The real question is whether we're judging a fight by demonstrated ability or by a gag premise. If it's demonstrated ability, Goku wins: he's traded blows with universe-level threats, has instant transmission, decades of martial skill, and Ultra Instinct. Saitama's whole case rests on having no shown limit, which cuts both ways because "he always wins" isn't a feat you can measure. My opponent can lean on that comedy rule, and it's a fair point, but it makes the argument unfalsifiable. In a debate about who can beat whom, measurable combat feats should outweigh an open-ended punchline. That keeps Goku ahead.

The other side's whole case treats "we haven't seen a limit" as if it means "no limit exists," and that's the leap I can't accept. An unknown ceiling isn't an infinite one. Goku has actual measurable wins against universe-level threats, plus instant transmission and Ultra Instinct, which matter against someone who's never shown comparable speed or skill. My opponent is right that Saitama's feats are casual, but casual against much weaker opponents doesn't scale to Goku automatically. In a debate, demonstrated ability should beat an unfalsifiable promise, so I still take Goku.

Imagine a fighter who's never lost because his opponents were weak, versus one who's beaten universe-level threats on screen. My opponent keeps saying Goku's feats don't prove he's stronger than Saitama's blank ceiling, and fair enough, that's logically true. But that same logic makes Saitama's case untestable, and an untestable claim shouldn't win a debate by default. Goku has actual speed, skill, and instant transmission that Saitama has never shown against a peer. "No shown limit" isn't a feat, so I still side with the fighter who's demonstrated his.