The other side's case leans on Goku's best feats, but that's exactly the wrong way to read Saitama. Goku's power is impressive but defined by limits, scaling, and effort. Saitama's entire premise is that no opponent has ever pushed him, so there's no ceiling to compare against. If Goku needs a hard fight to reach his peak, Saitama just doesn't give him that fight. My opponent can list transformations all day, but you can't beat a character whose whole point is ending the match in one punch.

Fair enough that Goku has more on-screen tools and a wider feat list. But feats only tell you what a character did against opponents who could be measured. Saitama's whole design is that he ends fights before effort, damage, or escalation matter, and that's not a random power-up Goku can out-scale. My opponent says a debate needs demonstrated feats, yet this matchup puts Goku in a story that resolves in one punch. Goku's best chance is dragging it into a long, escalating brawl, and Saitama's premise is specifically that he never gets one. That's why I still say no.

The other side keeps treating this like a stat sheet, but that misses the whole framework. Goku's entire track record is built on getting beaten down, learning, and climbing back. That's his engine. Saitama's engine is that the climb never happens because the fight is already over. My opponent concedes the ceiling is undefined, then still wants me to measure it. You can't. Imagine a fighter who's only ever won by decision being asked to outlast someone who's never been past the first round. The tools don't matter if the fight never gets the length Goku needs. Still against.