Why do we spend so much time speculating about who would win in a fight? Mostly it’s a cherished pastime of super hero fandom, but I’ve seen “Who would win?” arguments pitching Samurai vs. Knights, Caesar Vs. Napoleon, Mr. Darcy Vs. Heathcliff (okay I never saw that one but c’mon! Darcy, right?)
So, yeah, what is the point of this argument? It can never be proven, and the very basis of the argument is flawed, since in real life, fights are not ‘won.’ (Ask any cop, bouncer, or toddler. Fights don’t resolve, they dissolve. Either someone leaves, or a third party breaks it up, or it deescalates on its own. I’m sure I can find a statistic on this… oh here’s a study on bar fights! fun!)
I’ve been in a number of real fights. More than I’d like to mention. So maybe just trust me – there’s no such thing as ‘winning.’ In reality, fights are messy things and the only real way to win is to pull a War Games: don’t play.
So, back to the imaginary fights:
I was observing a “Who Would Win?” argument with what I hoped was a sociologist detachment (though clearly the debaters were grossly over-estimating Batman’s entire skill set) and it occurred to me that the real purpose of these arguments is two-fold.
- To establish the participant’s superior store of in-group knowledge. (AH! But if you’d read Action Comics #114 you would know…)
- To justify that the participant’s personal favorite of the two fictional combatants is, in fact, a better character/historical figure /whatever to be a fan of.
I tested my hypothesis by trying to argue against my personal favorite winning a fight, any fight, and finding this kinda… hard.
Yes, Green Lantern is crazy powerful. But Captain America can still take him! Somehow… maybe.
(Yeah, no. Sorry Caps. The Lantern is the OG of OP. But I know that Caps would quickly deescalate the fight using his leadership and persuasion skills, so who is the real winner?)
I digress. This got me thinking about less delightful fictional arguments.
When I was in the SCA, a big common topic was France vs. Germany. I frequently found myself defending France against charges of being “surrender monkeys.”
And… the exceedingly warlike history of France aside, JESUS CTHULU, these guys were arguing that Germany was a better country because they aggressively conquered their neighbors. My buddies were proudly defending Nazis. Intellectually. None of them would have admitted this outright. “No! Nazis are terrible. buuuuut… they did know how to fight.” There’s a crazy cognitive dissonance. No one questions “winning” as a positive trait.
I’ve studied enough history to know that in reality, France and Germany are a wash on warmongering. They have both perpetrated horrors and stolen land and subjugated people. That’s beside the point. The point is: Why the FUCK would being more violent make you better? Who the FUCK wants to identify themselves with the side that ‘kicks the most ass’? FUCK THAT. Those asses are attached to real people.
I don’t remember who first said that the measure of a society is how well it treats its poor and its vulnerable. THAT is the fucking argument I want to have. Who would care for the poor better, Green Lantern or Captain America?
by 
by 
