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

Batman is Better than Iron Man

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/8/2015 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,253 times Debate No: 73112
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (0)




Batman is by far the better superhero for these 5 reasons:
1. Batman can defeat Superman with ONE punch with Kryptonite Ring.
2. Batman has only ONE enemy who knows his real identity.
3. Batman is very sneaky in the dark.
4. He doesn't need 50 suits of armor for a fight.
5. Finally, he doesn't need a special group of security to tell him something is wrong in a city.
If anybody actually thinks Iron Man is better, prepare for a fight


1; Anyone can beat superman with Kryptonite.
2; Except that's stupid, since it's really obvious who Batman is. Sides, Tony has only one enemy with the nerve to attack him at his home.
3; Iron Man 3 showed Tony can be sneaky in light and dark.
4; Batman needs his utility belt to fight properly. As well as the Batmobile and the Batwing and two sidekicks, one of which he keeps losing.
5; Everyone knows Gotham's a crime ridden city. In the films, it's almost been destroyed thrice. In the games, the entire population seems to be goons. (arkham origins) Not sure about the comics crime density, but
a; It's really apparent anyway
b; Batman isn't lowering the crime rate, and the bigger names are attracted by his presence, who cause more damage

Angst-driven characters aren't better, they just try to look cooler. Same reason Spiderman is better than wolverine. If you threaten a fight, even a metaphorical one, when a fictional arsebiscuit is ridiculed online, you're forming a bit too much of an attachment there.
Debate Round No. 1


If we were to take apart Batman's suits and technology it would be simple compared to Iron Mans. The Batsuit is made out of Kevlar, making it darker than the original, however Iron Man's suits are made out of titanium alloy.. His Batclaw is simple compared to Iron Mans pulsers. The Bat-a-Rangs, made like a shuriken, are made out of metal, compared to ion blasters. Batman's utility belt, has 28 items:
Grapple Gun
Cryptographic sequencer
Smoke Pellets
Gas Pellets
Line Launcher
Tranquilizer Gun
Glue Globles and so on. But, Iron Man has 42 suits. Most of them for just because. But some of the suits he has:
Hulk Buster
Space Suit
Under Water Suit
Thor Buster
Saturn Armor, and so on. So 28 compared to 42 and stills kick butt, I'd say Batman is better.


I don't quite see how discussing who needs more equipment determines the superior. After all, Tony designs and invents each suit himself, where Batman simply buys equipment. Tony doesn't even use the majority of the suits (since he can only wear one at a time) and they simply exist because it's in his nature to try and push his abilities in all directions. Rarely does he use more than one suit at a time, the others are spares or for certain situations, and they're left at home. It doesn't even matter that Batman has less gadgets when you consider he fights gangs primarily as opposed to Iron Man who faces cosmological threats.
Debate Round No. 2


Wrong. Batman makes his equipment in The Cave. Also, there mostly physcopaths.

Batman's strength. His strength is from training since his youth. He went to China for extreme training of martial arts. Batman's known martial arts are currently debated in what they are. But one of them, known as, Kazy, it is a bentiful martial art, and a lethal one at that. However, Iron Man knows none. But some people say he can make a weapon out of anything, if that was the case for in combat, he would need time. So, what if you took away Batman's utilities? He could still fight crime, he knows many other fighting technicians. Like Kazy. Or other martial arts. I have Batman Arkham Origins and I only use Batman's utilities if I'm low on health, which only happens if there's a lot of goons or a hard boss. If we took away Iron Man;s suit, he could maybe punch, kick, or slap somebody. But that's not enough for a single man, not knowing any martial arts, against a lot of goons or a boss opponent.


Ah, I see. The problem there lies in the ridiculous nature of that argument, ie: that if the person Batman fought had no "powers" he would win. They may seem external, but Tony's suits are in fact an extension of himself, the ones that never get used because they break, the ones that clearly show he's trying to surpass his co-workers; they are his power. And with each successive suit made, he can more easily equip a suit in the midst of battle. But if you're going to say that Batman would beat Tony without his suits, then you're essentially saying Batman could beat anyone who has had their powers drained. That line of thinking is foolish because Batman's fighting is based upon martial arts, when anyone with a super power is going to base their fighting upon their power. Years of training would be required that they cannot afford to spend. In that sense, Batman's power is his fighting skill. The word power here has been used to describe an external ability, but in reality, a person's power is simply something they hold strength in. Tony may use a stronger power, and if it was to the point of Superman (where he could one hit kill everything, punt them into space, shoot laser beams, travel back inn time etc.), it would make him suck, yes. But the suits don't make him overpowered; even with a house party active he's not overwhelming the enemy. You wouldn't fault Batman for not being able to take on someone like Lobo or Doomsday. If you're argument is that Tony bases too much of his ability on his suits, you're forgetting that the suits are his power. This is about who is better, not who would win in a fight. When you get down to that level; it is a very subjective subject. If you want to go by who's more interesting as a character, then it's Batman's villains who make him interesting. In terms of powers, it's true that a character who is weaker is more interesting since they have to be much more cunning to win, but Tony still has that edge because outside of the suit he is weaker. Not to the point of having no power; he just has to make new equipment from whatever lies around.

To be wholly honest, I'm not entirely sure how a debate can be based around a subjectivity. Which colour is better, Red or Blue? I get it if you think one has "ripped off" the other, but the characters have plenty of degrees of separation.
Debate Round No. 3


Vigilante. What is a vigilante? The dictionary dercribes it as this: any person who takes the law into his or her hands, as by avenging a crime. This crime that Bruce has expirenced, was the death of his parents at a young age. He made a promise, to rid the city of all crime. He puts them all away in Arkham Asylum or Blackgate Prision. But once they break out, he puts then back where they came from. The only reason criminals come is because they try to challenge him, and end up failing. Only once did HE fail. In Breaking the Bat, Bane breaks his back, but Batman has a helper fill in till he's better. But, that's a lot of criminals, nuthobs, antagonist and etc. to add up for a single hero.

Take away Batmans suit and belt, and give him a titanium alloy super suit. He's like Iron Man. But, he'd be better because he knows the skills to pull of some pretty wicked tricks from that suit. He'd be unstoppable. Do the same thing to Tony, now what? It's not the skill that hero posesess, but what the human inside can accomplish by himself. No suits. No belt. Just them.

Round 2; Batman isn't easy to figure out. Why'd you think he's easy the pick out? Bane is the only person who attacked the Batcave. So there equal there.
Round 3; Batman could still beat Iron Man with suits on. He has a gadget called a Disrupter. It disrupts a gun, a machine, a suit, anything with electronically used powers.


Bruce made a promise to rid the city of crime, but his main method of fighting this crime is by beating criminals up at night. It isn't working; Gotham remains the most crime infested city in the world, and if Bruce took the money he spent making the vehicles he uses and used it to lower unemployment, help fund the police and improve the standard of living in Gotham, it would be much more effective than attacking them. The super criminals, like the Joker and Riddler? You might say he has to stay because normal police can't fight them, but they exist in Gotham because the Bat is such an iconic figure that they all want to claim the bounty on. His intentions may be good, but there exists in him at least subconsciously the desire to punish criminals in the most visceral manner possible. He is using the role of Batman to take revenge upon the disenfranchised.

Tony and Bruce both design their equipment and make it. Tony makes better things, he's an inventor not a martial artist. To say that it's not the skill of the hero that determines their value but the "human" inside doesn't make much sense either. Tony's suits are not an inherited power. He was not taught how to make them by a shadowy league. They are an extension of his character and are as much a part of him as fists are t Bruce. The Arc reactor in Tony's chest links him to his suits in such a way that if his suits were stripped from him, he's make an equivalent gadget to replace them on the fly.

2; Are you joking? Who else in Gotham has the money to to create such vast arrays of equipment and also has a motive to hate criminals to the point of fighting them at night? In the film people figure it out, Ra's al Ghul knows his identity, Bane knows it, Dr. Strange knows it too, as does the Joker. It's not hard, people just aren't able to come forward about it.

3; Firstly, if this is the disruptor from Arkham City you're talking about, remember that it has a very short range, a short duration of disabling its target and cannot be activated more than three times in quick succession. Against someone who can break the sound barrier, the disruptor poses little threat. Anyway, why do you think superiority has to come down to a fight? In terms of fighting, one fights human enemies and the other fights cosmic enemies. As I said before, you wouldn't expect Batman to win against Lobo, and the argument that if you took away all of Lobo's powers doesn't work because it's only ever a hypothetical.

Having said that, this was a debate I enjoyed, and I hope we'll get to debate again in future.

Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Batmanisawesome 3 years ago
Joke huh? No joke. I don't joke at debates. Your discription of a vigilante would be an opinion Duncan.
Posted by Duncan 3 years ago
I'm sorry, could you clarify what you meant in that last comment? I'm having difficulty understanding the joke you're making.
Posted by Batmanisawesome 3 years ago
So you're saying Batman is a vigilante? And where's your proof? Because at this site it shows the noun of Batman, the second definition.
Posted by Duncan 3 years ago

One is a vigilante who fights crime dressed in black using a specific set of equipment, focusing on stealth primarily, but follows up with melee based combat, who often has an obsession with upholding their symbol. In public, he maintains a facade of ignorance and ineptitude.

And the other one is Batman.
Posted by Batmanisawesome 3 years ago
In respose to Duncans comment, Zorro is nothing like Batman. Zorro's copy is Puss in Boots.
Posted by Batmanisawesome 3 years ago
In response to GoOrDin:
The reason Batman does not kill is because his parents died when he was at a young age, so therefore, its not fear that stops him, but self control. Only a real hero wouldn't kill a person, criminal or not. So what he then has to go back out and fight because the criminals get out. He'll still kick butt.
Were not here to judge, but to see who can show more facts as to why Batman is better. The only person who really has the right to judge someone is God.

Batman is limited, but remove those limits, and boom, you have a crime stopping, dark knight, butt-kicker, superhero who can kill. Batman doesn't kill because of his past. Iron Man does kill however.
Posted by GoOrDin 3 years ago
Iron man is filthy rich and helps very few people. he is egotistical and that is Why the Hulk hates him. The Hulk hates him fr ignoring his capacity to help people. You should too.

Batman is therefor the better, despite his common error.
The Joker, however was better then Batman. He killed criminals in and amongst them. Found them in hiding, and had his way with them. He does what Batman is afraid to do.

The question is, how can someone who does not fight crime and have millions of dollars really judge either batman or ironman. They live in different universes, with different problems.

Iron man is by far more interesting to be in awe of, - fantastic issues
but Batman is much more limited and thus mysterious - real issues
Posted by Duncan 3 years ago
If you're going to call Iron Man a ripoff of Batman, aren't you then going to have admit Batman is a ripoff of Zorro?
Posted by DawsonBruno 3 years ago
Seriously wrecked Batman!
Posted by Squirrelnuts57 3 years ago
Iron Man is a Batman rip off.
No votes have been placed for this debate.