Dave Galanter
December 1st 1969 - December 12th 2020
He was loved.

Comic Battle >> View Post
Post By

Member Since: Sat Jun 26, 2010
Posts: 1,369
In Reply To

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Subj: Re: The subject of the debate
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2017 at 03:45:22 pm EST (Viewed 124 times)
Reply Subj: Re: The subject of the debate
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2017 at 02:01:20 pm EST (Viewed 106 times)





    But Thor has only ever used his godblast on Galactus that one time. So based on Thor #169, it should go without saying that if Thor ever unleashes his godblast on Galactus, then Thor should win, right?

    LOL, no. Thor and Galactus have faced off many, many times since that issue and Galactus has proven superior and therefore you would expect Galactus to be ranked higher as he should be. If the godblast is an autowin, then Thor should use it everytime he fights Galactus but he doesn't. Why would that be?

    Because of the needs of the story of course. Magneto could use blood tricks every fight but he doesn't. Invisible Woman can turn the eyeballs of her enemies invisible in every fight, but she doesn't. Spectrum can fly through the eyes of her opponents in every fight and fry their brain, but she doesn't. Kitty Pryde could phase her opponents into the ground in every fight but she doesn't. I could go on and on. These are all tactics these characters have used, but if they used them constantly for auto-wins, it would be hard to tell the story. So you can try to spin away the results of the Thor-Galactus fight with other Thor/Galactus showings, but there's no difference than my pointing out that there is other evidence for how a Thor-Superman fight can

    I hardly think you can equate the evidence of Galactus likely winning in a majority of fights with Thor with the evidence that Thor would likely win against Superman.

    The only difference is a matter of degree. Or are you saying there is no evidence that Thor can beat Superman?

I know there's a chance Thor can win but I see less evidence for that happening. So therefore, I agree that Superman deserves to be ranked #1 in OP's thread. How is that hard to understand?

    I don't know what being ranked #1 means. Someone somewhere you don't know ranks Superman #1 on a list in which Spider-Man is also ranked #1 over Green Lantern and the Flash in what is really a thought experiment. You have no specified criteria for this determination, but you insist it's right because of one fight in one comic book

Ranked #1 meaning he deserves to be ranked highest/most expensive in that particular category. That's what I consistently said. If you have an issue on how the heroes were placed in their categories, talk to the OP. 

    Is Spider-Man being #1 right? Are all the rankings right?

Who knows, again talk to the OP. I only offered an opinion on Superman and his category. I think his ranking is right.

    Busiek muddied the waters you say? Perhaps, but what was crystal clear in that story was that Superman can win against Thor. That should count for something, no?

    Of course. I have never said otherwise. What I have objected to is your denial of evidence that Thor can also readily beat Superman. As soon as you admit such evidence exists, then saying that Superman would win "should go without saying" becomes problematic.

Wonder Woman can possibly beat Superman, but to me it goes without saying that Superman should be ranked higher than her. I think that's fair *shrug.


    Basically, this is practically your calling a majority of the people on this board irrational because they think there is evidence that Thor could beat Superman the preponderance of the time, saying that's a ridiculous notion because it's completely settled by one fight in one issue whose continuity isn't even clear.

    Wow, dude - kindly stop with the misrepresentation and putting words into my mouth. Pssst....based on JLA/Avengers, Supes should be ranked #1 in OP's thread.

    You keep repeating that, but that's not the subject of debate. In repeated polling, a majority of people on this board think Thor would beat Superman a preponderance of the time. You say their opinion is worthless because of one fight in one comic. Isn't that saying they are irrational to hold such an opinion? Please don't avoid the question.

I am saying that I value the result of the JLA/Avenger fight over their opinions in context as it applies to the OP's post. The problem is you think that if I have that stance then I am labeling other people here who I don't know from Adam as irrational (your words) and their opinions (worthless). They're not mutually inclusive. People disagree on power levels on this board all the time. Does it mean there's a clause attached to it that you brand them irrational and devalue their opinions? To assume that, well, that I would call irrational. Also, from what I can tell in the world of battleboards, the general rule is that the story trumps fan opinion. Correct or wrong? If you think this is wrong then we have wasted a lot of board space under the wrong premise.


    Spider-Man has only ever fought Firelord once as far as I know. Spider-Man won that fight. Is it completely settled that Spider-Man is superior to Firelord?

    Another Apple to Aardvark comparison. Honestly now, are you leaving out some key pieces on that Firelord/Spidey fight? Or that you are privvy to some key info in the Supes/Thor fight where Thor only a fraction of his power? Maybe we should do a board poll study on Spidey, eh? \:\-\)

    You're the one insisting that the outcome of a fight in an actual comic is the final arbiter of who should be ranked #1, whatever that means. But you don't explain why that's not the case here with Spider-Man and Firelord. All you have done throughout this entire thread is to vaguely dismiss the analogies as invalid without explanation. Spider-Man won. So either your criteria is wrong or you're being hypocritical. Of course Firelord is going to win the majority of their fights. How do I know this? Because of evidence from other comics, the same criteria I am using to say it's not a foregone conclusion that Superman beats Thor just because Superman beat Thor once. It's one thing to say Superman beats Thor a preponderance of the time. It's another to say there's no doubt about it whatsoever because there's no evidence that exists supporting any doubt. Spider-Man has beaten Juggernaut. Spider-Man has beaten the Hulk twice. Your placing one fight from one comic as the final arbiter doesn't work in any of these scenarios. The subject of the debate is whether one fight in one comic overwhelmingly ranks the victor over the loser or does one take all evidence into account. I'm arguing for the latter.

LOL, You have taken this to way too many levels of complexity by introducing comparisons that have no connection to the topic and tangents that don't apply. I fail to understand what is so hard to understand, when I say based on the story of JLA/Avengers, the evidence suggests that Superman is more likely to beat Thor than the other way around. You seem to be hung up with the notion that I purport that Superman will win 100% of the time. I told you, I don't. You say you have evidence that Thor can possibly win, that's dandy, but when you compare that to the evidence of  Supes winning it pales in comparison. I would be doing myself a disservice of I chose just the anecdotal evidence on one side over a side that has both hard and anecdotal evidence. That's what I got from JLA/Avengers. Show me other evidence that Thor beats Superman, maybe I'll change my stance but not before.

From his Formspring page.
Tom, who's more powerful: Galactus or a Celestial? I'd put my money on Galactus over any single Celestial.
Posted with Google Chrome 55.0.2883.87 on Windows 7
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2021 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2021 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2021 Powermad Software