Resolved: Batman would beat God himself in a fight

Simply put, my opponent's arguments reveal the desperation of a losing debater. He claims that I am simply making up a definition for mock fight that excludes a real fight. However, I was unaware that I was required to define basic common knowledge terms. The word "Mock" when used as an adjective is defined as "feigned; not real; sham: a mock battle." [A] That leaves the term "Pillow fight" defined as "a feigned; not real; sham fight." A pillow fight is clearly, under the definition of an accepted source, not a real fight. As something that is not a real fight, it is excluded from this scenario. As far as the people in the "violent pillow fight" video supplied by my opponent. All of those people are smiling and laughing throughout the entire video. There is clearly no intent to hurt each other, and when someone accidentally gets hurt they stop hitting him. This is clearly not intended to be a serious fight. My opponent then claims that I dismiss the other scenarios based on the fact that I feel that they are not violent. He then claims that because they can lead to violence, that they are in themselves inherently violent and constitute a fight. This is simply not correct. Anything can lead to violence, that does not make it a fight. A rabbit recently got into my garden and destroyed the tomatoes I've been working hard on, this could lead me to violently kill this rabbit. However that does not automatically make gardening a fight. Unless violence is an essential part of the scenario, it does not meet the criteria that my opponent put forward. My opponent then begins an argument against my "wordplay over "could" and "should"" It would behoove my opponent to read more carefully since my argument was actually over a distinction between "Could" and "Would." My opponent then foolishly points out that it is illegal to kill a tree in New York City to support his contention that Batman would attack him. However, Jesus did not kill a fig tree in New York City, he killed said fig tree in ancient Jerusalem. Unless my opponent can show that there was a law in 1st century Jerusalem against killing fig trees, my opponent still has to grapple with the fact that Batman would need to assault a man guilty of no crimes in order for scenarios 1 and 2 to result in Batman winning. My opponent has also caught himself in a catch 22 when he intimates that God has committed "numerous other crimes against humanity." If this is indeed the case, then what would be stopping the God who has committed these other crimes from simply commanding Batman to die in the same way he commanded the fig tree to die. If God has no regard for the law, then he would simply command Bruce Wayne to wither and die as he did the fig tree. I have demonstrated three things that secure victory for Jesus in the scenarios provided by my opponent, and therefore have secured victory for myself in this debate. The first is that scenarios 3 (Pillow Fight), 4 (Money Raising Competition), and 5 (Madden NFL 2013 Competition) are out of bounds for this debate because they do not meet the criteria of "fight" provided by my opponent in round 2. The second is that to attack a person guilty of no crime is outside of the moral scope of Batman, who would never willingly injure or kill an innocent person. The third is that even if Batman were to find some kind of justification for attacking an innocent man, Jesus could simply kill Batman with a word the same way that he killed the fig tree. My opponent's argument that this is outside of the moral scope of Jesus is contradictory with his argument that God has knowingly perpetrated numerous crimes against humanity. He cannot have it both ways, either God is morally upstanding (giving Batman no justification to attack him) or he is morally abhorrent (giving him no reason not to simply kill Bruce Wayne) [A] http://dictionary.reference.com...