In the world of Geekdom, there are an endless amount of debates that aren’t really debates at all, yet they still pop up from time to time, usually when alcohol is involved. A few examples include: Did Han shoot first? Was the Game of Thrones ending bad? Is Cobb awake at the end of Inception? The answer to all of these non-debates is a resounding “Yes”, but I’ll let you all argue about them over your craft beers while your girlfriends just want to go home. I, on the other hand, am here to discuss another non-debate that seems to have gained unnecessary traction over the years. One that I have found myself in the middle of on more occasions than I’d like to admit, alcohol or not. An argument that I have a very hard time believing is still even a thing. And that is, of course, the question of whether or not Batman is actually a “superhero.” This argument stems from the idea that in order to be a superhero, you need to be “super”. Meaning you must possess some sort of super abilities or powers. So, because Batman does not possess any of these things, he is not actually a “super” hero, and is, in fact, just your standard, not too special, “hero”. This is, of course, a made-up rule. It has never been a thing. However, NeckBeards within Geekdom have done their damnedest to use this “solid evidence” to denounce Batman as a superhero for years now. Well, NeckBeards, I pray to Zod that none of your favorite superheroes include Iron Man, The Punisher, Green Arrow, Black Widow, Star Lord, Nick Fury, Rorschach, War Machine, Hawkeye, and countless other non-powered super-heroes because…well… that would make no Zod damn sense, now would it?
The argument stems from the idea that because Batman does not possess any of these things, he is not actually a “super” hero, and is, in fact, just your standard, not too special, “hero”. This is, of course, a made-up rule.