Recently I've seen discussion and debate reduced to irrationality and offense. It makes no sense for reasonable people to reduce themselves such…so I've decided to inject some logic in hopes that future discourse can remain civil and enlightening.
Firstly…there should be some kind of debate decorum that is reasonable and adhered to. I will not use the word “rules” since every person is free to express as they see fit, but if reasonable people come to an accord, it makes it much harder for those seeking only to be disruptive, to do so.
Canon
Let’s start with “What is canon?” Canon is whatever happens in the Prime Universe for DC, and the 616 Universe for Marvel. Prime Earth was established with the New 52, and although the New 52 is…new, it is the current continuity for DC, and thus, canon. Anything that happened prior to the New 52 is no longer canon (although at the time of publication, it was) unless DC specifically states that such events carried over into the New 52 (as happened and stated for Green Lantern). There really should be no confusion about what constitutes “canon” as it seems rather obvious, but complete clarity helps establish true reason.
Proof
What is the highest source of “proof?” In debating comic characters, what proof should carry the most influence? It seems to me, that the comics themselves are the highest source, since it’s where we get everything from in this genre. The characters we love and hate, the reason we debate them, all come from comics. Within that, we will have comics that are canon and those that are not…and it should be obvious that canon remains the highest source. Some try to establish the wishes and thoughts of character creators as more valid than the current iteration of the characters they created, but what sense does that make when you really think about it?
Take for example the Blue Beetle. Should we ignore the current version because the creator intended him to be a man with bulletproof armor that gained powers from "Vitamin 2X?" Superman flies…should we ignore this power completely since the creators intended him to jump instead? How about the Hulk? Do Stan Lee’s intentions trump what Marvel publishes monthly as his current state? Was Batman ever intended to be what he has become when he was created in 1939? I dare say that most characters have very much strayed from the intentions of their creators…and ignoring what they are now, in deference to what they were intended to be, for the purposes of reasonable debate…is not logical.
Talking about sources, what do we do about Wiki? Most comic book debaters know Wiki is not perfect and sometimes has mistaken information since fans can have access to the posted material. Should we accept Wiki as a source, or ignore it altogether? Is attacking the credibility of Wiki in general a valid rebuttal to information sourced there? It seems to me the logical approach is to source it when necessary, but invalidate it when possible. If it says something you think is untrue, then invalidate it with a higher source (comic). The information on Wiki comes from the books (mostly) and if something has been copied wrong or is outdated, then referencing the book as evidence rectifies the issue, and validates the debate point.
When it comes to proof, some of it is quantifiable, and some of it is subjective. Countering quantifiable proof with subjective proof just doesn't work. As an example, let’s look at a recent Superman feat and some evidence currently being used to refute it. Superman has essentially benched pressed the Earth (see Superman #13) which is a quantifiable feat as the Earth weighs 5.972 sextillion metric tons. The rebuttal to this feat is that he could not break the grip of a Kryptonian dragon (see Superman # 13 again). Now, without having to point out the obvious (the dragon was KRYPTONIAN), the strength of the dragon is unquantifiable. We don’t know how strong the dragon is, so not breaking its grip can’t possibly be used as a measure countering Superman lifting 5.972 sextillion metric tons. Indeed, we can infer that the dragon is VERY strong since Superman could not break its grip.
Feats
Durability, speed, strength…are typical attributes found in comic debates and many of the feats associated with them are quantifiable…we can find a hard number for them (or at least a good scale comparison as with durability). But when we find a feat that requires some math, how should we go about it?
Let’s look at Aquaman’s feat of lifting 10 thousand tons (Justice League # 10). Why has it been settled at 10 thousand tons? How do we know this is accurate? Can he lift more? Aquaman lifted the back portion of a cruise ship over his head. We can find the weight of real cruise ships pretty easily, but without knowing the exact size of the one he lifted, we’ll go with the smallest cruise ship around, weighing in at 30 thousand tons. Lifting the back third of the ship puts Aquaman at a 10 thousand ton lift. Understand, this is a conservative calculation, but accurate to what we now know he can lift. We don’t use an “average” sized cruise ship or the largest because…what if he really is lifting the smallest one in the world? Calculating on a heavier vessel then puts some doubt on what we estimate he can lift (since we don’t know the size of the vessel), but if we use the smallest….then we are safe in our calculation because it’s the lowest calculation possible. It’s very possible he can, or is lifting, more…but we will have to wait for another quantifiable feat with a heavier object to make that determination.
Using the smallest possible calculation when there are no other specifics known is the best way to get an answer that leaves no doubt. Namor is a frequent opponent for Aquaman in comic debates, and has some feats regularly seen in these debates, although not always accurately tallied. Namor has been shown smashing a WW2 destroyer into Attuma. It has been hailed as a 2000- 3000 ton feat….and that would be pretty accurate, if it were a German ship. Namor calls it a “destroyer built by villains,” so it could be German, or Japanese. Of the two, the Japanese made the smallest destroyer clocking in at 770 tons. We now know for an indisputable fact, that Namor can lift at least 770 tons.
These are just examples of how to conservatively calculate feats, and thus come to a figure that is indisputable, because there can be no smaller measure.
Rebuttal
Debates are a series of points and counter points, good ones are anyway. Sometimes this simple dynamic is lost. When people start posting memes and scans that have nothing to do with the debate subject, it just shows they have no counter point…and can make no valid case for their position. As an example, I was once in a Hulk/Superman debate, and out comes a scan of Superman on a stretcher after a fight with Muhammad Ali…as if it was “proof” Hulk was stronger. The problem is in that story, Superman was robbed of his powers for his fight with Ali…and the fight has absolutely nothing to do with Hulk at all. Not to mention the scan is now non-canon as it was 1978, and we are in the age of the New 52 now. If the point had been made that Superman has never fought Ali, then the scan would be a relevant rebuttal to prove that they did indeed fight (although it still would not apply to the current iteration of Superman).
A rebuttal either disproves a point of proves a counter point.
A rebuttal either disproves a point of proves a counter point. It’s really just that simple.
Here and Now
I love going down memory lane. The problem with that it in a comic debate is often doing so is not relevant to the points being made. Comic characters go through so many changes and unless the terms of the debate specifically call for a character of a certain time period, the most accurate assessment is the current iteration of that character.
In some cases, it is impossible to debate the current iteration of a character as is the case currently with Captain America. He is currently an old man, no longer having the abilities he’s known for (as of this writing). Obviously any debate using him has to be before he came to be in such a state, or else he just automatically loses (and that’s no fun).
Posting outdated, and sometimes, non-canon scans may seem like a way to further your point of view…but if they no longer apply or agree with current evidence, they are just irrelevant. Stay current.
Common Sense
I’d say always use your common sense, but that is often impossible to do for those people that are such fans…ridiculous is a comfort zone. There are those that will utilize none of the suggestions above and despite any evidence, canon or not, will continue to put their favorite character first above whomever. We shouldn't be too hard on them, after all…without them, where would comics be?
No comments:
Post a Comment