The Instigator
Speedrace
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
omar2345
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Is Thanos The Best Marvel Cinematic Universe Villian So Far?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/24/2019 Category: Movies
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,577 times Debate No: 120475
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (47)
Votes (0)

 

Speedrace

Pro

I will be arguing that Thanos is the best Marvel Cinematic Universe villain so far. The burden of proof is on both of us.

Round one is NOT an acceptance round. Please start your argument as soon as you accept.

Please only use the movies as sources, We are not discussing Marvel Comics but specifically the Marvel Movies.

Have fun!
omar2345

Con

Since Pro has left the debate open I can decide what I mean by best and I will gladly take that.

Killmonger is my choice which is a villain from Black Panther.

Argument 1:
When I think of movies with the best villain I remind myself about the Joker. I see him portrayed him well with Heath Ledger and through writing by Christopher Nolan which forces Batman to rethink his morals. What he considers right or wrong. Should he kill the Joker in order to save countless other lives? But wouldn't that break one of Batman's rules. Don't kill? That question gave the viewer something to think about. With Killmonger Michael B Jordan acted really well and his message came across well in the movie. Killmonger gave T'challa questions that made him realise the bad things his own family have done. T'challa's father murdered Killmonger's father and Killmonger lived with a single parent. The villain attacked the core values of what the main character had about the way he perceives Wakanda and its dated traditions.

Argument 2:
Killmonger is relatable. Art is made because of the society around it and in some cases does a really good job at portraying society through a different way. Sure there are massive innovations and an invisible city but if you remove that. Killmonger grew up in a single parent household by no fault of his own and was left angry because of it. In the United States black children are in some cases are raised by single mothers and they can relate to this. The anger can be justified by both Killmonger and the child who were born in a single parent households.

Argument 3:
Killmonger and T'challa were evenly matched. When we see their first encounter when T'challa was dropped into the river and Killmonger became the king of Wakanda. We saw a close fight where Killmonger won. Killmonger had the advantage without the innovations whereas T'challa shined with his knowledge of Wakanda. He used the Vibranium mine crate to disrupt Killmonger's suit abilities and win the fight, If it was based on hand to hand combat Killmonger would have won but with the added knowledge T'challa has due to the environment he was brought in. It gave him the win. Even though I say Killmonger would win in a hand to hand combat situation it would still be a tough fight for Killmonger and wit T'challa's superior knowledge T'challa might win depending on the environment they are in.

I'll leave it at that. Now I will focus on Thanos being a bad villain.

Argument 1:
Thanos is not relatable. Even if we boil him down no one in their lifetime will see the extinction of their race and we have to see it in order to relate to that. I don't think anyone can and lets bring in the infinity gauntlet. It is called infinity for a reason yet Thanos is too st*pid to realise he can ask for infinite knowledge in order to find the best solution to over-population. His thought was to remove half the population of the universe. Even I can think of a better solution but guess I am not Thanos. Why not instead of removing half the population? Double the amount of resources? Lets take humans. Double land size, Double water supplies, Double animals to eat and double plants. That wasn't too difficult for me to find out yet Thanos cannot even think about that. Lets say he did pick that why would the Avengers decide to stop him? They wouldn't due to Thanos simply adding more resources for people to have instead of outright removing people from the population. Which basically meant there would be no reason for him to be considered a villain and the Infinity War movie would not exist yet we had to have an id*ot yielding the gauntlet in order to have a movie about it.

Argument 2:
No one comes close to his power. Having the infinity gauntlet requires someone to have the same in order for it to be evenly matched since I highly doubt something compares to an infinity gauntlet. This power difference can be easily seen earlier on where he pretty much destroyed Hulk and he became a b*tch and required a hulk-buster suit to even do anything in the duration of the movie. This is bad because Hulk is one of the most powerful MCU characters yet Thanos just destroys him. Later on in the movie when Thor improved himself with the axe. He still required a surprise attack to even stand a chance. An axe is limited whereas the infinity gauntlet is capable of anything that the person desires. This can be easily seen with Thanos just simply clicking his fingers to remove the damage the axe left while also teleporting away.

I can think of others but I think that I have written enough.

Hopefully we both learn something new.
Debate Round No. 1
Speedrace

Pro

Killmonger was a great choice by the way!

I will start by rejecting my opponent's first argument as to what constitutes a good villain. He simply compares it to the Joker. I will say that a villain is good if he/she is original (as one quality of a good villain, Not the only one).

First of all, Thanos' goal is not original, As I'm sure my opponent will point out, But he is unlike anyone who we have tried to see reduce the population before. This is simply because he never tried to choose who would survive the Snappening or who did not. He did not direct it only to criminals, Or superheroes, Or any other demographic. This is something original that has not happened much before.

Killmonger's goal is not even close to original. We have seen multiple people have the same goal as he does, Like Nat Turner.

"Killmonger and T'challa were evenly matched. "

This is not a good reason to say that a villain is good. Over the years, We have seen the Avengers and their superhero compatriots get more and more powerful, Fighting bad guy after bad guy. It would be boring to see just another basic villain that they are evenly matched with, Because they have been evenly matched with every other villain so far! AKA, Captain America with The Winter Soldier or Ant-Man with Yellowjacket.

Thanos offers a refreshing challenge that we have never seen before. Killmonger does not.

"Thanos is not relatable. Even if we boil him down no one in their lifetime will see the extinction of their race and we have to see it in order to relate to that. I don't think anyone can and lets bring in the infinity gauntlet. It is called infinity for a reason yet Thanos is too st*pid to realise he can ask for infinite knowledge in order to find the best solution to over-population. "

Thanos may not be relatable, But this makes him unique. We have heard Killmonger's story time and time again, And Thanos' is different. Uniqueness most certainly earns him points.

Also, Thanos cannot simply "ask for infinite knowledge, " because that is not how the Infinity Stones work. There is not a cosmic being behind the stones granting wishes. I resent this claim.


"Why not instead of removing half the population? Double the amount of resources? Lets take humans. Double land size, Double water supplies, Double animals to eat and double plants. That wasn't too difficult for me to find out yet Thanos cannot even think about that. Lets say he did pick that why would the Avengers decide to stop him? They wouldn't due to Thanos simply adding more resources for people to have instead of outright removing people from the population. Which basically meant there would be no reason for him to be considered a villain and the Infinity War movie would not exist yet we had to have an id*ot yielding the gauntlet in order to have a movie about it. "

You are clearly not versed in the movie. Thanos specifically says in the movie that before his own planet was destroyed, He went to his elders and suggested that they randomly kill half of the planet's population. They rejected his plan, And his planet was later destroyed. This essentially proved to HIM that if they had done his plan, His planet wouldn't have been destroyed. So, He is essentially trying to prove to himself that he was right, And save the universe, Even though he couldn't save his own planet.

That is his reasoning, And the viewers do not have agree with it for him to be a good villain. You yourself used the Joker as an example, Yet NO ONE agrees with his motives.

And what is Killmonger's motivation? He's black and he must save his people from the white man. I'm not being racist here (because I'm black) but this motive is not even close to original. Just because it is relatable does not mean it makes him a good villain. Thanos' logic and motives is totally new, Which largely helps to make him a good villain.

"No one comes close to his power. Having the infinity gauntlet requires someone to have the same in order for it to be evenly matched since I highly doubt something compares to an infinity gauntlet. This power difference can be easily seen earlier on where he pretty much destroyed Hulk. . . This is bad because Hulk is one of the most powerful MCU characters yet Thanos just destroys him. Later on in the movie when Thor improved himself with the axe. He still required a surprise attack to even stand a chance. An axe is limited whereas the infinity gauntlet is capable of anything that the person desires. This can be easily seen with Thanos just simply clicking his fingers to remove the damage the axe left while also teleporting away. "

Thank you for making my point for me! First of all, Any Marvel fan knows that Captain Marvel will be able to stand up to the power levels of Thanos, But that's beside the point. Let's start with your Hulk example. Hulk is known for always beating up the bad guy, And we don't need repetitiveness! This is the first time when we have met a villain that can match up to and beat Hulk. Could Killmonger do that? Absolutely not.

The power levels of Thanos are what give him his uniqueness, And ultimately make him a great villain. While Killmonger is great (I'm black, I can't say he isn't), He is not unique by any means.

Back to you!
omar2345

Con

This is simply because he never tried to choose who would survive the Snappening or who did not. He did not direct it only to criminals, Or superheroes, Or any other demographic. This is something original that has not happened much before.
How is this a good thing? Thanos has the power to snap his finger and remove everyone he deems bad yet he allows good people to die? If you liked Thanos you should also like Ultron. Ultron did not direct his destruction to criminals, Superheroes or any other demographic instead wanted to make humans extinct.

It would be boring to see just another basic villain that they are evenly matched with, Because they have been evenly matched with every other villain so far!
Ultron evenly matched? It required Thor's hammer, Iron man's two hand power beam and vision power beam also. If they were evenly matched then they would have required all the team to take down Ultron instead it took three while Scarlet Witch finishes it off at the end.

Uniqueness most certainly earns him points.
You haven't told me how he is unique?

There is not a cosmic being behind the stones granting wishes. I resent this claim.
A quick Google search would have proved you wrong. It is called an infinity gauntlet because it can do what the person wishes. Direct from the Marvel wiki was this "When used in combination their already impressive powers make the wearer able to do anything they want. "
Source: Infinity Gauntlet - Marvel Fandom


You are clearly not versed in the movie. Thanos specifically says in the movie that before his own planet was destroyed, He went to his elders and suggested that they randomly kill half of the planet's population. They rejected his plan, And his planet was later destroyed. This essentially proved to HIM that if they had done his plan, His planet wouldn't have been destroyed. So, He is essentially trying to prove to himself that he was right, And save the universe, Even though he couldn't save his own planet.
This is case for me for how st*pid Thanos can be. Instead of finding a way to make a much better outcome instead of killing half the population he instead allows his people die out due to his awful ideas. Roams around the galaxy dead set on his awful idea. I am supposed to believe that in that time he did not reconsider his plans? That is insane. The infinity gauntlet allows the user to do what he wants yet he picked a bad option. Nothing you stated says doubling resources is a bad option instead you say since Thanos is too st*upid to realise his idea was bad which led to making this movie what it is.

And the viewers do not have agree with it for him to be a good villain. You yourself used the Joker as an example, Yet NO ONE agrees with his motives.
The question with the Joker is can he make Batman break his core values? The question with Thanos is who is he going to beat up to get the infinity stones?

And what is Killmonger's motivation? He's black and he must save his people from the white man. I'm not being racist here (because I'm black) but this motive is not even close to original.
What original? You haven't even stated what the original is yet I am supposed to know how Killmonger originated as if it is common knowledge. When you called me out for my lack of knowledge of Infinity War (even though my points could only be made if I have watched it). I will call you out for your lack of knowledge of Black Panther and actually be correct about it. Killmonger's father died. He has a right to be angry and when they didn't even bring him back to Wakanda which meant he grew up in a single parent household. Meaning due to their traditions they killed his father leaving him fatherless and give him reasons to get revenge. His motives I am sure changed because he realises how bad black people have it across the world and wants to make a difference. He wanted to be the leader of Wakanda so that he can use his power to remove black inequality which is a lot better then doing nothing like what T'challa did when black people were poor.

Just because it is relatable does not mean it makes him a good villain. Thanos' logic and motives is totally new, Which largely helps to make him a good villain.
New? I would say if Ultron was able to be on many planets, Had the power Thanos had then the only difference would be that Thanos wanted to only murder half the population. Thanos is basically an upgraded Ultron. Thanos is not unique.

Thank you for making my point for me! First of all, Any Marvel fan knows that Captain Marvel will be able to stand up to the power levels of Thanos, But that's beside the point.
Are you sure? This makes no sense. One shoots yellow lasers whereas another yields the infinity gauntlet capable of anything he wants and I am supposed to believe they are evenly matched or the writer bit off more than he can chew with the gauntlet. Having infinite power means the reader can easily find ways to make most of the stories useless by just saying why didn't he click for infinite power? Why didn't he click for infinite knowledge? Infinity war turned out the way it did because how the writers wrote the characters. If Thanos was lets say an average human being. He would not be allowing his enemies to even have a chance against him yet I am supposed to believe a person capable of weilding the gauntlet doesn't even know how to use it or maybe he has become too deluded to even know how awful is plan is.

Let's start with your Hulk example. Hulk is known for always beating up the bad guy, And we don't need repetitiveness!
Ultron? Winter Soldier? My point is made and I doubt you find many examples of Hulk doing what he did to Loki because I can find three examples he wasn't. Ultron because he left on a ship. Winter Soldier because he was on holiday and Thanos who destroyed him.

This is the first time when we have met a villain that can match up to and beat Hulk.
It is not my fault Marvel made Hulk so powerful. Your argument doesn't makes sense. If Hulk and Thanos matched up well why did Hulk not even a stance a chance against him? Your argument should be that Hulk is weaker than Thanos.

Could Killmonger do that? Absolutely not.
How does the scale of the fight make it good? It only removes from what parts that can be added in order to improve how much meaning the fight has. If they are evenly matched. It would be contested for a while and where someone has an advantage they can use it. Also having a history does improve when meeting one another. If the stakes are not too high then it would feel grounded. When Thanos stops time and teleports away he is doing something we as humans cannot fathom. When T'challa and Killmonger were fighting for the throne they were not in their suits instead had weapons which were realistic. That provided a more grounded fight then having half the population destroyed. You can't relate to that and you can easily find ways in which Thanos can simply win all the time yet he does not do it. If your assumption is right that Captain Marvel is as powerful as a person who is capable of anything then why doesn't he remove her from existence? If Thanos does not know about her then he can click his fingers to realise who will pose a threat then remove them from existence but since we got a have a movie about it and the only way for this character to be milked for two movies and continue on the MCU is by Thanos being st*pid. I don't know if this is the case in the comics but if it is then I have a problem with Thanos not just his interpretation in the movie.
Debate Round No. 2
Speedrace

Pro


"How is this a good thing? Thanos has the power to snap his finger and remove everyone he deems bad yet he allows good people to die? If you liked Thanos you should also like Ultron. Ultron did not direct his destruction to criminals, Superheroes or any other demographic instead wanted to make humans extinct. "


I never said that it would be a GOOD, Thing, I said that it would be original, And originality is what makes a GOOD villain. Ultron was not original because plenty of robots before have had the same goal of human extinction. Thanos is nothing like that.

Original: not a copy or imitation.


"Ultron evenly matched? It required Thor's hammer, Iron man's two hand power beam and vision power beam also. If they were evenly matched then they would have required all the team to take down Ultron instead it took three while Scarlet Witch finishes it off at the end. "

You're just proving that Ultron was WEAKER than the Avengers, Which helps my point. In order to be original, We need a villain STRONGER than them.

Also, Vision finished him off, Not Scarlet Witch. -_-

"You haven't told me how he is unique? "

Yes, I did! I explained how he does not discriminate among those he tries to kill, Which is different than other mass murderers. That is UNIQUE.


"A quick Google search would have proved you wrong. It is called an infinity gauntlet because it can do what the person wishes. Direct from the Marvel wiki was this "When used in combination their already impressive powers make the wearer able to doanything they want. "
Source: Infinity Gauntlet - Marvel Fandom"

I was not wrong. I said there is not a cosmic being behind the infinity guantlet, Which IS true. Yes, It can do whatever the person wishes, But you cannot say that one "asks, " because that implies that there is a cosmic being behind the guantlet, And there is not.


"This is case for me for how st*pid Thanos can be. Instead of finding a way to make a much better outcome instead of killing half the population he instead allows his people die out due to his awful ideas. Roams around the galaxy dead set on his awful idea. I am supposed to believe that in that time he did not reconsider his plans? That is insane. The infinity gauntlet allows the user to do what he wants yet he picked a bad option. Nothing you stated says doubling resources is a bad option instead you say since Thanos is too st*upid to realise his idea was bad which led to making this movie what it is. "

Again, Just because you disagree with his motives does not mean that they don't make him a good villain. I said that they DO because they are ORIGINAL.

"The question with the Joker is can he make Batman break his core values? The question with Thanos is who is he going to beat up to get the infinity stones? "

So you're saying that you think it's ok for the Joker to kill people as long as he finally breaks Batman? No, But you still think he's a good villain. Likewise, Thanos can be a good villain regardless of whether you like his motives or not.

"What original? You haven't even stated what the original is yet I am supposed to know how Killmonger originated as if it is common knowledge. "

"Original" as in the adjective describing something that is not a copy or an imitation. I'm not talking about a noun.

"When you called me out for my lack of knowledge of Infinity War (even though my points could only be made if I have watched it). I will call you out for your lack of knowledge of Black Panther and actually be correct about it. Killmonger's father died. He has a right to be angry and when they didn't even bring him back to Wakanda which meant he grew up in a single parent household. Meaning due to their traditions they killed his father leaving him fatherless and give him reasons to get revenge. His motives I am sure changed because he realises how bad black people have it across the world and wants to make a difference. He wanted to be the leader of Wakanda so that he can use his power to remove black inequality which is a lot better then doing nothing like what T'challa did when black people were poor. "

That's literally what I said. I only explained his motive for being mad at the world, Not Wakanda, So I'm still versed in Black Panther. >:D

Also, Again, You're using what YOU would do as a deciding factor for whether he's a good villain or not, And that is not accurate.

"New? I would say if Ultron was able to be on many planets, Had the power Thanos had then the only difference would be that Thanos wanted to only murder half the population. Thanos is basically an upgraded Ultron. Thanos is not unique. "

I already explained above how Thanos IS unique, And is NOT like Ultron. Please read that part if you haven't already.

"Are you sure? This makes no sense. One shoots yellow lasers whereas another yields the infinity gauntlet capable of anything he wants and I am supposed to believe they are evenly matched or the writer bit off more than he can chew with the gauntlet. Having infinite power means the reader can easily find ways to make most of the stories useless by just saying why didn't he click for infinite power? Why didn't he click for infinite knowledge? Infinity war turned out the way it did because how the writers wrote the characters. If Thanos was lets say an average human being. He would not be allowing his enemies to even have a chance against him yet I am supposed to believe a person capable of weilding the gauntlet doesn't even know how to use it or maybe he has become too deluded to even know how awful is plan is. "

WOW. SHOOTS YELLOW LASERS? And you come here talking about being versed in Marvel culture. . . Captain Marvel has energy absorption powers SIR. Also, I never said that she'd be going up against him with just her regular powers. . . ;)

He can only get things that are within the gauntlet's range of power. Also, He didn't need either of those because he beat them just fine without it.

"Ultron? Winter Soldier? My point is made and I doubt you find many examples of Hulk doing what he did to Loki because I can find three examples he wasn't. Ultron because he left on a ship. Winter Soldier because he was on holiday and Thanos who destroyed him. "

He beat up Doctor Strange, Ghost Rider, Iron Man, Loki, Wolverine, Spider-Man, And The Thing, Just to name a few.

"It is not my fault Marvel made Hulk so powerful. Your argument doesn't makes sense. If Hulk and Thanos matched up well why did Hulk not even a stance a chance against him? Your argument should be that Hulk is weaker than Thanos. "

By match up to, I mean stand up to, I never said he was on the SAME power level. Hulk definitely is weaker than Thanos.

"How does the scale of the fight make it good? It only removes from what parts that can be added in order to improve how much meaning the fight has. If they are evenly matched. It would be contested for a while and where someone has an advantage they can use it. Also having a history does improve when meeting one another. If the stakes are not too high then it would feel grounded. When Thanos stops time and teleports away he is doing something we as humans cannot fathom. When T'challa and Killmonger were fighting for the throne they were not in their suits instead had weapons which were realistic. That provided a more grounded fight then having half the population destroyed. You can't relate to that and you can easily find ways in which Thanos can simply win all the time yet he does not do it. If your assumption is right that Captain Marvel is as powerful as a person who is capable of anything then why doesn't he remove her from existence? If Thanos does not know about her then he can click his fingers to realise who will pose a threat then remove them from existence but since we got a have a movie about it and the only way for this character to be milked for two movies and continue on the MCU is by Thanos being st*pid. I don't know if this is the case in the comics but if it is then I have a problem with Thanos not just his interpretation in the movie.

It is good because then the heroes have to struggle, Which isn't something they do often in a one on one fight. As I already said, Being relatable is not a good reason to say a villain is good or not. They must be ORIGINAL. And he doesn't remove her from existence because he doesn't know who she is yet. And maybe that is beyond the power level of the guantlet.
omar2345

Con

I never said that it would… that.
Let me remind everyone what this debate is about. "Is Thanos The Best Marvel Cinematic Universe Villain So Far? " Pro is really happy to conceding this point. Saying "I never said that it would be a Good, Thing" goes against what Pro should be doing yet he/she cannot even defend the stance he/she had.

You're just proving that Ultron was WEAKER than the Avengers, Which helps my point. In order to be original, We need a villain STRONGER than them.
How is being stronger original? That is like saying when Ultron was the strongest villain that made him the current original villain. Now that Thanos has been in the MCU now he is the most original. By the way I am also calling you out for using two definitions of original.
The first you gave to me with this: not a copy or imitation and another one which you so kindly shoved in as if it follows the definition "In order to be original, We need a villain STRONGER than them. ". So basically you have two different definitions of one word and expect me to understand what you are saying when you are being intellectually dishonest.

Also, Vision finished him off, Not Scarlet Witch. -_-
Another false statement made by Pro:
https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=4oizr1Pa_Ew
Remove spaces in order for the link to work.


Yes, I did! I explained how he does not discriminate among those he tries to kill, Which is different than other mass murderers. That is UNIQUE.
Do you even know what Ultron wanted? He wanted human extinction. No discrimination apart from human life. Thanos is doing the same. No discrimination apart from life across various planets. Thanos is basically an upgraded Ultron in terms of extinction. If you do not even know that then have you even watched age of Ultron?

I was not wrong. I said there is not a cosmic being behind the infinity guantlet, Which IS true. Yes, It can do whatever the person wishes, But you cannot say that one "asks, " because that implies that there is a cosmic being behind the guantlet, And there is not.
What are you even saying? My original claim was this: " It is called infinity for a reason yet" which should imply that whatever the person thinks is possible could be done using the gauntlet. Your rebuttal to my claim: "Also, Thanos cannot simply "ask for infinite knowledge, " because that is not how the Infinity Stones work. " which meant you did not know what you were talking about. I followed up with evidence with my rebuttal: "When used in combination their already impressive powers make the wearer able to do anything they want. -Source: Infinity Gauntlet - Marvel Fandom" So basically I was able to rebut his claims yet he thinks not having a cosmic being behind the wishes does anything. This does not even provide point to him/her. If it really did provide a point he/she would have explained what he/she meant instead states it as if it is common knowledge. Notice Pro if he/she read my response would have seen me using sources. What Pro could have done to provide his stance is to provide a source. It should have been in his/her mind he/she read it and surely if you are so confident in your position you would have evidence to support your claim. I await one and if Pro does not provide a source then his arguments are basically claims without evidence and explanation.

So you're saying that you think it's ok for the Joker to kill people as long as he finally breaks Batman?
What do I even think with this comment? Are you saying I advocate for people to be like the Joker? Or for part of his development it is okay to kill people? The first part is a no because remember we are talking about movies. Second part yes I do think to get to where he was in the Dark Knight he required to kill many people. Some could have not been killed but Joker does not discriminate with murder since he is as close as you can get to chaos with a human being.

No, But you still think he's a good villain. Likewise, Thanos can be a good villain regardless of whether you like his motives or not.
Yes, I do actually. The problem with what you said is that murder was never the most important part in the movie. It was if the Joker was able to beat Batman. Everyone knew beforehand that an Infinity War sequel was going to be released meaning of course he will gain all the infinity stones to make the infinity gauntlet which was reasonable to assume he was going to beat people up so my comment “who is he going to beat up to get the infinity stones? ”was correct. One they showed to the public there was going to be a part 1 and 2 and the Dark Knight did not have a public announcement about the Dark Knight having a part 2.

"Original" as in the adjective describing something that is not a copy or an imitation. I'm not talking about a noun.
Notice again no attempt made for why being original is a good thing.

Also, Again, You're using what YOU would do as a deciding factor for whether he's a good villain or not, And that is not accurate.
If I can provide holes in a plot you know they are doing something wrong because I am not even a movie critic or an avid movie watcher yet it was really easy to put two and two together. An infinity gauntlet is called infinity for a reason. I can realise how st*pid Thanos has to be to pick an option like that. Let’s say I take his motive of wanting to reduce over-population. How does preventing it until the population increase the same size as before fixing the problem? It isn’t instead every single time the population will grow too big he will just have to erase half of the universe again. Sure my solution does not fix it but at least people are not going extinct because of it.

I already explained above how Thanos IS unique, And is NOT like Ultron. Please read that part if you haven't already.
If what I remember was your argument. It is awful. Simply saying he is an upgraded Ultron makes your argument fall apart and you have yet to give a good enough rebuttal to that.

And you come here talking about being versed in Marvel culture. . . Captain Marvel has energy absorption powers SIR. Also, I never said that she'd be going up against him with just her regular powers
What is that going to do against Thanos clicking his fingers to make her extinct? Don’t tell me she is going to absorb that as well. Turns out I found a way that Thanos can easily kill her yet the MCU really made you believe it would be difficult or her energy absorption skill would work but it doesn’t if Thanos was not st*pid.

He can only get things that are within the gauntlet's range of power. Also, He didn't need either of those because he beat them just fine without it.
Another statement made with no evidence. I have allowed the Captain Marvel energy absorption one pass because I have found a way for Thanos win without it hitting her. This has got to be a joke. Gauntlet’s range of power? Are you making this up as you go along?

He beat up Doctor Strange, Ghost Rider, Iron Man, Loki, Wolverine, Spider-Man, And The Thing, Just to name a few.

What does that got to do with the MCU? Now you are using comic books when you specifically said this: “Please only use the movies as sources, We are not discussing Marvel Comics but specifically the Marvel Movies. ”Great job not following your own rules. I used the source which the movie was inspired by the comic books to find out the true power of the Infinity Gauntlet yet you are using Marvel Comic book fights that did not even occur in the movie. The gauntlet was in the movie. Ghost Rider, Wolverine and the Thing were not. I don’t really know how much worse your arguments can get.

By match up to, I mean stand up to, I never said he was on the SAME power level. Hulk definitely is weaker than Thanos.
Now you are arguing over semantics. Instead of defining the words here or when you made the claim you put the burden on me to find what you mean by defining the words you are using. I’ll give you the burden back. What is the difference between match up to and stand up to?

It is good because then the heroes have to struggle, Which isn't something they do often in a one on one fight.
Are you saying the Avengers do not often struggle in one on one fights? Have you even watched the movies? Was Black Widow struggling against Hulk in Avengers 1? Was Hulk and Thor not struggling against each other in Avengers 1? Was Hawkeye not struggling against the alien horde Loki brought in? Was Hulk and the Hulk buster struggling in Avengers Age of Ultron? I have got to say for someone to know Captain Marvel has energy absorption you don’t even know how many times the Avengers struggled in one on one fights. It also happened often by the way.

As I already said, Being relatable is not a good reason to say a villain is good or not.
When something becomes to unrealtable it takes away from what is going on. Killmonger is relatable and you can empathise even though he is a villain but with Thanos. He saw the destruction of his planet and did not even try and do better instead go on with his awful plan because the writers don’t even know how milk two movies out of this if Thanos was clever.

They must be ORIGINAL.
You arguments have been awful and your lack of explanation on why being original is a good thing is a testament of that. Firstly, Do tell me how Thanos is original and then tell me how this is a good thing.

And he doesn't remove her from existence because he doesn't know who she is yet. And maybe that is beyond the power level of the guantlet.
Assumptions made without any kind of evidence to support your theory. Mine is from what inspired the MCU to create Infinity War. They have not made it clear that the power of the movie gauntlet is reduced so basically you are filling the gap with conspiracy theories whereas I am using the source that MCU used to write the movie Infinity War.

Debate Round No. 3
Speedrace

Pro


"Let me remind everyone. . . He/she had. "


This is blatantly wrong. The topic is whether Thanos is the best MCU villain so far, Not if what Thanos did was good or not. I already said that the moral implications of Thanos' actions have nothing to do with this debate, And therefore are irrelevant.

"How is being stronger original? That is like saying when Ultron was the strongest villain that made him the current original villain. Now that Thanos has been in the MCU now he is the most original. "

"By the
way I am also calling you out for using two definitions of original. The first you gave to me with this: not a copy or imitation and another one which you so kindly shoved in as if it follows the definition 'in order to be original, We need a villain STRONGER than them. '"

What? When I said "In order to be original, " THAT IS THE SAME WORD AS THE ONE REFERENCED IN THE DEFINITION. I could reword it as "In order not to be a copy or an imitation, " and it would be the EXACT SAME THING. Where did you get this idea that it was two definitions? That's simply ignorant.

"Another false statement made by Pro: https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=4oizr1Pa_Ew
Remove spaces in order for the link to work. "


It was inaccessible. However, THIS is a video where Vision is obviously finishing off Ultron, Not Scarlet Witch. So no, The false statement was made by Con. Https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=Grldu9JT4Zc

"Do you even know what Ultron wanted? He wanted human extinction. No discrimination apart from human life. Thanos is doing the same. No discrimination apart from life across various planets. "

No, Thanos had no discrimination PERIOD. Ultron was only on humans, Which is still discrimination.

"What are you even saying? My original claim was this: " It is called infinity for a reason yet" which should imply that whatever the person thinks is possible could be done using the gauntlet. Your rebuttal to my claim: "Also, Thanos cannot simply "ask for infinite knowledge, " because that is not how the Infinity Stones work. " which meant you did not know what you were talking about. "

I was arguing semantics. I never said the Infinity Stones can't do anything, I simply said that one does not ASK for it, Because that implies that there is someone behind the gauntlet that one is ASKING. I was simply saying that instead of asking, One simply wills the gauntlet to do whatever action. Again, Simply semantics.

"Notice Pro if he/she read my response would have seen me using sources. What Pro could have done to provide his stance is to provide a source. It should have been in his/her mind he/she read it and surely if you are so confident in your position you would have evidence to support your claim. I await one and if Pro does not provide a source then his arguments are basically claims without evidence and explanation. "

I have explained the argument above more than once.

"What do I even think with this comment? Are you saying I advocate for people to be like the Joker? Or for part ofhisdevelopment it is okay to kill people? The first partisa no because remember we are talking about movies. Second part yes I do think to get to where he was in the Dark Knight he required to kill many people. Some could have not been killed but Joker does not discriminate with murder since he is as close as you can get to chaos with a human being. " Yes, I do actually. The problem with what you said is that murder was never the most importantpartin the movie. It was if the Joker was able to beat Batman. Everyone knew beforehand that an Infinity War sequel was going to be releasedmeaningof course he will gain all the infinity stones to make the infinity gauntlet which was reasonable to assume he was going to beat people up so my comment “who is he going to beat up to get the infinity stones? ”was correct. "

This was not what I was arguing. I said:

"That is [Thanos'] reasoning, And the viewers do not have agree with it for him to be a good villain. You yourself used the Joker as an example, Yet NO ONE agrees with his motives. "

You said:

"The question with the Joker is can he make Batman break his core values? The question with Thanos is who is he going to beat up to get the infinity stones? "

Then I said:

"So you're saying that you think it's ok for the Joker to kill people as long as he finally breaks Batman? No, But you still think he's a good villain. Likewise, Thanos can be a good villain regardless of whether you like his motives or not. "

I was using YOUR Joker example to show you that you do not have to like a villain's motives in order for him/her to be a good villain.


"Notice again no attempt made for why being original is a good thing. "

Again, Ignorance. Being original is good because it has never been seen before. This was implied when I said that being original is part of what makes an good villain.

"If I can provide holes in a plot you know they are doing something wrong because I am not even a movie critic or an avid movie watcher yet it was really easy to put two and two together. An infinity gauntlet is called infinity for a reason. Icanrealisehow st*pid Thanos has to be to pick an option like that. Let’s say I take his motive of wanting to reduce over-population. How does preventing it until thepopulationincreasethe same size as before fixing the problem? It isn’t instead every single time the population will grow too big he will just have to erase half of the universe again. Sure my solution does not fix it but at least people are not going extinct because of it. "

The debate is not "Are There Plot Holes In Infinity War? , " and it is not "Is Thanos Stupid? , " it is "Is Thanos The Best Marvel Cinematic Universe Villian So Far? " Please stop going off-topic.

"If what I remember was your argument. It is awful. Simply saying he is an upgraded Ultron makes your argument fall apart and you have yet to give a good enough rebuttal to that. "

I explained my argument above. I explained how he is not just "an upgraded Ultron. "

"What is that going to do against Thanos clicking his fingers to make her extinct? Don’t tell me she is going to absorb that as well. Turns out I found a way that Thanos can easily kill her yet the MCU really made you believe it would be difficult or her energy absorption skill would work but it doesn’t if Thanos was not st*pid. "

Again, I never said that it would just be her or her vanilla powers. However, This is off-topic so let's stop digressing.

"Another statement made with no evidence. I have allowed the Captain Marvel energy absorption one pass because I have found a way for Thanos win without it hitting her. This has got to be a joke. Gauntlet’s range of power? Are you making this up as you go along? "

You claimed that the infinity gauntlet can do anything. Are you making this up as you go?
It is simply common knowledge that it has to be within the gauntlet's range of power, Which may have been reduced in the movies.

"Now you are using comic books when you specifically said this: “Please only use the movies as sources, We are not discussing Marvel Comics but specifically the Marvel Movies. ”Great job not following your own rules. "

You used the Joker. Great job not following the rules.

Allow me to clarify. When arguing about your specific villain, You can only use the movies. Better?

"Now you are arguing over semantics. Instead of defining the words here or when you made the claim you put the burden on me to find what you mean by defining the words you are using. I’ll give you the burden back. What is the difference between match up to and stand up to? "

There is no difference. I simply restated it so it would be clearer for you.

"Are you saying the Avengers do not often struggle in one on one fights? Have you even watched the movies? Was Black Widow struggling against Hulk in Avengers 1? Was Hulk and Thor not struggling against each other in Avengers 1? Was Hawkeye not struggling against the alien horde Loki brought in? Was Hulk and the Hulk buster struggling in Avengers Age of Ultron? I have got to say for someone to know Captain Marvel has energy absorption you don’t even know how many times the Avengers struggled in one on one fights. It also happened often by the way. "

None of those are fights with villains, Which was what I was referring to. As to the Hawkeye example, That was not a one on one fight, Like I said.

"When something becomestounrealtable it takes away from what is going on. Killmonger is relatable and youcanempathise even though he is a villain but with Thanos. He saw the destruction of his planet and did not even try and do better instead go on with his awful plan because the writers don’t even know how milk two movies out of this if Thanos was clever. "

You said that the Joker was a good villain, But can you empathise with him? No.

Again, You are arguing against the writers instead of Thanos. Please stay on topic.

"You arguments have been awful and your lack of explanation on why being original is a good thing is a testament of that. Firstly, Do tell me how Thanos is original and then tell me how this is a good thing. "

I have said it multiple times. He is original because he does not discriminate among who he kills, And also because his motivation for doing so is one we have not seen before.

"Assumptions made without any kind of evidence to support your theory. "

I said "maybe, " I never said that it was true. And again, This is still not relevant to the topic.

"Mine is from what inspired the MCU to create Infinity War. They have not made it clear that the power of the movie gauntlet is reduced so basically you are filling the gap with conspiracy theories whereas I am using the source that MCU used to write the movie Infinity War. "

Again, First, I said "maybe, " and second, This is not relevant to the debate.

All you have proven so far is that you don't agree with the movie, Completely digressing from the topic.

omar2345

Con

I blame Pro for the way this debate turned out. He could have made the rules more clear while also telling me what I did in the following Round not in Round 4 which is the last Round.

This is blatantly wrong. The topic is whether Thanos is the best MCU villain so far, Not if what Thanos did was good or not. I already said that the moral implications of Thanos' actions have nothing to do with this debate, And therefore are irrelevant.
Everyone please do read what the title says. Realise if I give a villain which is better like Killmonger then Thanos ceases to be best. The moral implications can be avoided which is a reason why to dislike Thanos and does come into question if you are stating who is the best in the MCU.

What? When I said "In order to be original, " THAT IS THE SAME WORD AS THE ONE REFERENCED IN THE DEFINITION. I could reword it as "In order not to be a copy or an imitation, " and it would be the EXACT SAME THING. Where did you get this idea that it was two definitions? That's simply ignorant.
What Con does not understand is that there are many dictionaries and even in one have various definition. All Pro had to do is give a definition and state why that is a good thing. Pro has failed to do. Original does not make it inherently good or the best. A villain can be originally bad so being original is not always a good thing. The problem here is that he gave the definition of original yet when he used it was different to the definition. I would like people to read my Round 3 response to see that I have shown Pro using 2 different definitions.

It was inaccessible. However, THIS is a video where Vision is obviously finishing off Ultron, Not Scarlet Witch. So no, The false statement was made by Con. Https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=Grldu9JT4Zc
Found the clip since your link did not work and saw Vision destroy the last Ultron robot. I'll concede this point and bear in mind this doesn't actually help his point.

No, Thanos had no discrimination PERIOD. Ultron was only on humans, Which is still discrimination.
No he discriminated against life. He didn't destroy half the trees of half the buildings in the universe. He discriminated life. So basically Thanos is an upgraded Ultron.

I was arguing semantics. I never said the Infinity Stones can't do anything, I simply said that one does not ASK for it, Because that implies that there is someone behind the gauntlet that one is ASKING. I was simply saying that instead of asking, One simply wills the gauntlet to do whatever action. Again, Simply semantics.
Why did you even bother to write this? You were supposed to be defending why Thanos is the best villain and have yet to give a response which I haven't rebutted.

I have explained the argument above more than once.
I haven't found a single response apart from when you were correcting me that I liked.

This was not what I was arguing. I said:
"That is [Thanos'] reasoning, And the viewers do not have agree with it for him to be a good villain. You yourself used the Joker as an example, Yet NO ONE agrees with his motives. "
You said:

"The question with the Joker is can he make Batman break his core values? The question with Thanos is who is he going to beat up to get the infinity stones? "
Then I said:

"So you're saying that you think it's ok for the Joker to kill people as long as he finally breaks Batman? No, But you still think he's a good villain. Likewise, Thanos can be a good villain regardless of whether you like his motives or not. "
I was using YOUR Joker example to show you that you do not have to like a villain's motives in order for him/her to be a good villain.
If I don't like his motives why would I like the character? This question was obvious and left unanswered by Pro.

Again, Ignorance. Being original is good because it has never been seen before. This was implied when I said that being original is part of what makes an good villain.
Pro is clearly missing out Thanos shares similarities to Ultron only that Ultron was weaker and Thanos was capable of doing what he wants. Thanos wanted to erase half the universe but I am sure Ultron wanted to destroy all life in the Universe if he was capable of it.

The debate is not "Are There Plot Holes In Infinity War? , " and it is not "Is Thanos Stupid? , " it is "Is Thanos The Best Marvel Cinematic Universe Villain So Far? " Please stop going off-topic.
Do tell me this in Round 4 which is the last Round. I really don't appreciated it. Him being st*pid and being written too powerful for his own good is reasons why to dislike the character and why I chose Killmonger as the best MCU villain. If Pro wanted to make clear what was on the table to argue he/she would have said so in Round 1 but didn't and left it open.

I explained my argument above. I explained how he is not just "an upgraded Ultron. "
Didn't give a good enough rebuttal and fails to do so here instead gives up.

Again, I never said that it would just be her or her vanilla powers. However, This is off-topic so let's stop digressing.
I shown enough time Thanos is worse than Killmonger. Thanos is too powerful for his own good. He can simply remove all life that threatens his existence but doesn't.

You claimed that the infinity gauntlet can do anything. Are you making this up as you go?
It is simply common knowledge that it has to be within the gauntlet's range of power, Which may have been reduced in the movies.
I would like everyone to notice he/she did not give a source instead gave his/her word. I gave a source to the power of the infinity gauntlet yet Pro cannot even manage to back up his claims with evidence.

You used the Joker. Great job not following the rules.
Allow me to clarify. When arguing about your specific villain, You can only use the movies. Better?
I really don't appreciate you telling me this in Round 4 which is the last Round. If you said it sooner I could have changed my arguments. Bringing in the Joker is not a problem because it was my example. I used him to show what makes a good villain and compared it to Killmonger. You used comic book fights not as a comparison instead using as evidence for your side even though you stated you only wanted it to be about the movies.

There is no difference. I simply restated it so it would be clearer for you.
So basically Pro did not even make a point here instead states both to be the same words which I don't see how he/she made that clear.

None of those are fights with villains, Which was what I was referring to. As to the Hawkeye example, That was not a one on one fight, Like I said.
No effort made to say why fighting a villain is better or maybe use it to improve his/her stance on this debate.

You said that the Joker was a good villain, But can you empathise with him? No.
What Pro does not realise is that villain can be good in different way. When I was speaking about empathising it wasn't me using the Joker as an example instead was specifically stating why Killmonger is a good villain because you can empathise.

Again, You are arguing against the writers instead of Thanos. Please stay on topic.
The writers made Thanos who he is. Thanos wouldn't be a thing in the MCU without writers so I can question the writers milking the movie in to two movies. Since we have seen most of the heroes die in the first one. It is up to the writers to fill that in with the characters involved. Either they barely use Thanos or they use him. Given how many characters are left I think they are going to overuse him.

I have said it multiple times. He is original because he does not discriminate among who he kills, And also because his motivation for doing so is one we have not seen before.
Thanos discriminates against life. Ultron discriminates against life. Not original if he is just an upgrade Ultron.

I said "maybe, " I never said that it was true. And again, This is still not relevant to the topic.
Why did you even say it then? Question not fulfilled by Pro in his/her Round.

All you have proven so far is that you don't agree with the movie, Completely digressing from the topic.
Doesn't realise how bad his arguments are and states I went off topic. He should have gave better arguments and realised when I rebutted his argument sufficiently. Oh well.
Debate Round No. 4
47 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@Speedrace

All I saw in that debate was woeful arguments. You can't defend it yet you still stand by it. You are clearly in denial. Good luck with that.
Posted by Speedrace 3 years ago
Speedrace
I'm not getting into another debate with you. It's over.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@Speedrace

I also stand by Thanos not being different to other villains. Thanos is basically Ultron upgraded.
If you are so high on non-discrimination. Both discriminated okay. One had more power to commit to his discrimination and the other was not capable of doing the little he could. Don't lie to me and say Thanos did not discriminate.
Posted by Speedrace 3 years ago
Speedrace
I did not say THE ORIGINAL as in a noun, I said ORIGINAL as in AN ADJECTIVE. I'm not talking about previous iterations of Thanos, I'm talking about being DIFFERENT from OTHER VILLAINS.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@Speedrace

"In order to be original, We need a villain STRONGER than them. "
"In order not be a copy or imitation, We need a villain STRONGER than them. "
That makes no sense.
If Ultron had the infinity gauntlet wouldn't he still be Ultron? Meaning even though he had a power boost he is still Ultron. So basically you have no argument and power is not something that makes someone not a copy of the original. Thanos with the infinity gauntlet is a copy of Thanos before gaining it. Tell me how I am not correct.
Posted by Speedrace 3 years ago
Speedrace
I literally copied and pasted the definition of "original" into my argument.

"In order to be original, We need a villain STRONGER than them. "
"In order not be a copy or imitation, We need a villain STRONGER than them. "

Those both mean LITERALLY the same thing. Stop being ignorant.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@Speedrace
"I LITERALLY put the DEFINITION INTO MY ARGUMENT.
Please don't accept my debates anymore. "
Says this when he/she used in this way: "In order to be original, We need a villain STRONGER than them. "
Now he pretty much says in order to be orginial you must be stronger than the rest which isn't how he defined it which was "not a copy or imitation. "
There is no direct link between being strong and not being a copy so you had to explain the link but you didn't.

Live in denial Speedrace. Don't let me stop you.
Posted by Speedrace 3 years ago
Speedrace
I LITERALLY put the DEFINITION INTO MY ARGUMENT.

Please don't accept my debates anymore.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
I added ellipsis because I ran out of space.
Posted by Speedrace 3 years ago
Speedrace
@omar2345

EXCUSE ME, YOU MISREAD WHAT I SAID SIR

Tryna tell ME I don't know the powers of the gauntlet

Also, You just made my point AGAIN. You said that the audience is left SUPRISED. That means that the story was original, Which makes it better. :D
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.