Spiderman vs Batman

I proved he wouldn't :-)

Look out intelligent posters- it's Naghokez! Aided by a superiority complex and a belief bias, he will troll anyone who dares disagree with him, while inadvertently proving them right.

Somebody really does not want to be discussing Batman vs Spider-man ,-)

Naghokez has done it again! He ignores the rest of my posts here and wonders why nobody would want to discuss the subject at hand with a troll.

What am I ignoring, apart from your desperate attempt at steering this discussion away from the topic at hand, namely Spider-man vs Batman? :-)

Tell that to thomas-the-rhymer and jackpwnz. But don't brown-nose them!

Why would I want to tell it to them?

Same reason why you would want to tell Stop_stealing_my_name that.

Why would I want to tell it to him? I'm discussing this with you, and you're desperately trying to avoid discussing Spider-man vs Batman with me :-)

The troll is upset because he can't use his vague arguments!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1281313/board/nest/191854251?d=203419107#203419107

Exactly, a vague argument.

How is it vague? My argument is that people who are knowledgeable about both characters and are not biased overwhelmingly agree Spider-Man would beat Batman. The link I provided is the evidence needed to support my claim. You have chosen to shut your ears and eyes and discard the information I provided you with instead of acknowledging it. In short, you decided to stay in denial! :-)

Your argument is to link someone saying Spider-Man won, without providing any reason for why he did- a vague argument.

It's not "someone". It's an overwhelming majority of people who know both characters well, and who spend a good amount of time comparing the abilities of such characters. You can read the detail of the fight and the arguments by browsing comicvine, if you're interested in seeing why you're wrong.

My argument is about majority opinion on the fight, not about the content of the fight. You therefore can't declare it "vague" by using a metric that is irrelevant to the argument. You fail again.

You're welcome to try and address the fact that people who are basically experts on the subject overwhelmingly disagree with you though, instead of discarding that fact.

There you go again- your link does not display how many people were in favor of Spider-Man winning and what their arguments were. All it says is Spider-Man won. Which is vague. The least you could do is copy one specific argument.

The day you start thinking for yourself instead of believing majority word is law will be a happy day for you.

The link displays the consensus/overwhelming majority opinion on the comicvide forums. There are plenty of threads about that battle on the forums, which is why the list was made in the first place. You're welcome to browse through them - you'll find the same answer each time: Spider-Man beats Batman.

Here's an example: http://www.comicvine.com/forums/battles/7/spider-man-vs-batman/4764/. Enjoy your read. If you want detailed explanations as to why Spider-Man crushes Batman, you can read Valkaad's post on p. 7 and nickzambuto's post on p. 10.

I am thinking for myself. The overwhelming majority of people knowledgeable on the topic just happen to share my view, which is the correct one.

Sorry, not interested in joining the sheep.

Yeah, I didn't expect you to address contradicting arguments and evidence. I'm glad to see you've abandoned trying to defend your position :-)

Stop_stealing_my_name begs to differ. Maybe once you start framing your own arguments and use specifics, you'll be able to support your position.

You asked for examples of specific arguments and I provided them to you. You refused to answer both on the specifics and on the fact that the overwhelming majority of people knowledgeable about the topic consider that Spider-Man would clearly win the fight. You're also trying to avoid having to defend your position here by referring to exchanges you have with other posters. Do address the comicvine posts I linked to, if you're interested in defending your position :-)

You refuse to frame your own points. You refuse to make your own arguments. You refuse to be specific. We're not on ComicVine, we're on the IMDb. Control your autism already.

My initial point was about the overwhelming agreement of unbiased comic book fans that Spider-Man beats Batman. You discarded that because it did not fit your personal opinion.

You then asked me to "copy a specific argument" regarding the detail of the fight. I did better than that, since I linked you to two detailed explanations as to why Spider-Man beats Batman. You refused to acknowledge them.

I discard points from people who need fabricate the truth ("overwhelming", "unbiased") and can't form their own arguments.

I said the least you could do is copy one specific argument and bring it here, not that it would help your case. You don't have your own opinions, you just blindly follow the Marvel fans.

The only reason the list I linked to was made was to end battles that were settled. They were settled because there was consensus/overwhelming agreement on the winner. In this case, it was Spider-Man.

I have my own opinion. I've read plenty of comics of both Spider-Man and Batman, and I like both characters. I just happen to know them well enough to recognize that Spider-Man would destroy Batman if they fought without restraint in a sudden encounter.

Since you're having difficulty coping with the fact that comic book fans of both Marvel and DC agree with me (as you can easily see on the forums), you are now trying to say that only "Marvel fans" agree with me. Sorry, that's not the case :-)

tl,dr. Provide your own argument already.

Do you acknowledge that what I was arguing is true, namely that most knowledgeable comic book readers that are interested in the topic agree Spider-Man wins?

Create your own argument or will you be agreeing that Batman wins.

Right now, my argument is that most knowledgeable comic book readers that are interested in the topic agree Spider-Man wins. Do you acknowledge this? If so, I'll explain to you in detail how it is that he wins.

Your argument is to leech off other people's arguments and then hope for the best.

The amount of dodging that you do is mind-blowing :-D Do you, or do you not, acknowledge what I said is correct?

Post your own argument.

As I said, my first argument in discussing Spider-Man vs Batman is that most knowledgeable comic book readers that are interested in the topic agree Spider-Man wins. Do you acknowledge this? If so, I'll explain to you in detail how it is that he wins.

Post your own argument.

I told you what my first argument was.

Post your own argument.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1281313/board/nest/191854251?p=2&d=203833970#203833970

Come on, surely you're confident enough in your opinion to admit that it's in the overwhelming minority? You're so confident you're right that surely that fact should not suffice to shake your faith?!

Post your own argument.

I think I've seen you write this before!

Post your own argument.

Do you know what an argument is?!

Post your own argument.

But... but... I did!

Post your own argument.

Don't you agree that there are different ways to discuss Spider-man vs Batman?! I'll come to yours once you acknowledge mine!

After all, when discussing TDKR vs Avengers, you referenced reviews and ratings given by other people rather than doing your own analysis of the two. Why would it be a problem to reference the general consensus among experts for the battle between Spider-Man and Batman?!

In TDKR Batman got his s**t pushed in by Bane. This version of Bane, while stronger than most average guys, didn't possess super-human strength. Bane could have killed him, if he wished.

Spider-Man does possess super-human strength, coupled with super-human reflexes, agility, speed and the ability to cling to walls and shoot webs.

TDKR Batman would lose to Spider-Man every time. I'll tell you why. When Batman first fought Bane he went toe-to-toe with him. Didn't really use gadgets (the EMP device and batarang sparkler hardly count), just went at him head-on. In the end Bane clearly outmatches him and could have easily ended it all right there. In a fight to the death Bane would have won.

Then, after being crippled by Bane, Batman spends several months being "rehabilitated" by some guys in a prison hole and doing chin-ups. What does he do when he gets back to Gotham? Goes toe-to-toe with Bane again. Doesn't try to outsmart him, or use technology, he just wills himself to win. Really stupid.

YAY FOR NINJAS!

The best way is to use your own arguments, instead of relying on other people to do your dirty work for you.

The topic at hand was not which film was superior; it was which film received more critical acclaim.

The reality of the general consensus on the matter is an argument. One could even argue it's a much stronger argument than any individual's scenario of how the fight would proceed.

In any case, and to repeat myself, once you acknowledge my first argument, I'll explain to you in more detail why Spider-man crushes Batman :-)

The general consensus of Germans in the 1930s and 40s was Jewish people and other minorities were responsible for all the country's hardships and deserved to be exterminated. The general consensus of Americans living in the southern states throughout the 18th and 19th centuries was African-Americans were property, not people. Extreme examples, but true. When you're relying on consensus alone, you're not making an argument. You're just following the herd.

Once you actually make your own argument, I will acknowledge it.

Your analogies are fallacious, since in this case we are talking about there being a consensus among experts regarding a particular matter they are experts on. A better analogy would be the scientific consensus over climate change.

All you have to do is recognize that, like I showed, knowledgeable comic book readers clearly agree Spider-Man wins. I'll explain to you why he does when you do that :-)

So those perceived as comic book experts can't be compared to political experts? Good one. I'm sure Strom Thurmond was considered an expert at representing South Carolina in the Senate. He only served as a senator for 47 years.

Now post your own argument already.

Politicians are not political scientists. Political decisions are not scientific studies. Sorry, your analogy still fails.

Do you recognize that, like I showed, knowledgeable comic book readers clearly agree Spider-Man wins?

And comic book experts are not scientists, so you just blew a hole in your own analogy.

Post your own argument.

Why would comic book experts need to be actual scientists for the analogy to be valid? Do you understand the point of an analogy?

Are you ready to recognize that knowledgeable comic book readers clearly agree Spider-Man wins?

Comic book experts have in much in common with scientists as they do politicians. But you'll only accept analogies that favor your own beliefs.

All you're doing is trying to cover up your inability to form your own argument.

The examples you referred to were political decisions based on personal judgement and completely unrelated to knowledge. That's why your analogies failed and mine didn't.

I'm asking you a simple yes or no question. Are you capable of answering it? Do you, yes or no, recognize that knowledgeable comic book readers clearly agree Spider-Man wins? If the opinion of the said experts is of no value to you that's fine, but surely you can still answer the question :-)

And the decision people make over which superhero wins is based on personal judgement. So thanks for proving that my analogy is more accurate than yours.

I've answered the question on the first page. Now keep on trolling and don't bother making your own arguments!

I opposed "personal judgement" to "knowledge" to point out that the political decisions you referred to were NOT "expertise" decisions. They therefore can't be likened to judgements based purely on objective data rather than ideological stances, such as my example the scientific consensus on climate change. Which is why, again, your analogy does not work for the matter at hand, namely an expertise decision. It's quite sad that you're still unable to understand the utter failure of your comparison, really.

You did not answer the question. Why do you not want to answer it? Are you afraid it will undermine your position? But surely that can't be the case, since you "don't care for the opinions of other people"?! The least you can do to be consistent with your own stance is therefore to acknowledge the consensus on Spider-Man's win, even if you don't care for the said consensus :-)

You already proved that my analogy works and yours doesn't.

I answered the question and I'm not interested in your attempts conceal your inability to form your own arguments. By trolling this board, you have acknowleged that Batman wins.

I explained why yours doesn't work and mine does. Read my posts as many times at you need.

I'm not trolling anything, but if you're planning on avoiding the question by saying that I'm trolling, good luck with that ,-) Do show me the post where you supposedly answered it, I'm very curious.

Which was counter productive, because you proved yourself wrong.

Typical troll reply.

I didn't. Read my posts again if you're having trouble understanding them.

So not only are not you not capable of answering a simple question, you're not even capable of pointing to one of your own posts where you supposedly answered it? Do you have any leg to stand on?! :-)

I don't take orders from trolls.

So where's the post in which you supposedly answered my question? Can't you even link to your own words? :-)

This is the last reply I will put any effort into until you form your own argument. The political decisions I mentioned were deemed "expertise" decisions at the time. People are capable of becoming knowledgeable with what politicians stand for and their decision to support a certain candidate can be objective. Typically, they don't, and that's also the case when it comes to battles between two fictional characters. The winner most people pick is based solely on loyalty to the character (i.e. you). Still think science is based purely on objective data? Then talk to Matthew F. Hale. He has scientific things to say about African Americans.

The answer is still on the first page. I don't care for the consensus. As far as I'm concerned, the consensus doesn't even exist. This is between you and me and you can't create just one original argument to support your position. In fact, you don't even want to argue over who would win anymore. You just want the last word to convince yourself that you're right.

No, the political decisions you mentioned were in no way "expertise" decisions. The stance that "Jews deserved to be exterminated" was purely ideological and had absolutely nothing to do with expertise. The same goes with the stance that "African Americans were property". In the case of the fictional battle at hand, the consensus I referred to is precisely NOT based on loyalty to the character, as can be directly observed on the said forum since many of the posts supporting Spider-man start with "I'm a Batman fan but...". The four or five posters that you'll see disagree have only a few posts (i.e. are there to support their favourite character in the battle and not to discuss battles in general like the regular posters), have Batman avatars and support only Batman. Expertise is therefore clearly on the side of the consensus, namely that Spider-man wins.

I know that you don't care for consensus, in fact that's the very reply from you I quoted myself. All I want you to do is acknowledge that the consensus I referred to exists. It's PRECISELY because you don't care for it that you should have no problem acknowledging its existence. If you did feel threatened by the said consensus, i.e. if you cared for it, THEN it would be expected from you to deny its existence. Once you show me that you have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge its existence, I'll move to my own explanation to you of why Spider-man wipes the floor with Batman.

What's that? No arguments? Then:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEgh8TUlpQc

Can you acknowledge the existence of the consensus I referred to? I'll answer all your non-expert questions about the fight as soon as you do :-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XierBpLGgwQ

Yeah, that was a nice scene. It doesn't answer the question though :-D How about acknowledging the consensus I referred to? You said yourself you didn't care for it :-D

That consensus doesn't exist in my world, baby.

So you accept to living in your own bubble, in which your beliefs don't have to face reality...!

At the moment, the only reality that matters to me is your inability to post your own arguments.

How about the reality of the consensus I linked to? Ready to acknowledge it? I thought you didn't care for it?!

If you can't acknowledge your inability to make your own arguments, then I have no reason to acknowledge the things that are unimportant to me.

The fights between Batman and Bane in TDKR need to be put in perspective. For their first encounter, Bane had caught Batman off-guard. And it had been eight years since Batman was involved in a physical encounter. So with all the odds in his favor, of course Bane won.

When Batman goes toe-to-toe with Bane again, he didn't will himself to win. He targeted Bane's mask. By damaging it, Bane was unable to filter out the pain in his body. He was seriously weakened and Batman promptly defeated him. That's what Batman does best: find a weakness and exploit it.

For a guy who possesses super-human strength and more, Spider-Man gets his s**t pushed in by regular humans such as Kingpin. His spider sense merely alerts him of nearby danger, not what the specific danger is. That would allow Batman to mess with his spider sense and send him into a frightened panic.

Incidentally, Batman and Bane did fight to the death in the animated series. This incarnation of Bane was stronger than his TDKR counterpart. And Batman still killed him first. The only reason they both died was due to Batman trying to save Gordon.

Like I've told you, I am only waiting for you to show you have enough intellectual honesty to acknowledge the consensus I referred to before I explain to you in detail why Spider-man would destroy Batman. Again, why are you still not acknowledging something that doesn't matter to you? If it doesn't matter, surely you shouldn't feel threatened by it!

Nah, if I acknowledge it, you'll start rambling about how I contradicted myself. I have no interest in acknowledging things I do not care for, just like you won't acknowledge your inability to post your own arguments. So by your logic, you're threatened by this very argument!

Why would I be rambling about you contradicting yourself when you never said you did not acknowledge it, only that you didn't care for it? Not caring for something and acknowledging its existence are not contradictory. In fact, the only possible way you can not care about something is by starting to acknowledge that "something" exists in the first place. Do it, be done with it, and the discussion will finally move to my explanation.

Not caring means you're not going to even bother acknowledging the existence of something. It could be real; it could be fake- you just don't care.

If you really wanted to provide an on-topic explanation, then you already would have done so. Instead:

http://i.chzbgr.com/completestore/2009/11/25/129036633142460221.jpg

Like I said, you can very well both acknowledge the existence of something and not care about it. For example, you can acknowledge that Curiosity is currently on Mars but not care about the mission. In this case, you can acknowledge that the consensus exists but not care about it. It's right there and everyone can check it, so there's no need to wait for your acknowledgement to confirm its existence. I just want to see you acknowledge it as a sign that you have a minimum of intellectual honesty - which is what's needed to debate anything ,-)

As I've already stated, I don't care about even acknowledging the consensus. In order to debate someone, you need to stay on topic and you can't even do that.

The consensus over who wins between Spider-man and Batman is very much on topic, since the topic is... Spider-man vs Batman. And, like I've explained to you several times already, it's not because you don't care about something that you can't still acknowledge its existence, or do it. It's obviously taking you way more effort to avoid acknowledging the consensus than acknowledging it, which can only indicate that you feel threatened by its existence and therefore that you do care about it. If you didn't, you'd have acknowledged its existence by now and moved on.

The topic is the abilities of the two characters and who would get the edge in the fight. The former is not specified in a consensus. If you haven't realized by now, this is the Deadliest Warrior board. Consensus means nothing on that show and means nothing to me. From the beginning, I've been waiting for you to post your own argument and get back on subject. But you remain firmly anchored with your consensus because you don't have anything else to offer.

I think you need to go back to reading the OP, because you seem to be having some trouble remembering what it was. Here it is:

"to solve the most difficult question of all time, who would win in this on going battle: The Amazing Spiderman or The Dark Knight. We've looked up multiple things on each and of come to the conclusion that both of these guys are just so good that we cant decide who would win this fight."

Again, looking at the consensus among comic book readers/experts over the fight is a perfectly valid way to answer the question in the OP of who would win. There's nothing in the OP asking only for individual scenarios submitted by imdb users.

Now that I've proven to you that this wasn't off-topic at all, let's go back to what we were discussing. If you were truly waiting for me to "post my own argument", you'd have already acknowledged the existence of the consensus I referred to, PRECISELY because you said you didn't care about it. I would then have immediately posted an explanation of why Spider-man beats Batman with ease. If you really did not care about the said consensus, you'd indeed have no problem acknowledging its existence. The fact that you still have not directly acknowledged its existence shows that you, in fact, do care about its existence, and that you actually feel your argument is threatened by the existence of a consensus over the winner of the fight. By your refusal to acknowledge its existence, you have therefore managed to undermine your own position. Congratulations!

Now, since I'm nice enough to offer you a way out, I'm still ready to post an explanation of why Spider-man would clearly be victorious as soon as you acknowledge the existence of the consensus I referred to. It's easy, stop contradicting yourself and do it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sX161ulHrSA

Yeah, that video gets posted a lot online. Do you have anything to actually contribute to the argument - as in, an acknowledgement of the existence of something anyone can see indeed exists? ,-)

Ask Stop_stealing_my_name.

I'm asking you.

The answer is in my replies to Stop_stealing_my_name.

It's not. There is no acknowledgement of the existence of the consensus I referred to in your replies to him.

You asked me if I had anything to contribute to the argument. My on topic contributions are in my responses to him.

Read my full sentence.

You have a real hard on for that consensus.

Yes, it's a good argument. But at this point I'm more interested in you displaying enough intellectual honesty to warrant me continuing to discuss this with you. I genuinely would like to present you with an explanation of why Spider-man beats Batman, but I can only do so if I know you are ready to accept contradicting views if they correspond to reality. Since the consensus I referred to is directly observable, and since its reality is indisputable, your acknowledgement of its existence will serve as evidence that you're ready to accept arguments that contradict your views if they indeed correspond to reality. It's absolutely your right to not care for the consensus though, and I will again gladly (and happily) engage you in a discussion regarding the specifics of the fight as soon as we're done on the topic of the consensus.

Why are you arguing with someone that is blatantly trolling?

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I'm Sexy, I'm a Scholar, People like me

At this point, it's impossible to figure out who that's directed towards.

My stance on the consensus has not changed. I don't care for it, it explains nothing. Move on. Instead, you continue to anchor yourself with consensus and refuse to allow the topic to progress. All because you don't have any arguments, but you want the last word.

You do understand that you can both not care about the consensus and still recognize its existence, right? I'm not asking you to change you not caring about it. I'm asking you to recognize something everyone can directly observe as true - the fact that it exists. You are the one blocking the discussion with your refusal to acknowledge this. I have plenty of stuff ready to be included in a post discussing the details of the fight and Spider-Man's victory as soon as the matter of your acknowledgement of the consensus I referred to is settled.

edit: also, BlockBeatin101 was calling you a troll, since his post was a reply to mine.

If you had any arguments, you would have posted them already.

All you have to do to read my explanation is acknowledge the existence of something whose existence can be directly observed and verified by everyone. I'm not asking you to care for it, I'm only asking you to acknowledge its existence. :-)

Post your own argument.

I will, as soon as you acknowledge the existence of the consensus I referred to. If you think I won't post the explanation, all you have to do is acknowledge the existence of the consensus and if I don't post any explanation afterwards you'll have proven me wrong. Surely if you think I don't have any such explanation, that must be more than tempting? :-)

Post your own argument.

My first argument was the consensus among knowledgeable comic book readers. My second argument, namely the explanation of Spider-man's victory that I will provide, will come after you acknowledge the first argument. There's no point in presenting you with other arguments if you don't have enough intellectual honesty to acknowledge the existence of something that is directly verifiable.

[deleted]

You already said that - several times. Could we at least discuss the consensus I referred to? What about it makes it problematic for you to acknowledge its existence?

Post your own argument.

You can do better than that.

Post your own argument.

Surely you understand by now that spamming that won't achieve anything? I asked you to do one simple thing first - acknowledge the existence of the consensus I referred to in my first argument. It's right there, it's directly observable, its reality cannot be denied. I'm not asking you to care for it, I'm asking you to be intellectually honest and recognize its existence. Do that, and I'll present you with my second argument, an explanation of what would happen in the fight.

Post your own argument.

Come on, you know we're not going to get anywhere by you spamming that. Why can't you discuss my first argument - or at least, acknowledge its existence? And, moreover, why are you copy/pasting that? Are you afraid not to get the last word in this exchange? Is the memory of failing to get the last word in the Avengers/TDKR thread haunting you? Please start engaging in a positive discussion - it's never too late.

[deleted]

At this point, you're only spamming. Does it mean you have once and for all abandoned the idea of having an actual discussion on this? Why do you keep being mute on the matter of the consensus I referred to?

Linking a consensus is not an argument, because it does not specify WHY one character would win. This topic is never going to progress until you form your own argument. Post it already.

I already explained several times why it was a perfectly valid argument - in fact, some would say that a consensus among knowledgeable comic book readers is far MORE valid an argument than any single individual's subjective opinion of how the fight would go.

The topic will progress as soon as you acknowledge the existence of the consensus, regardless of its value according to you. How do you not understand that you can both not care about the consensus and still acknowledge its existence?

Talking to you is like clapping with one hand.

Right back at you. It's one thing to disagree with something, but to refuse to acknowledge the existence of the said thing even though it can directly be verified by anyone and everyone is something else entirely. I don't even get why you're not saying something along the lines of "Yes, the consensus in question exists, but it is of no value to me, I would like to hear your explanation instead". That would settle the issue of the consensus and we could move on. But no, you have some kind of crazy ego trip that prevents you from even doing that and showing the slightest bit of intellectual honesty.

The reference went right over your head, no surprises there. So I'm not acknowledging your precious consensus? Who else but you cares? If you really did have an argument, you would move on from the consensus and post it. After all, if I don't have "intellectual honesty," your arguments would look even better in comparison to mine. But you don't have any, so you keep making excuses.

It did, since I don't listen to Anthrax. That's relevant how?! Right, it's not. How petty can you get?

You're replying to me. Whether or not other people care is, again, irrelevant - and since a poster called you a troll, apparently some care enough to comment.

I don't care about my arguments looking better than yours - I'm not doing this to look good in front of other people, I'm doing this to have a discussion with you on the topic of Spider-man vs Batman. And I can't have a serious discussion with you on this topic unless you display some hint of intellectual honesty, just like I wouldn't hope of having a serious discussion on the solar system with someone refusing to acknowledge that the Earth orbits the Sun. Get off your high horse, acknowledge the existence of the consensus I referred to - again, it's directly verifiable - and my explanation to you of the fight will come in my following message.

It's a good song. Don't get upset just because you don't know everything.

You accuse me of being on a high horse when you won't debate anyone who doesn't have "intellectual honesty." That's a good one. Here's a thought: if you really wanted to have a serious discussion with me, why didn't you do so in the first place? Enough with the excuses, Mayweather. Your explanation will have nothing to with the consensus. So if you have one, post it. If you don't post your explanation, then it's obvious you don't have one.

I'm not upset, merely pointing out how petty it is to attack me for not knowing that song.

I did do so in the first place - I presented you with the consensus among knowledgeable comic book readers over the winner of the fight after only a few posts. You, on the other hand, have been refusing to acknowledge the existence of that consensus for pages. There's really no reason for me to present you with another argument if you don't have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge the existence of something that is directly observable by everyone, including yourself. It's up to you - acknowledge the existence of the consensus, even if you don't care for it, and I'll post the explanation. The ball is in your court and has been for quite some time now.

If you expect anyone else to believe that, don't overemphasize how "petty" it was.

You did not. You began by saying "Spider-Man would wipe the floor with Batman," which was a flame baiting remark. Then you sent me the consensus to end the conversation, not engage in one. In your own words: "Here, I'll humor you with one link to quickly settle this." It's not until now that you're suddenly interested in posting an explanation. Have look good online, right? The best part is you tried to accuse me of dropping the subject back then, when you can't post one single argument to support your case.

I'm not overemphasizing it, I'm stating it.

I did (and Spider-man would indeed wipe the floor with Batman - that statement was absolutely correct). And I did think presenting you with the consensus would end the argument - if the people who are the most knowledgeable on both DC and Marvel comics characters and spend the most time out of everyone on the planet discussing possible fights between characters actually settle by overwhelming consensus on a winner between two characters, chances are that their pick is the correct one. I genuinely think any rational and unbiased person would therefore be convinced by that consensus, but apparently you're not happy with it. I am therefore more than willing to present you with a second argument, a detailed explanation of the fight, but there's no point in presenting you with a second argument if you're going to shut your eyes and ears each time I present you with evidence contradicting your pre-conceived views. That's why I'm asking you to acknowledge the existence of the consensus before we move on to my second argument. All it takes is a little intellectual honesty - which you have, so far, been unwilling to display. Acknowledge the existence of the consensus, repeat you don't care about it if you feel the need to do so, and we'll move on. The ball is still in your court.

I did accuse you of dropping the subject back then - because you did, after my first reply. My first reply was about Spider-man beating Batman, your first reply to me was about the fact that I had replied to you here. There was nothing in your reply about the fight - it was, by definition, off-topic.

"That's relevant how?!" - Stating
"That's relevant how?! Right, it's not. How petty can you get?" - Overemphasizing.

In fact, your entire post is just you overcompensating to why you can't post an explanation. You've made no arguments, and you expect me to take you seriously? Well you probably do, because you think the world revolves around you. News flash: posting a consensus isn't an argument; an argument is your own reasons, not the reasoning of other people. When you're flame-baiting, you're encouraging off-topic posts. Feel free to keep stating your beliefs as facts, but failure to back them up only hurts your case. If you're not going to post an explanation, then admit you don't have one. The ball is right in your hands.

It's stating it's both not relevant and petty.

Ah, apparently you don't know what an argument is either. Here, let me quote Merriam Webster: "a reason given in proof or rebuttal". Oops, nothing there about the reason having to originate from yourself! Face it, the existing consensus I referred to is a perfectly valid argument. You're free to not care about it, but that doesn't change the fact (not belief, fact) that it exists. And as you soon as you acknowledge its existence, I'll post the explanation. Whenever you're ready!

Which is overelaborating.

Bringing out the trusty dictionary again. If you had actually linked someone giving proof or a rebuttal to why Spider-Man wins, you'd have ground to stand on, but you didn't. "Spider-Man vs Batman (Spider-Man)" isn't proof and it isn't a rebuttal. Now how about you post your own argument! Oh that's right, you don't have one.

No, it's not.

The definition is "a reason given in proof". The consensus is, indeed, a "reason given in proof" (and, by the way, I also linked to two people explaining why Spider-man would win, so according to your own logic that suffices to give me ground to stand on). Are you ready to directly acknowledge the existence of the consensus that constitutes my first argument, regardless of whether you agree with it or not? My explanation will come as soon as you do. Still waiting for you!

Just continuing to backpedal, nothing to see here...

The backpedaling is happening only in your head, alongside your claimed Batman victory over Spider-man. Are you ready to acknowledge observable facts yet, or is it still too much to ask for?

You know what's not observable? Your own arguments!

My first argument was the existence of a consensus over the winner of the fight among knwoledgeable comic book readers. My second argument will come in the form of an explanation of the fight as soon as you acknowledge the first one. You know this since I must have repeated it about a dozen times already. What we don't know, however, is why you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the existence of the consensus. You said you didn't care for it and that's fine, but why not acknowledge its existence?

Which technically isn't your own argument because it's actually the arguments of ComicVine users. Are you gonna bark all day, little doggy, or are you gonna bite?

The consensus is an argument I'm using. Why are you refusing to acknowledge its existence? Are you capable of answering that question? It's not a scary question, the answer's not going to frighten me. Why do you not acknowledge its existence?

So where's your explanation?

I already told you - it's right behind your acknowledgement of the existence of the consensus.

Look, I'm not trying to score points here, I genuinely want to know why you're so reluctant to admit the existence of the said consensus. If you don't care about it, why are you not acknowledging its existence?

Yes, we all know you don't have any arguments of your own.

If you wanted to hear the detailed explanation of the fight, you'd have acknowledged the existence of the consensus by now. The ball has been in your court for ages. Do you truly lack the basic intellectual honesty necessary to say "Yes, the consensus you referred to exists, but I don't care for it"?

I have no interest in hearing something that doesn't exist. If you actually did have an explanation, it would probably just be copied from ComicVine.

It's not. You apparently visited comicvine when you read my link - why are you not acknowledging what you saw?

Lie about having arguments, press F5, repeat.

Do you understand the difference between acknowledging the existence of something and caring about something?

What doesn't exist? Your own arguments.

The consensus I referred to was my first argument. You're not even acknowledging it, regardless of whether or not you agree with it. Why should I present you with a second one?

Because you're not being honest about making your own arguments.

I presented you with an argument (you tried to deny it was an argument and you failed). You did not acknowledge it. Again, why should I present you with a second one?

Boy, the reason why I keep saying "your own argument" is still lost on you. That was someone else's argument. You lack the ability to form your own opinions.

The consensus is not, in itself, an argument. It becomes an argument once it is used by someone as such in an exchange. In this case, I make the consensus an argument in my exchange with you on this topic. That the consensus is not something I wrote myself is completely irrelevant to its status as an argument that I'm presenting you with.

Anything that proves you wrong is suddenly irrelevant. After all, the world revolves around you and your arguments are so good, they don't even exist.

You have yet to present me with something that proves me wrong. Of course, you'd have to address my argument to prove me wrong, something you seem reluctant to do. Let me, however, repeat what I just wrote: "That the consensus is not something I wrote myself is completely irrelevant to its status as an argument that I'm presenting you with". What is supposed to be wrong in that sentence?

My first argument exists - it is the consensus you're refusing to address. My second argument will come as soon as you do.

Your argument? Since when was your username Eternal Chaos?

Glad to see I've proven you wrong again :-D Your inability to back up your claims (or, rather, your ability to make wrong claims) is, I must say, quite fascinating.

So, how about addressing my first argument?

Only in your fantasy world, baby. The guy who made that argument on ComicVine is clearly named "Eternal Chaos," not "Naghokez," but admitting you're wrong kills you on the inside.

I'll repeat again because you don't seem to be getting it: the consensus - as posted by Eternal Chaos - is not, in itself, an argument. It becomes an argument once it is used by someone as such in an exchange. In this case, I'm the one who makes the consensus an argument in my exchange with you on this topic. Sorry, you're - yet again - wrong.

In other words, it's only an argument because you, Naghokez, posted it. After all, you're in the center of the Universe and your arguments are so good, they actually belong to other people or they just don't exist.

I'm using the definition of "argument" that can be found in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. If you're not happy with it, I really can't help you - your beef is with the English language, not with me. According to that definition, the consensus, as presented by Eternal Chaos, is not an argument in itself. When I use it in this exchange as a reason to prove Spider-man would win, it becomes an argument. An argument you have not acknowledged. Care to acknowledge it?

Eternal Chaos used it to prove that Spider-Man won in the ComicVine battles... which just so happens to fit with the dictionary definition of "argument." And you'll never post one of your own.

Eternal Chaos was not making an argument for a victory of Spider-man over Batman. His aim was to sum up an existing consensus for purposes of forum clarity, not to prove the victory of a character over another. In this case, however, I am using the consensus as a reason to prove Spider-man would win.

Whether or not I end up posting a detailed explanation of the fight depends only on you. Acknowledge my first argument, and I'll post the second one.

And the consensus was based on the opinions of other people on ComicVine. So unless you're every user who wrote in Spider-Man's favor... it's still not your own argument. Have fun lying about making your own arguments.

I'm using the existence of the consensus as an argument. What's so hard to understand about this? You can go back to the definition of "argument" I posted if you still have doubts over its meaning. I'm not trying to pass it off as my own explanation of how the fight who go - that'd be my second argument.

Which you'll probably steal from another ComicVine user. This isn't about the consensus being an argument, it's about it being your own argument. You'd better whip out your beloved dictionary again.

Ah, but it is about the consensus being an argument. It's the first argument I'm presenting you with. I have no interest in presenting you with a second argument if you don't even acknowledge the first one.

Even if you were capable of forming your own arguments, there'd be no point in having a discussion with you because you hear no one but yourself.

If you want to hear my own explanation, all you have to do is acknowledge the existence of the consensus, which constitutes my first argument. You're free to disagree with it, but why don't you acknowledge its existence?

Either you want to make on topic posts or you don't. Obviously, you wish to remain off-topic.

The consensus among knowledgeable comic book readers over the winner of the Spider-man vs Batman fight, which constitutes my first argument, is perfectly on topic.

Being overly detailed doesn't make you right.

You have yet to point out a single instance of me being wrong. Again, this thread is about a Spider-man vs Batman fight. The consensus over the Spider-man vs Batman fight, which is my first argument, is therefore undoubtedly on topic.

I point them out all the time, but your head is too far up your anus to realize it. I doubt you've gotten any sleep. You've probably been up since last night, waiting for me to reply. In order to remain on topic, you'll need to continue making posts about why one of these characters wins... and you haven't.

So far all of your feeble attempts at proving me wrong have been thoroughly debunked - that's why you can't even cite one here.
I'm still posting about the consensus, and still waiting for you to acknowledge it, so I'm perfectly on topic. Are you finally ready to acknowledge the said consensus?

I'm still waiting for you to prove how the consensus is your own argument because it's taken from ComicVine users. Not AN argument, your OWN argument. I proved you overemphasized how "petty" my Anthrax reference was because you were upset about it going over your head and all you could do was muster a pitiful "No, it's not." That's what little kids say when they're wrong. You accused me of being on a high horse, I said that was ironic coming from a guy who won't debate anyone without "intellectual honesty" and you quickly dropped the claim. Do I need to go any further? You refuse to contribute anything other the consensus, so you are not on topic. I'm not acknowleding the consensus? Tough. Man up and move on. You're just spinning around in circles and thinking everything else is spinning around you.

The consensus is the first argument I'm presenting you with. I've repeatedly explained this to you. I don't care how you think my argument should be constructed or where it should come from - it's still an argument, an argument you've refused to acknowledge. I've also explained to you how the consensus is not an argument in itself: it becomes an argument in this discussion because I'm presenting you with it to support my claim. Is there anything you still don't understand about this?

You did not prove anything. You claimed I was overemphasizing and I wasn't.

I did ask you to get off your high horse. I haven't dropped anything - I don't even know why you would think that. Let me repeat: by refusing to acknowledge the existence of the consensus I referred to, you are displaying a clear lack of intellectual honesty.

The consensus is on topic. As long as I'm referring to it, I am on topic. Are you ready to acknowledge it yet?

I'm not spinning in circles, if anything you're desperately trying to avoid addressing the existence of the consensus I presented you with, something you've been doing for a few pages. I haven't moved an inch about the consensus, and you have yet to acknowledge its existence. The ball's still in your court.

Your entire post is you spinning around circles, all because you can't make one argument of your own. You'd better look up the definition of "personal opinion," because that's a concept you don't understand.

The consensus is simply not a good argument. It does not specify why Spider-Man wins, it just says Spider-Man wins. That's why I will not acknowledge it. And you're far too cowardly to move on.

Exactly, your only counterpoint to my proof is to say the opposite. Because you know I'm right.

This is really hard for you to comprehend, isn't it? You're the one who's on the high horse. You won't debate anyone who doesn't have "intellectual honesty"... or at least your perception of it. So in other words, you won't provide arguments to those you believe are beneath you. When I pointed out how ironic your statement was, you made no mention of it in your next post. And you accuse me of being dishonest.

You're not on topic because you've contributed nothing to this conversation. You should need prodding to get back on subject. If you truly wanted to post an explanation, you would have done so on the first page. But you won't because you're too scared to admit you don't have any arguments of your own.

I already stated my personal opinion on who would win the fight. Since we're having a discussion, arguments enter the picture. I presented you with my first argument. You have yet to acknowledge it.

The consensus is a very good argument, for reasons I've already mentioned. Regardless, you don't have to agree with it or consider it a good argument to acknowledge its existence. Are you ready to do that?

You don't have any proof. Saying "You were overemphasizing" is not "proof" of anything. It's a statement of opinion. It looks like "proof" is the next word you're going to have to look up in the dictionary.

There is nothing ironic in saying that someone both lacks intellectual honesty and should get off his high horse. Is not being humble suddenly incompatible with being intellectually dishonest? The answer is no, and pointing it out does not make one not humble. To answer your next point, why would I ask you to get off your high horse a second time in my next post if I already asked you so in the first one? If you want, I'll repeat it now: get off your high horse. I do accuse you of being intellectually dishonest, because of your refusal to acknowledge the existence of something we both know exists, and whose existence can directly be verified by anyone.

I have contributed to the conversation. The consensus among knowledgeable comic book readers over the winner of the Spider-man vs Batman fight that I referred to is directly on topic. How many times am I going to have to point this out? In our exchange, you're the one who has brought literally nothing to the topic discussion except for denial. As I've also repeatedly said, my first argument has already been presented to you, and the second one will be too once you acknowledge the existence of the consensus. Since you're refusing to do so even though its existence cannot be disputed, it seems that you're the one scared of 1) acknowledging a fact that contradicts your views 2) being confronted with my personal explanation of how the fight would go. The ball is in your court.

That's what you say, but your inability to provide arguments of your own proves you wrong.

Exactly. Ignore the fact that consensus does not specify why Spider-Man wins. It'll help you sleep at night. Oh right- you can't go to sleep until I stop responding.

The proof is in my earlier reply. Instead of simply saying it was petty, you wrote "That's relevant how?! Right, it's not. How petty can you get?" And you were reduced to simply saying the opposite of what I wrote because you knew I was right. But your ego won't allow you to admit defeat.

The irony is you won't debate anyone who you believe lacks intellectual honesty. As you fancy yourself having intellectual honesty, that means you won't argue with anyone who you consider to be beneath you. And if you believe someone is beneath you, then you're on a high horse. You can't worm your way out of this one.

It's hilarious how you begin every paragraph trying to be factual. In reality, you're twisting the truth to fit your warped visions. If you had actually given reasons WHY Spider-Man won, you would have been contributing to this discussion. But no, you decided to be antagonizing and thought viewpoints that weren't even your own would be enough to end the discussion. And it's still not your argument. It's the argument of ComicVine users and you cannot take credit for their work. I never said who the users on ComicVine favored and I know you don't have a personal explanation. Admit you don't have any arguments of your own. Otherwise, you'll remain branded as a coward.

It certainly does not "prove me wrong". If you addressed my argument and proved me wrong, then I would be "proven wrong". You have done no such thing.

The consensus specifies that Spider-man wins. The threads upon which it is based specify why. The basic fact, whether you like it or not, is that the consensus I referred to exists. Are you ready to acknowledge that directly? :-)

Your "proof" exists only in your mind. My post highlighted two elements: that your remark was not relevant and that it was petty. Nowhere did you "prove" I was overemphasizing anything - you even failed to recognize the two different elements. You really do need to go check that definition of "proof".

I am already debating you on the topic of thread - did you somehow forget that I presented you with an argument (and still am)? What I said was, instead, that I could see no point in presenting you with a second argument if you did not acknowledge the first one. Me pointing out that your refusal to acknowledge the consensus implies a lack of intellectual honesty does not mean that I consider myself above you. It's an analytical statement, not a moral judgement.

I'm not "trying" to be factual, I am factual. My sentence was "I have contributed to the conversation". That's factual. The original topic did not ask for "personal explanations" only. In fact, YOU did not ask for a "personal explanation" either before I presented you with my first argument, the consensus. Linking to the consensus therefore did contribute to the conversation about Spider-man vs Batman. That's not an opinion, it's a fact. In addition, I see you're still not getting what an argument is. The consensus is not an argument in itself. It becomes an argument when it is used as a reason to prove a point, like I used it in this exchange. What don't you understand about this? Feel free to ask.

I do have a detailed explanation of the fight. All you have to do is directly acknowledge the existence of the consensus, and I'll post it. Whenever you're ready.

Your inability to provide arguments of your own proves you wrong on the subject of you not stating your true opinions in this thread. Pay attention to what I'm responding to. It's still your argument? So in addition to being a coward and a liar, you're also a thief.

Hey, if you can explain how "Spider-Man vs Batman (Spider-Man)" specifies how Spider-Man wins, I'd love to hear it.

Funny, that proof is right on the seventh page. Instead of just mentioning my remark wasn't relevant, you asked one rhetorical question, answered it, and then asked ANOTHER rhetorical question, and ultimately used TWO terms to establish how unnecessary that remark was. At the time, you were reduced to just saying the opposite of what I said and nothing more. I can practically seeing you sputtering over your keyboard as you try to deny this.

Way to miss my point, but I'm not surprised. If you did not think you were above me, you would not refuse to continue the conversation because of one action I've made. You would not automatically assume I don't have "intellectual honesty" and repeatedly talk about it because I've ignored the consensus. You would move on with more arguments. If I constantly denied the points you came up with (note the plural form of "points" there), then you would have ground to stand on. But you're on a high horse and you can't allow the conversations with the peons to progress.

Thanks for proving me right about you twisting the truth. Now listen to me, you autistic mofo. Not everything has to be spelled out right in front of you. If you want a serious discussion, it's expected that you don't act antagonizing and claim you've won by stealing other people's arguments. It's expected that you use opinions of your own, just like other people do. Growing up, you should have learned these things. No wonder why you're still dragging this out. You've alienated all of your real life contacts by thinking you're better than the rest of them. The only way you can feel good about yourself is by winning online arguments. And in order to do that, you gotta get that last word, even if it means lying about having detailed explanations. Otherwise, you'll be constantly reminded that your online opponent said something you couldn't respond to.

Ah, apparently you're now having some trouble distinguishing opinions from arguments. My opinion over the winner of the fight has very clearly been stated - it's Spider-man who would win. My first argument - the existence of a consensus among knowledeable comic book readers over Spider-man's victory - has already been stated as well. Nothing about that "proves" me wrong. Again, feel free to look up the definition of the word if you're having some trouble using it.

"Spider-Man vs Batman (Spider-Man)" does not, in itself, specify how Spider-man wins. I never claimed it did. The threads upon which the consensus is based contain such explanations. The existence of the consensus was my first argument. Are you having a hard time making these distinctions?

Again, that's not proof. The two rhetorical questions refer to two different points. The first rhetorical question is there to highlight that your remark was irrelevant. The second rhetorical question was there to highlight that you were being petty. Two different points, no overemphasis. If your aim is to fail at proving me wrong, you're doing a great job.

I explained why the discussion is not moving forward - it's because you haven't acknowledged my first argument. Why would I put forward a second argument when you haven't even acknowledged the first one? Me waiting for you to acknowledge the existence of the consensus does not mean that I consider myself to be above you. I've even explained several times that I was ready to present you with a second argument if you only simply acknowledged the existence of the consensus - no need to care for it, no need to position yourself on its merits, only acknowledge its existence. You're the one blocking the conversation - the ball is in your court!

I did not "prove [you] right about [me] twisting the truth" - in fact, I proved the exact opposite since I proved you wrong by showing that my statement was factual. Regarding your next point, I'm not claiming I've won the discussion. I'm merely claiming I've presented you with a first argument - which is, again, factual. I'm also claiming you haven't directly acknowledged the existence of the consensus that I referred to - also factual. I'm not "stealing other people's arguments" - I'm using the consensus as an argument in this discussion (what about "the consensus is not an argument in itself" do you not understand?). My second argument will take a different form, since it'll be a detailed explanation of the fight. Feel free to stop dragging this out by acknowledging the existence of the consensus, and we'll finally be moving forward.

[deleted]

Oh but you are. You said I did not state "[my] true opinions in this thread". I did in fact state my true opinion - it is that Spider-man wins. An opinion does not have to be defended by arguments to be an opinion in itself (and this one was defended by one argument so far). You really do seem to mixing the terms "opinion" and "argument".

I have not admitted it was a bad argument, no. In fact, I have stated several times in this thread that the existence of a consensus over the winner of the fight among knowledgeable comic book readers can be considered by some a much stronger argument than any individual poster's subjective idea of how the fight would go. As I've also stated, though, you're perfectly free to consider that my argument is a bad one - you're entitled to your opinion. That's why I've offered to present you with a second argument, as soon as you acknowledge the existence of the consensus, which constitutes my first one.

I applaud your initiative of looking at the dictionary! Unfortunately, you still seem to be having some trouble with definitions. I used "petty" in reference to your behaviour, and the relevant definition would therefore be the third one and not the second one listed on the Merriam-Webster website. So close, yet so far ,-) Nice effort though - I look forward to witnessing your next attempt/failure at proving me wrong.

If "[it] does not mean that I consider myself to be above you" are the words of "someone on a high horse", I don't think you understand the expression very well. I am asking you to directly acknowledge the existence of the consensus not because I consider myself superior to you but because I do not see the point of presenting you with a second argument if you don't even acknowledge the first one. Again, you're free to consider it a bad argument. Here, let me help you: all you need to write is "I acknowledge the existence of the consensus you referred to, but I consider it a bad argument and would like to read your own explanation of how the fight would go". Post that or anything conveying that idea, and my explanation will follow. Don't be afraid!

You can claim that I "twisted the truth" as much as you want, but my statement that I contributed to the discussion is factual, as I proved. Regarding your next point, indeed, the fact that there is a consensus among knowledgeable comic book readers over the winner of the fight does not in itself provide you with information over how the fight would go. I never claimed it did, and a detailed explanation was asked neither in the OP nor in your own posts that preceded my mentioning of the consensus. I'm more than willing to provide you with one, as soon as you directly acknowledge the existence of the consensus. I'd like to add that I find it quite rich that the poster calling me an "autistic mofo" is complaining about supposedly antagonizing remarks. How about acknowledging the existence of that consensus, so we can move forward? :-)

Just like Henry VIII's "true opinion" on marriage was it should last forever. Now you don't have to defend your opinion with arguments- just like someone in police custody doesn't have to speak during an interrogation- but you'll make people suspicious. Point is, you've said nothing to reinforce your view that Spider-Man wins, so it's highly unlikely that you really believe that.

But you did. You cling to it because you don't have anything else to offer, yet in your own words: "Spider-Man vs Batman (Spider-Man) does not, in itself, specify how Spider-man wins." If it doesn't specify HOW, then how could it be a good argument? Those incapable of thinking for themselves might be swayed, but people with genuine viewpoints of their own will dismiss all consensuses. Fabricate the details all you want, an argument is no good when it can't specify the WHY and HOW.

Alas, the connection between the two words has been lost on you. If someone's behavior is petty, then it's a given that he'll say irrelevant things. No need to state both factors. But you did because you died a little on the inside when something went over your head. You've been proved wrong yet again. And what's the relevance of "So close, yet so far ,-)"? You'd better look up the definition of the word "hypocrite."

"I applaud your initiative of looking at the dictionary!" sure is the words of someone on a high horse. So is telling me what to exactly what to write. I don't even need to elaborate on this point anymore; your posts will do that for me. And like a true coward, you try to shift blame to cover up your own actions.

It's just too bad you didn't prove a thing to help your case. You've killed the consensus argument and no fabrications can save it. By your logic, Fight Club must be better than Citizen Kane because the "knowledgeable film viewers" of the IMDb voted Fight Club higher. Trying to be a literalist only displays how severe your autism is. The OP does not have to ask for detailed explanations, users are expected to make them. Fact: the first reply in this thread is a detailed analysis of both characters. I don't mind that you first appeared in this thread making antagonistic remarks; I'm letting you know that's why you won't be taken seriously. This discussion will never move forward because you don't honestly believe Spider-Man would win. And when you don't have genuine opinions, you can't make good arguments.

I'm glad you seem to have noticed the difference between opinions and arguments. Now all you need to do is remember I've already presented you with an argument to defend my opinion, an argument that you have yet to acknowledge, and you'll be all set!

No, see, YOU interpret it as a bad argument because you consider it can only be a good argument if it specifies how he wins. But hey, be my guest, you have every right to make that your main criterion to distinguish between good and by arguments. Ready to directly acknowledge the existence of the consensus yet? :-)

Ah, but no. One could very well be petty (as defined how I explained) without saying irrelevant things, and one could very well say irrelevant things without being petty. If you're still struggling with the definition, you might want to check the one found in Collins dictionary: "of a narrow-minded, mean, or small-natured disposition or character". Now that that's cleared up, let's move to "So close, yet so far". It's an expression which means that you came close (you were mistaken by one definition), but that your mistake makes a world of difference. Don't hesitate to ask for help again if you still have some trouble with words!

I'm not even sure which actions I'm supposed to be covering up according to you...! Don't take offence from some light-hearted pokes - I've become quite fond of reading you and I've repeatedly assured you I don't think of myself as your superior ,-) And I'm not telling you what to write, I'm pointing out that you can acknowledge the existence of the consensus without giving up on not caring about it. It's apparently something you've been struggling to understand...!

I did prove a thing - several, in fact. We've already established that making analogies isn't exactly your forte. See, users aren't automatically "expected" to only make detailed explanations of the fight, they're supposed to answer the question in the OP of who would win the fight. I did answer the question, and I presented you with an argument supporting that position. In case you didn't notice, your refusal to even acknowledge the existence of the consensus is precisely what makes people fail to take YOU seriously, since we've had another poster call you a troll a few days ago. You're really not doing your position any favours by staying in denial - how about acknowledging the existence of the consensus so we can move on? :-)