the only one to "die" due to his fall into the reactor (of course, it was eventually made known that the Emperor managed to survive in the comics).

I now stand ready for my opponent's second rebuttal. Thank you.
solo

Con

My opponent makes grand claims as to why Darth Vader could defeat Superman, but he fails to recognize the simple fact that Superman and Vader exist in worlds where GOOD ALWAYS TRIUMPHS OVER EVIL. Vader could never "easily vanquish Superman" because he's a proven loser; and Superman is a proven winner. It is a constant than doesn't fail in the comics or the movies.

You cannot use your brilliant and well-thought out arguments without accepting the obvious given. Good always triumphs over evil. Superman is a winner. Vader is a loser. To make a long drawn out argument of how a mind trick could penetrate a Kryptonian mind is ridiculous. You also try to dismiss arguments based on your understanding of Superman and Vader, but you are not the creators of either character, so they are no more valid than mine. Superman is smarter and stronger and better than Vader, and in the off chance that Vader had a good day in a fight against Superman, he would not be able to "easily vanquish Superman" for the simple fact that it wouldn't make an interesting storyline to follow and thus would go against the very nature of what these two characters were specifically designed to do... capture the audience. No one is going to bother with a battle that could take place in a single three inch box. That doesn't make sense, nor does your argument.
Debate Round No. 2
Logical-Master

Pro

As a reminder (however unnecessary), this will be my last round in this debate. I will first refute my opponent's most recent rebuttal and then follow up by explaining why the affirmative side won today's debate.

First, my opponent states that my arguments are brilliant and well-thought out. One may assume that this is the sign of a concession to them, but I would just like to point this out as a primary observation. I would also like to point out that my opponent does not address my arguments.

Next, my opponent claims that because good always Triumphs over evil, Vader would no doubt lose to Superman. Keep in mind that this conflicts with his earlier claim that Vader has a chance of defeating Superman. To address the claim itself, I would agree that this is ultimately true in films; good does typically triumph over evil. However, one thing my opponent failed to include was that good triumphed over evil at the very END of the STORY. Keywords: End and story.

This is not a story; this is a debate concerning whether or not Darth Vader could easily beat Superman. Secondly, evil has beaten good in the films. One crucial observation that we must acknowledge is that evil just doesn't manage to triumph in the end. As I recall, Luthor has bested Superman multiple times in the films. However, Luthor never manages to best Superman in the end. The same applies for the SW universe. All of the villains have had their respective victories (in fact, they had more victories than the heroes), but it was the heroes who always triumphed in the end of the story. With that said, even if this were to be acknowledged as a story, who is to say that this doesn't concern Vader and Superman's initial meeting? To build tension in the story, shouldn't Vader be the one to win first.

Another problem with my opponent's good/evil argument is that Superman does not represent all of good. In fact, in Superman Returns, he received aid from other GOOD people when he was drowning in the ocean which Luthor and his thugs had tossed him in. In the first film, it was a GOOD woman who managed to remove the kryptonite shackles from Superman so that he could save the world. This is a match between Vader and Superman, so outside sources of good are certainly not going to be of aid.

My opponent then claims that my understandings of Superman and Vader are no more valid than his. Usually, I would ask him to cite which claims I had made that were built upon my opinion rather than actual StarWars/Superman canon so that I may clarify. However, since this is the last round where I will be able to respond, there is no point to such a question. Rather, my claim will be that my points have been strictly based on the StarWars and Superman canon. Since the burden or proof belongs to my opponent for making that claim, I would ask him to prove that my responses are summed up as my opinion of Vader and Superman rather than what I factually know about the two. I would also like to audience to notice that this would be a concession (on my opponent's part) to having given opinions; since he is insinuating that the analysis which I had projected is based on merely my opinion of the characters, this would suggest that he believes his analysis to merely be opinion as well (since he claims are points to be no lesser or greater).

My opponent commits Ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion) by claiming that the fight simply wouldn't happen as audiences wouldn't be interested. One must keep in mind that whether or not this is true, it has nothing to do with the topic of whether or not Vader would be able to easily defeat Superman in a fight.

My opponent claims that my argument concerning Vader's mind trick abilities is ridiculous, but does not present a premise to support this.

My opponent claims that Superman is stronger, faster, and smarter than Vader, but once again presents no premise to support this claim. Not to mention that I had previously presented arguments that would suggest otherwise (excluding the matter or intelligence).

One more point to note concerning a commenter: In the comics, it has been made clear that Superman is vulnerable to magic, kryptonite, and any force that exceeds his (hence how he was killed by a non magic/krptonite being known as Doomsday during "The Death of Superman" story arc.

Closing statements: I believe that my opponent and I have exhausted all avenues of the subject at hand. I maintain my position that "Darth Vader would easily vanquish Superman" is correct and that my opponent has failed to demonstrate how his position overcomes Vader's means of countering Superman's strength, speed, heat vision, invulnerability, and ice breath. In particular, he has yet to present an argument and/or counter argument concerning the above (not to mention the arguments I had provided arguments concerning Vader's precognition and mind tricks). For those reasons, the affirmative side wins today's debate.

I would like to thank my opponent for giving me the honor of having a friendly debate with him on the subject and hope to debate with him again in the future. Good night.
solo

Con

<>

Your argument was irrelevant. I had no intention of addressing YOUR MULTIPLE-POINTED OPINION of a hypothetical situation when I can "easily vanquish" your points by saying that is your opinion.

<>

This argument alone supports the very argument I'm making. Vader cannot VANQUISH Superman because that would be the end of the story for Superman, thus making your entire argument mundane and irrelevant.

<>

No, it shouldn't. With that said, this point is thoroughly refuted.

<>

Wrong! Part of Superman's strength is his allies. So before Vader could do anything to him, Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Supergirl, the Martian guy, Bugs Bunny, Mickey Mouse... ALL OF THEM would come to represent Superman's power.

<>

I disagree, which is all that proof that I need, as you having provided a single issue number to support your arguments. You just made questionable claims to Vader's greatness and Superman's limitations. Do they exist? Possibly, but I'm definitely sure that there is proof that fully supports everything I claim. As you haven't provided and issue numbers, your request for me to do so is officially DENIED.

<>>

The majority of your argument has nothing to do with Vader being able to "easily vanquish Superman". It's just a bunch of personal interpretations. The only difference between my argument and yours is, I admit that our arguments are purely based on interpretation, whereas you're deluding yourself as to Vader's might.

<>

Again, you've provided nothing to support your imaginings of your claims, but if you insist, the telepathic pincher plant from Orgos 7 tried to take over Superman's mind, but it was revealed that no one could use mental manipulation on a Kryptonian. It's common knowledge. (See how that works?)

<>

Can Vader move a planet? No! The Deathstar required engines, but guess what? Superman could've moved it. Could Vader move at the speed of light? Nope. Could Vader destroy the rebels and their efforts? No, because he wasn't smart enough.

<>

And I didn't bother until now because we could play tit-for-tat indefinitely, but the voters are going to see the Vader couldn't possibly win because he was a guy that got cut up by a mortal man. That's right! He didn't use these magnificent powers against Obi-Wan, did he? No.

<>

Yes, but Wonder Woman nullified that in her comic book (and in JLU) after she became a goddess, so I negate that point.

<>

Closing statements: I have thoroughly proven why I defeated my opponent in this debate. Superman is Superman and Vader is not Superman. His argument for Vader's precognitive abilities were disproven and he admitted to being wrong. He lost thoroughly and all I've done here is prove what everyone already knows. Vader would NOT "EASILY VANQUISH SUPERMAN" in a fight.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by GrooseFan 3 years ago
GrooseFan
This was an amazing debate that I found when debating the same issue with a friend. Both sides presented great points, but I think pro had the slight advantage in that the obvious answer seems to be Superman, but once actual research is done into Superman's weaknesses it becomes clear that Vader could beat him.
Posted by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
"Woah, I have absolutely no recollection of having read this."

Same here, though it seems I voted on it 9 months ago. In any case, we really need more debates like this one.
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
The only thing I recall about this debate was that it was the only challenging one where I actually took the time to finish as soon as possible. After this debate (well actually, my debate with beem0r by technicality), I shifted to last minute responding 95% of the time.
Posted by PoeJoe 7 years ago
PoeJoe
Woah, I have absolutely no recollection of having read this.
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
2 years? How very surprising.
Posted by Lifeisgood 8 years ago
Lifeisgood
B/A: Pro/Pro
Conduct: Tie. Both were fine on this point.
S/G: Tie. No major infractions on either side.
Arguments: Pro. His argument was more convincing and more clear than his opponent's argument.
Sources: Pro. The only non-dictionary source used in the debate was used by him, so...

In my opinion, Darth Vader really would pwn Superman.
Posted by Miserlou 9 years ago
Miserlou
This debate is awesome on so many levels.

Both debaters were good, but I say Vader would beat Superman. That could be person prejudice though; Superman annoys me.
Posted by PoeJoe 9 years ago
PoeJoe
It's about a tie. LM worked a lot harder, so I'll give to him.
Posted by PoeJoe 9 years ago
PoeJoe
@ CON's R2:

Ouch!!! I will continue reading.
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
Eyeleapy, why didn't you take the time to post a comment? I was interested in reading your input. :P
56 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by KingDebater 1 year ago
KingDebater
Logical-MastersoloTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
Logical-MastersoloTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: con failed to rebut pro's points
Vote Placed by brokenboy 6 years ago
brokenboy
Logical-MastersoloTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: eh i agree with CON but PRO had better arguments
Vote Placed by Eliazar 6 years ago
Eliazar
Logical-MastersoloTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: hm
Vote Placed by Xenith967 6 years ago
Xenith967
Logical-MastersoloTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Romanus 7 years ago
Romanus
Logical-MastersoloTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by jamsjamsjams 7 years ago
jamsjamsjams
Logical-MastersoloTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:12 
Vote Placed by Lifeisgood 8 years ago
Lifeisgood
Logical-MastersoloTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
Logical-MastersoloTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Maikuru 8 years ago
Maikuru
Logical-MastersoloTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30