Resolved: In a fight, Darth Vader would easily vanquish Superman.

As a reminder (however unnecessary), this will be my last round in this debate. I will first refute my opponent's most recent rebuttal and then follow up by explaining why the affirmative side won today's debate. First, my opponent states that my arguments are brilliant and well-thought out. One may assume that this is the sign of a concession to them, but I would just like to point this out as a primary observation. I would also like to point out that my opponent does not address my arguments. Next, my opponent claims that because good always Triumphs over evil, Vader would no doubt lose to Superman. Keep in mind that this conflicts with his earlier claim that Vader has a chance of defeating Superman. To address the claim itself, I would agree that this is ultimately true in films; good does typically triumph over evil. However, one thing my opponent failed to include was that good triumphed over evil at the very END of the STORY. Keywords: End and story. This is not a story; this is a debate concerning whether or not Darth Vader could easily beat Superman. Secondly, evil has beaten good in the films. One crucial observation that we must acknowledge is that evil just doesn't manage to triumph in the end. As I recall, Luthor has bested Superman multiple times in the films. However, Luthor never manages to best Superman in the end. The same applies for the SW universe. All of the villains have had their respective victories (in fact, they had more victories than the heroes), but it was the heroes who always triumphed in the end of the story. With that said, even if this were to be acknowledged as a story, who is to say that this doesn't concern Vader and Superman's initial meeting? To build tension in the story, shouldn't Vader be the one to win first. Another problem with my opponent's good/evil argument is that Superman does not represent all of good. In fact, in Superman Returns, he received aid from other GOOD people when he was drowning in the ocean which Luthor and his thugs had tossed him in. In the first film, it was a GOOD woman who managed to remove the kryptonite shackles from Superman so that he could save the world. This is a match between Vader and Superman, so outside sources of good are certainly not going to be of aid. My opponent then claims that my understandings of Superman and Vader are no more valid than his. Usually, I would ask him to cite which claims I had made that were built upon my opinion rather than actual StarWars/Superman canon so that I may clarify. However, since this is the last round where I will be able to respond, there is no point to such a question. Rather, my claim will be that my points have been strictly based on the StarWars and Superman canon. Since the burden or proof belongs to my opponent for making that claim, I would ask him to prove that my responses are summed up as my opinion of Vader and Superman rather than what I factually know about the two. I would also like to audience to notice that this would be a concession (on my opponent's part) to having given opinions; since he is insinuating that the analysis which I had projected is based on merely my opinion of the characters, this would suggest that he believes his analysis to merely be opinion as well (since he claims are points to be no lesser or greater). My opponent commits Ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion) by claiming that the fight simply wouldn't happen as audiences wouldn't be interested. One must keep in mind that whether or not this is true, it has nothing to do with the topic of whether or not Vader would be able to easily defeat Superman in a fight. My opponent claims that my argument concerning Vader's mind trick abilities is ridiculous, but does not present a premise to support this. My opponent claims that Superman is stronger, faster, and smarter than Vader, but once again presents no premise to support this claim. Not to mention that I had previously presented arguments that would suggest otherwise (excluding the matter or intelligence). One more point to note concerning a commenter: In the comics, it has been made clear that Superman is vulnerable to magic, kryptonite, and any force that exceeds his (hence how he was killed by a non magic/krptonite being known as Doomsday during "The Death of Superman" story arc. Closing statements: I believe that my opponent and I have exhausted all avenues of the subject at hand. I maintain my position that "Darth Vader would easily vanquish Superman" is correct and that my opponent has failed to demonstrate how his position overcomes Vader's means of countering Superman's strength, speed, heat vision, invulnerability, and ice breath. In particular, he has yet to present an argument and/or counter argument concerning the above (not to mention the arguments I had provided arguments concerning Vader's precognition and mind tricks). For those reasons, the affirmative side wins today's debate. I would like to thank my opponent for giving me the honor of having a friendly debate with him on the subject and hope to debate with him again in the future. Good night.