Here's the stat that matters: Goku's clash with Beerus sent shockwaves across the universe and threatened the macrocosm, while Saitama's best confirmed feats are planetary. My opponent will lean on Saitama's gag strength having no ceiling, and that's fair, but a debate should use shown feats, not hypothetical infinite potential. Goku also brings Instant Transmission, energy attacks, and Ultra Instinct's automatic defense. Saitama hits hard, but he has never shown an answer to someone who can teleport, blast from range, and trade blows at universal scale. That's why Goku wins.

Imagine judging a fight by what a character could theoretically do rather than what they've shown. My opponent's core case is that Saitama's gag makes limits irrelevant, and I'll grant that's a clever point. But it's an unfalsifiable meta-claim, not a feat. Once you accept "whatever Goku does won't be enough" as an argument, no debate is possible. Meanwhile Goku's clash with Beerus threatened the macrocosm on screen, and he has Instant Transmission and Ultra Instinct. Saitama has never answered universal-scale output plus teleportation. Potential isn't a feat, and feats decide this.

The practical consequence of my opponent's rule is that the match can't be judged at all: if Saitama's ceiling always rises to whatever he faces, no feat or tactic could ever count against him. That's not a win condition, it's a shield from evidence. I'll concede he no-sells planetary hits and grows when pushed. But Goku's on-screen clash threatened the macrocosm, and Instant Transmission plus Ultra Instinct means Saitama has to land a hit on a teleporting target while surviving universal-scale output. Saitama has never shown that. Feats decide this, and Goku's are bigger.