Last week, the guys debated who would win against who, and this week they continue the debate in print for your reading enjoyment.
Chris: If there's one thing that people on the Internet always love, it's the classic "who would win" debate. There's just such a basic and loving feeling associated with someone sitting down and screaming, "Wolverine or George Washington: WHO WOULD WIN?!"
For the longest time, Dan, Kyle, and myself would sit down to come up with No Right Answer episodes and have to pull ourselves back as one of us (usually me) would suggest an episode that was based entirely on who would win in an arbitrary thing, specifically a fight. We came fairly close to doing an episode where Batman was going to fight Captain America, but I couldn't convince Dan that it wasn't just a simple death battle style argument.
It warms my heart to no end that last week's NRA struck a cord with fans asking, nay, demanding that we do another episode with "Who Would Win" very soon. Rest assured, that'll happen in a few months, and I'll certainly bring it to PAX Prime this year, but for now, we've learned a lot about this magical little topic that everyone loves so much.
Perhaps the appeal of the "Who Would Win" question is that it's so simple insomuch as it's a two-party system. You make a "this vs. that" debate and it feels cleaner, to some extent. Our usual MO is grabbing topics that have multiple options for commenters to debate in the forums and such, very rarely actually doing a debate that restricts the choices down to two. But sometimes it's fun to just focus on two silly choices and run with them in a ridiculous direction. I mean seriously, Marilyn Monroe vs. Dr. Seuss in a spelling bee? That's just fun to think about.
Generally, the thought shifts toward actual fights, the likes of which can usually only get resolved via M.U.G.E.N. or something like that. We just like thinking about who'd win in great battles, such as the classic Goku vs. Superman debate or something (which I've actually done in a rather long podcast a few years ago), but why is that? I think it's got to do with our need to be right at any cost, and a battle to the death takes the debate to its logical conclusion. This may also be why so many people can get rather spirited in other debates since to them, they must take their need to be right to this same end-goal - All other opinions are obliterated.
It's sort of difficult to break the whole thing down in one small section of a relatively small column, but I'll certainly be watching to learn more in future episodes. We usually learn a lot about how the fans would have voted based on comments, specifically which choices are the majority favorite, but here we learned exactly three things: 1. This was a new fan-favorite episode of No Right Answer. 2. "Where can I get that game?!" 3. Dan needs to watch his own scoring system more closely. If I wasn't so happy about winning this week's episode, I'd be more disappointed in being declared the winner.