Well, if he's able to control all metals, ferromagnetic or not, then surely it must have to do with the bandgap of the material, as that is really the only remaining difference between a metal and an insulator.

Lasers are the result of amplifying a specific light wavelength in a cavity and getting the waves to act together instead of at random with regular light. So Magneto could do that.

Lightning is possible, but it's a lot quicker to just hurl heavy objects around.

Wasn't Magneto depowered in M-Day anyways?

Super villian? You're waay off, he's a hero like no other, at least to homo superior...

And whatever about Marvel vs DC, what about Avengers vs Xmen?

@krellin - I only scarfed the "up up and away" part.

Yes, I'd be happy to be an impartial moderator.

Also I think the terms are good enough. The one specification I would add is that we need to decide whether the debate is going to be between:

1) You should be Christian/atheist and this is why, or
2) Christianity/atheism is true and the other false, because

They are slightly different debates and deciding that before it begins would be best.

#2 is more of the classic God-existence debate, #1 is more of life application.

Anyway if you guys think I could mod it, I'm down.

Iron Man for the win! Professor X has a God complex do-gooder attitude, but Tony Stark is the Batman of the Marvel universe without all the dark brooding.

Screw the theism/atheism debate. Let's talk comics!

Though I think we should start a new thread in which we kindly ask riff-raff not to post until the debate is played out.

In fact in order to keep people from peppering the thread with off-topic posts, we could have it so that I send the participants emails with the rules, send them their teammates emails, allow them to discuss, then they email me their statements, I email those out to the other team, etc. At the end I come here, start a thread, post the whole debate in a pretty format and people vote and comment.

Thoughts?

I suppose then that this thread should be used to hammer out debate parameters that I will enforce as a mod.

The "winner" is decided by +1 votes, no? So when we say neutral mod we mean like a total automaton? I can do that. lol

@Draug I always saw Black Panther as more the Batman of the Marvel Universe. Not sure where I'd fit Iron Man in DC. I just don't read as much DC as I do Marvel.

I say we debate Star Wars vs. Star Trek, Sith vs. Shadow(B5), Federation vs. Republic, DC vs. Marvel. Anything but the same old tired theism vs. atheism.

@krellin, so you would see no value in, say, moving half a billion people from Africa, so all those rhinos and whatnot could live peaceably? Or moving people out of the rainforests and onto newly-built tropical islands?

Also, you guys are missing the most important question of our time: could Magneto use his powers to control the One Ring. Or could it not control him? Maybe Tom Bombadil is Magneto.

Thucy, I like your format thinking, but do you think those questions relate well into a debate? I think most people would agree that in most circumstances the existence of God is beyond objective measurement; I am a Christian, and I think that. That's the nature of faith. Would it be easier to debate more quantifiable concepts? Someone mentioned a discussion of if religion/atheism/etc is a net good or bad for society; that might be easier to debate clearly.

But Black Panther uses drugs... Seriously, the herb he uses to enhance his senses. Tony Stark and BRuce Wayne are both normal men. Tony may be more brilliant than the average man and Bruce is a master of the Martial Arts, but the only thing non-human about Tony is his artificial heart and Bruce is just a man with a purpose.

@ckroberts -- People are more than capable of living in Africa without slaughtering the anuimal population. Maybe you should look at a map...just once...and see how BIG that CONTINENT is. the problem isn't people on teh continent. the problem is assholes killing animals for their tusks and hides and such, which would STILL HAPPEN if you relocated the population. And...when you relocate them, they'll just fuck up some other area. <sigh....> But why am I having this discussion with a delusional liberal that thinks man is a blight....probably believe man is a part of evolution (and therefore...GASP....natural....) but thinks man should be done away with....and yet, oddly, won't give up with fossil-fuel consuming computer...

Magneto could *affect* the One Ring, but not defeat it.

See but Stark's not really a detective, while T'Challa is. T'Challa is also a master of Martial Arts, Like Batman. Also, Batman doesn't really invent his own stuff, while Tony does.

True. I just don't like a superhero who takes drugs. Id' rather root for Popeye and his spinach.

That I can understand. It wasn't about who is better, just who was more like Batman. Also, Tony Stark one of the smartest people in the Marvel world.

Since you are very informed.. top 10 smartest people in the Marvel universe. I know Pym is number one. He's like the Scientist Supreme of the marvel universe.

Krellin, that is silly. First, I am not a liberal, although I do believe in evolution. I don't think man should be done away with. Africa is indeed big, but there are a billion people there. India is also very big, but I don't think anyone would deny that many Indians would like to move to a less crowded place. This is maybe the silliest question I or anyone else has ever asked, but why would Superman building a new continent for the poor or for people living close to endangered habitats/species be liberal? In fact it seems like that is just the sort of individual initiative that libertarian-leaning folks like me should favor.

"I think most people would agree that in most circumstances the existence of God is beyond objective measurement; I am a Christian, and I think that. That's the nature of faith. Would it be easier to debate more quantifiable concepts? Someone mentioned a discussion of if religion/atheism/etc is a net good or bad for society; that might be easier to debate clearly."

Well we can decide that here, I think. As a pure agnostic I have a lot to say on that topic that could help frame the debate.

For starters, there may in fact be people on either side who claim that they can know whether their belief is true, and it would I suppose be interesting to hear them attempt to prove that.

However as you rightly point out, most neutral and reasonable people would see such a debate as silly. But a far greater number of people seem to believe that they can objective establish that the chances of their belief being true are higher than equal with other options. So we could have that debate too.

But even if we all agree that those two debates are silly, there is more that can be said. Even if we agree that neither position can be proved or even suggested through objective measurement we can always set some parameters and go from there.

Let me explain what I mean. There are certain key "proofs" apologists of either side usually try to use to justify themselves. We could just focus on one of those areas within the context of the real physical world and have the debate.

Examples could be the validity of the theory of evolution, the veracity of the Bible, the truth or falsehood of an actual resurrection of Jesus, the true age of the universe, and so on. It can even be a bit more creative and even-handed than that if we like, with some ideas being:

1) This house believes that the implications of Big Bang theory imply a creator.
2) This house believes that the process of the birth of the universe all the way to the existence of humanity implies the aid of a supreme being

And so on.

That was the #2 I was talking about earlier but in terms of the "you should be ___" debate, there are many options there as well. You mentioned the net good or net bad on society question, which is interesting. There is also the net good/net bad on an individual person's well-being.

However I think, my opinion here, that the most interesting debate to most people of the category of people on Webdip is the question of how much of modern science is true, and what are the implications of the discoveries of modern science on the existence of God and trueness of the Christian religion?

There are many more, so if no one likes any of those we can keep formulating.

Most of my "well informed" comes from wiki searches. I hate to admit it. I've always been a fan of the Bat, but Iron Man is right up there along with Wolverine of the characters I like. Outside DC and Marvel, I have a fondness for Spawn, The Crow, and Darkchylde.

One last option, which quite frankly I enjoy the most, is just a free-style debate in which the objective is just to win and discredit the other side in whatever way you can, so each is free to take their own tacks to prove their own side is the better one, and free to rebut points made by the other, or simply discredit aspects of the other side that the other side would prefer to ignore.

Could be a lot more fun, wide-ranging, and interesting. It would involve a lot of strategy on the part of the debaters as well. That's the option I favor.

Thucydides, I think I understand what you mean. This is particularly interesting:

""the question of how much of modern science is true, and what are the implications of the discoveries of modern science on the existence of God and trueness of the Christian religion?""

because it raises so much room for disagreement both between and among adherents of the two sides.

I had this conversation with my Myths and legends class a couple of week's ago. They had Tony Stark pegged as King Arthur:

armored hero / flaw related to the heart/ gathers a group of similarly armored heros in the cause/ His computer persona inside the suit advises him in a role similar to Merlin/

Yeah that one is as close to a freestyle debate as there is I think it just has the stipulation that you have to involve science in your argument.

Not bad for a bunch of 11 year olds, I thought. We did an off the cuff analysis of The Avengers looking for archtypes they matched in Myths and legends.

Hey good people of comic books, we have created a thread for you to discuss to your hearts content :)

Or rather Celticfox has created a thread

threadID=882112

@ ckroberts

I don't erally see that as raising that much room for disagreement among atheists. It seems a generally held idea (among atheists) that theism retreats in the face of scientific discovery. Whereas there are a wide variety of approaches to the subject on the side of theism.