Death Battle: Goku vs Superman 2

[Sayo-chan]

Your fun fact is according to one shaky assumption about one of at least 10 interpretations of quantum physics. We honestly have zero certainty what would happen if someone even could travel faster than light. But I will give you this, whatever does happen, it probably will be nothing like wha is seen in comics.

You might want to talk to Neil Degrasse Tyson about how shaky it is since that's who I got it from. From where I stand though, if a prominent figure in the astrophysics community is saying it, then I'm more inclined to consider what they said as the probable and respected outcome even if there are other possibilities however fringe they may be.
Yeah, for one the results would be consistent.

While I don't agree or disagree with either of you, the argument your making is an appeal to authority. Your conclusion may not be invalid, but the way you're getting there is. I'm sure Degrasse is no different than Lawrence Kruass and Richard Dawkins on the issue, who both agree there is no scientific authority.

[neogaiden]

While I don't agree or disagree with either of you, the argument your making is an appeal to authority. Your conclusion may not be invalid, but the way you're getting there is. I'm sure Degrasse is no different than Lawrence Kruass and Richard Dawkins on the issue, who both agree there is no scientific authority.

I think you might be invoking the "appeal to authority," fallacy incorrectly. If the authority is not credible or is merely of the opinion of something but lacks the depth of knowledge to back up the claim, then yes it would be classified as such. That said, the person I cited is no random self proclaimed authority; the man is a known expert on these matters.

Maybe no difference for Lawrence Kruass but the same can not be said for Richard Dawkins who would not be an authority on physics related science. He is a brilliant man when it comes to evolutionary biology though!

[Sayo-chan]

While I don't agree or disagree with either of you, the argument your making is an appeal to authority. Your conclusion may not be invalid, but the way you're getting there is. I'm sure Degrasse is no different than Lawrence Kruass and Richard Dawkins on the issue, who both agree there is no scientific authority.

I think you might be invoking the "appeal to authority," fallacy incorrectly. If the authority is not credible or is merely of the opinion of something but lacks the depth of knowledge to back up the claim, then yes it would be classified as such. That said, the person I cited is no random self proclaimed authority; the man is a known expert on these matters.

Maybe no difference for Lawrence Kruass but the same can not be said for Richard Dawkins who would not be an authority on physics related science. He is a brilliant man when it comes to evolutionary biology though!

Erm, no. That's not the only type of an appeal to authority. What I stated is actually a far more common example. Syllogistically your argument looks exactly like an appeal to authority:

X is considered an authority on something
X says something about that something
X is probably correct

I also think you're misunderstanding what I stated about Kruass and Dawkins. I was saying Degrasse is likely no different in his position than the two of them, concerning a scientific authority (i.e., there is none).

[DBZGTKOSDH]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but FnF confirms that SSGSS Goku is actually stronger than Superman.

Superman is only capable of destroying a planet with his Infinite Mass Punch. A weakened Final Form Freeza destroyed Earth by literally slaming the ground with his hand once, and SSG/SbG/SSGSS Goku is stronger than Final Form Freeza (FnF). So...

[Polyphase Avatron]

Ignoring, for the moment, the issue that 'destroying a planet' is hardly a standardized thing and depends on tons of variables, many people have provided examples of Superman doing a lot more than that.

[DBZGTKOSDH]

Ignoring, for the moment, the issue that 'destroying a planet' is hardly a standardized thing and depends on tons of variables, many people have provided examples of Superman doing a lot more than that.

Like?

[Polyphase Avatron]

Like the size of the planet, density, gravity, the method of destroying it, how fast the pieces fly apart (kinetic energy), etc.

[DBZGTKOSDH]

Like the size of the planet, density, gravity, the method of destroying it, how fast the pieces fly apart (kinetic energy), etc.

When did Superman show enough strength to destroy Earth with a slam on the ground?

[Polyphase Avatron]

Well when he moved the Mageddon engine which was much larger than the sun, or when he contained a black hole in his hand that would have destroyed the solar system, or when he moved War World and pushed it into a wormhole, against the force of its engines that were powered by the Big Bang, or when he fought his alternate self and was ripping holes in reality bigger than planets as a side effect, or when he did any of the other crazy nonsensical stuff he's so famous for doing.

If you want to try scaling to other characters like you're doing, he was able to fight against and hurt Superboy Prime who could move planets across the universe so fast they appeared to teleport, and punch reality so hard that history changed, or when he beat up Lobo who once lifted a box that contained the weight of the entire universe, or when he hurt Darkseid who was powered up by the souls of all the New Gods, each one of which could create universes, or something ridiculous like that. Of course there are also the absolutely silly "lifting/moving infinite weight" feats being bandied about.

Basically if you want to compare the most impressive stuff they've ever done, you're going to get people listing all of these crazy feats that come with so many writers and years of publication (all of the ones I mentioned are Post-Crisis BTW, at least as far as I know, going by memory a bit here as I'm recalling all the stuff people have said). That's not really the best way to go about it if you ask me. The same is true for most long-running comic book characters. Then of course you get into the debates of which feats should count or not, and the balance between 'this honestly doesn't make sense and should be discounted', versus 'you just don't want them to be that powerful so you're ignoring the evidence'. Then accusations of double standards and such are thrown about, and the whole thing degenerates into a flame war.

Personally I think seriously arguing this stuff and getting all invested in it is more trouble than it's worth.

[DBZGTKOSDH]

Well when he moved the Mageddon engine which was much larger than the sun, or when he contained a black hole in his hand that would have destroyed the solar system, or when he moved War World and pushed it into a wormhole, against the force of its engines that were powered by the Big Bang,

Is there evidence that SbG/SSG/SSGSS Goku can't do these things?

or when he fought his alternate self and was ripping holes in reality bigger than planets as a side effect

Do you have any images of this?

If you want to try scaling to other characters like you're doing, he was able to fight against and hurt Superboy Prime who could move planets across the universe so fast they appeared to teleport, and punch reality so hard that history changed, or when he beat up Lobo who once lifted a box that contained the weight of the entire universe, or when he hurt Darkseid who was powered up by the souls of all the New Gods, each one of which could create universes, or something ridiculous like that.

Well, the DCU isn't based around battle powers, while the DB World is. So, I'm not sure if scaling to other characters would work for Superman, especially when the feats you are mentioning are special & not simple like "a guy can destroy a planet with a punch or ki blast".

Of course there are also the absolutely silly "lifting/moving infinite weight" feats being bandied about.

Eh, I hear that this actually isn't correct.

Personally I think seriously arguing this stuff and getting all invested in it is more trouble than it's worth.

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to prove that Goku is the strongest. I'm just trying to see why Goku isn't the strongest, because ScrewAttack! does use some strange logic in their videos, so I don't completely trust them.

[Polyphase Avatron]

Is there evidence that SbG/SSG/SSGSS Goku can't do these things?

That's not what you asked me. I have no idea, and you wouldn't be able to prove it one way or another (that's something called 'proving the negative fallacy').

Also this question shows that you're guilty of a major pet peeve of mine here - Because I question the substance/logic behind the arguments you're making to support a certain position, you automatically assume that I am attempting to defend the opposite position. I'm not. I have no intent whatsoever to debate Goku vs. Superman. What I'm doing is meta-debating - debating the details of the methods and logic I see people using in this debate.

Imagine if we were in the Cold War, and someone said "America is going to beat Russia because Reagan's Star Wars system can shoot down all of their nukes!"

If I point out that that system never actually worked, and could not effectively intercept nukes, that does not mean I'm saying Russia is going to win, or that I'm a Russian commie sympathizer. All I'm doing is correcting a factual error. Do you understand?

Do you have any images of this?

Ask on like Comicvine or Naruto forums or Killer movies or one of those places. I know I've seen the scans of it.

Well, the DCU isn't based around battle powers, while the DB World is. So, I'm not sure if scaling to other characters would work for Superman, especially when the feats you are mentioning are special & not simple like "a guy can destroy a planet with a punch or ki blast".

People would call this a 'special pleading fallacy', saying you can use a kind of logic for one series but not another. Personally I don't see much of a difference, as all we're doing in both cases is comparing how much force someone's muscles/powers can exert, so if one guy is on a comparable level to another guy in terms of physical power, they should be able to do the same kind of stuff.

Eh, I hear that this actually isn't correct.

Personally I take those with a huge grain of salt and I don't put very much stock in them, but they are there, and people are using them for their arguments. I've already given my opinion for why I don't really consider them valid, but others have disagreed with me.

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to prove that Goku is the strongest. I'm just trying to see why Goku isn't the strongest, because ScrewAttack! does use some strange logic in their videos, so I don't completely trust them.

Oh of course. They make a bunch of mistakes about all kinds of stuff. Even people who are convinced Superman would win have criticized the videos for saying they got the right conclusion with the wrong methodology.

[neogaiden]

Erm, no. That's not the only type of an appeal to authority. What I stated is actually a far more common example. Syllogistically your argument looks exactly like an appeal to authority:

X is considered an authority on something
X says something about that something
X is probably correct

Sorry but that's not quite right, what you're doing is taking the general spirit of the term and using that as some broad uncompromising rule.The rules break when the authority is someone with proven credible expertise on the topic. I was citing Mr.Tyson as his statement it is a pretty common conclusion within special relativity; a topic said scientist would be very familiar with his line of work.

Now I feel I should clear something up, while yes I was being a bit snarky, I am not questioning multiple outcomes, or stating that people believe what I say based on some citation; frankly if you have a good counter point then express it. I only took issue with the assertion that what I had cited was "shaky." My stance is that I would consider the word of a know and credible scientist who deals in these matters over someone merely stating that it is shaky assumption. I am only speaking for myself and no one else. That said, the math behind it is pretty solid until science discovers new data to improve/expand on it. You see the statement stems from a mathematical experiment in special relativity; the sub category in the theory of relativity put forth by Einstein. It goes as follows:

Moving at the speed of light effectively stops time for you; light equals zero; exceeding that speed means that the object is now less than zero, effectively going backward in time. Now if you want to quibble over whether it is actually possible then our physics suggests FLT is impossible. However, when scientists muse about FLT they ignore the issue of causality and pretend that hypothetically, FLT is possible in a universe where the limit is light speed.

There is no need for general consensus among scientists as it's in the math, there is nothing to debate unless more facts come to light, no pun intended. Now if you still feel that you are right and my process was wrong then I'm just going to have to agree to disagree with you.

[Sayo-chan]

Erm, no. That's not the only type of an appeal to authority. What I stated is actually a far more common example. Syllogistically your argument looks exactly like an appeal to authority:

X is considered an authority on something
X says something about that something
X is probably correct

Sorry but that's not quite right, what you're doing is taking the general spirit of the term and using that as some broad uncompromising rule.The rules break when the authority is someone with proven credible expertise on the topic. I was citing Mr.Tyson as his statement it is a pretty common conclusion within special relativity; a topic said scientist would be very familiar with his line of work.

Now I feel I should clear something up, while yes I was being a bit snarky, I am not questioning multiple outcomes, or stating that people believe what I say based on some citation; frankly if you have a good counter point then express it. I only took issue with the assertion that what I had cited was "shaky." My stance is that I would consider the word of a know and credible scientist who deals in these matters over someone merely stating that it is shaky assumption. I am only speaking for myself and no one else. That said, the math behind it is pretty solid until science discovers new data to improve/expand on it. You see the statement stems from a mathematical experiment in special relativity; the sub category in the theory of relativity put forth by Einstein. It goes as follows:

Moving at the speed of light effectively stops time for you; light equals zero; exceeding that speed means that the object is now less than zero, effectively going backward in time. Now if you want to quibble over whether it is actually possible then our physics suggests FLT is impossible. However, when scientists muse about FLT they ignore the issue of causality and pretend that hypothetically, FLT is possible in a universe where the limit is light speed.

There is no need for general consensus among scientists as it's in the math, there is nothing to debate unless more facts come to light, no pun intended. Now if you still feel that you are right and my process was wrong then I'm just going to have to agree to disagree with you.

Again, no. There are multiple appeals to authority. You seem to be asserting there's only one, which is objectively untrue. The syllogism I gave you is fairly common and evoked all the time. You can read more about this here: http://150.162.138.5/portal/sites/defau ... 6-1-PB.pdf Maybe it came off the way because of your phrasing, but it follows the example I gave fairly well (namely because it sounds as though you're dismissing arguments in favor of an authority's opinion, which is a key component to this). Now, if I were in your position, I wouldn't consider the word of either without seeing the evidence.

Beyond that, I neither agree nor disagree with your reasoning.

[neogaiden]

Well when he moved the Mageddon engine which was much larger than the sun

Just a minor point,

Superman did not move the Mageddon, he only broke out of his chains. What he did do however is absorb the anti-sun energy from Mageddon's power source (thus stopping the Mageddon threat) which may be a testament to his energy absorbing capabilities.

[Berserker1921]

Why we fighting guys? This has been done a millions times. No matter how much we love Goku. He isn't up to take down superman. Yes, Goku may be able to defeat one or two variations of superman. Perhaps from the cartoon show, smallville, and Lois and Clark lol. But comic superman is broken. Unless Toriyama says tomorrow that Goku is made out of kryptonite, can shoot out red sunlight blast, have magical powers, or lastly have the ability to control reality. He isn't going to hurt superman. Even then I still see some chance of superman winning. He is meant to do the impossible. He is superman. Goku isn't like that. Goku is a guy trying to be the strongest he can ever be. That's all. They would never fight and the whole death battle thing was a way to get views. And then piss off the fans...mostly us dbz fans-cough-. Their is no contest. Superman wins hands down. Let it be over with.

[dbzfan7]

They would never fight and the whole death battle thing was a way to get views.

No the fight was definitely something that needed to happen. It's been discussed a long time and had a lot of support. What didn't need to happen was the rematch. Absolutely nothing warranted it. A rematch really is only warranted if Goku does something so outlandish and incredible, that they'd have to really think if Superman would still stomp. SSGSS had nothing going for it, and Goku didn't really gain any feats that could help at all (Unless you count Heroes).

[Berserker1921]

They would never fight and the whole death battle thing was a way to get views.

No the fight was definitely something that needed to happen. It's been discussed a long time and had a lot of support. What didn't need to happen was the rematch. Absolutely nothing warranted it. A rematch really is only warranted if Goku does something so outlandish and incredible, that they'd have to really think if Superman would still stomp. SSGSS had nothing going for it, and Goku didn't really gain any feats that could help at all (Unless you count Heroes).

Okay and do you agree to their results?

[Polyphase Avatron]

The fact that they even decided to tackle this issue is basically stepping on the hornet's nest, and it certainly doesn't help that they try to act like their videos are in any way authoritative (such as how they always say "it's time to end this debate once and for all"). Basically everyone will keep bugging them and complaining about things and try to make them do a rematch if they don't agree with the result, etc.

[TheGmGoken]

how they always say "it's time to end this debate once and for all

That's just a motto. I'm sure they don't legit believe that. Hell Prince of Tennis called itself the "Most popular manga of all time" many times. We know it ain't true. The publisher knew it too.

Don't be so picky

[neogaiden]

Again, no. There are multiple appeals to authority. You seem to be asserting there's only one, which is objectively untrue. The syllogism I gave you is fairly common and evoked all the time. You can read more about this here: http://150.162.138.5/portal/sites/defau ... 6-1-PB.pdf Maybe it came off the way because of your phrasing, but it follows the example I gave fairly well (namely because it sounds as though you're dismissing arguments in favor of an authority's opinion, which is a key component to this). Now, if I were in your position, I wouldn't consider the word of either without seeing the evidence.

Beyond that, I neither agree nor disagree with your reasoning.

I looked at the pdf you provided and I was not wrong to rely on the expert I cited as he would pass all six critical questions under "argument from expert opinion" if we're treating this as some legal proceeding. I did consider that there are people with differing views on what FLT might be like, however the person I was discussing things with did not provide anything substantial for me to gleam any information from. I am open to having my mind changed but, provide something with a bit more substance and then we can hash it out with the facts. At no point am I saying they should not question what I say or my source.

I guess I'm not convinced but you can have the last word on this if there is anything more you want to add.