bat man or superman

1) History of the 'Batman or Superman' viewpoints To choose between Batman and Superman has been a mystifying philosophical anomaly that has been debated hotly by philosophers back to the days of Socrates. Choosing between Superman and Batman is like picking between Day and Night, Left or Right, The high road or the Low road, North or South, Apples and Oranges, East or West, Black and White, Black and Mexican..... These things that are the polar opposites of each other dont have many negative qualities to either of them that truly justifies picking one of them over another as some sort of 'preference'. The question of Batman or Superman of course has its roots in ancient Babylonian scriptures, where tangible evidence of the question first being asked and debated appears in written history, but its believed that the question of Batman or Superman stretches back even earlier into unrecorded history before written language was even a thing. It is widely believed that the Hyksos and Nubian wars that took place centuries in the past were fought out in order to once and for all reveal Batman or Superman, but in the end only proved that stabbing someone in the face with a knife will kill them. It was not until Newton did new evidence of Batman or Superman reenter philosophical discussion, having been paused when the Black Death spread through Europe like a corvette being driven by a p*ssed off teenager. The Plague wiped out a third of Europe, which had forced people to stop asking 'Batman or Superman' and instead ask 'How many of my relatives left me their stuff in their will?'. When Newton revived the question though, it classified the thought of Batman or Superman into two schools of thought: The Newts (Named for those sharing Newton's opinion) and the Antinewts (Those who disagree with his opinion)Newton failed to conclude Batman or Superman, but his arguments were that the answer was Batman since to become Batman was simply a more reasonable goal to accomplish whereas becoming Superman requires traits beyond one's own control. Newton though admitted that this reasoning could in fact be used to support Superman over Batman rather than Batman over Superman, which in the 7 books he's written about Batman or Superman he very carefully avoids choosing Batman. Einstein in the 1940's revived the question by adding another school of thought to the question outside of likelihood of actually becoming Batman or Superman by focusing instead on the abilities of both heroes rather than the likelihood of actually becoming either of them. Einsteins school of thought in favor of Superman made those preferring Superman to become 'Einsteins' rather than 'Antinewts' as they had been known as before.... This leaves us with the Newton side and the Einstein side that we have today. Then Steven Hawking entered the picture and proposed the idea of 'neither', arguing that DC hero's suck, and that marvel heroes are where its at, trying to steer the conversation from 'Batman or Superman' to 'Iron man or Captain America'. Newtons and Einsteins for the Batman or Superman question suddenly became classified under one system of 'DC' with the other class coming into fruition being known as the 'Marvel' class..... Neither side gets along particularly well with each other. 2) ArgumentationNewton focused on the realistic qualities of Batman and Superman, Einstein focused on the sheer power of both, and Hawking thought both Newton and Einstein were geeks and advocated for other heroes instead.... What one person does prefer in the question is what makes them a Newt', an Ein', or a Hawk' in today's slang, yet the groundwork philosophy behind each category/class can be weighted against each other to reach some form of conclusion of Batman or Superman. You could argue that the moral intrinsic qualities (A) of a Ultilitarian Superman (B) makes him superior (C) to a Machiavellian-natured Batman (D) purely on a morality basis of fate (E) or destiny (F), but at the same time (G) you could make the point that the hierarchy of thought of cognitive dissonance (H) vs divisive cognizance (J) implies that Batman is the answer since the tri-party nature of moral right and wrong (K) is a theoretical (M) debate (N) at best (O). This conflict (7) regarding the nature of the Batman or Superman question violates the 3rd law of membrane mechanics ($) which triggers why the ontology of gravity theory (#) Cannot answer A (Anne Hathaway). So basically:If A then B,If B then C,If C then NOT D,If NOT D then maybe E,If F then Q,If Q then Maybe Z,If Z and NOT R then Maybe S,If S then E is impossible because of A and 7,7 Exists if C, Y, 4, and #,@ cannot be - at the same time as # and Q,X therefore has to exist,U exists if X exists, but U cannot exist in stability if R and Q clash,R and Q clash because of 76 and 61,(*) can solve this clash if Anne Hathaway and Julianne Moore are in the same room together,Julianne Moore can only be in the same room that Clooney is in,Clooney prefers Blue,Blue starts with the letter B,If B then C,So on and So onFor these reasons, You should vote Con.3) Simpler answer for those having difficulty understanding the conclusion made in Argument 2The reasons and statements made in the previous argument was why I admittedly leaned towards Batman, but then I saw that Pro is referring to "Bat Man", not "Batman"........ Owning bats as pets is illegal in many countries due to risk of rabies, and people who watch over bats professionally are not known as 'Bat-Men', instead known as 'Bat Keepers' or by 'Their first and last names'. In fact a search of 'Bat Man' only leads to 'Batman', meaning that 'Bat Man' is not a real thing, unless Pro is mistakenly referring to 'Man Bat', an actual foe of Batman in the DC Universe One must therefore go with Superman, since 'Bat Man' is not a real thing.