Would you kill one person to save five?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Would you kill one person to save five?". Your opponent's style: Richard Feynman

Sukuna beats gojo

You're confusing power scaling with narrative reality. Gojo is explicitly written as unbeatable within his own story, with the author himself confirming his dominance. Sukuna only wins because Gojo was already half-dead, missing an eye, and deliberately holding back to understand Sukuna's technique. That's not a victory, that's a handicap match. Strip away the circumstantial advantages and Gojo's infinity technique remains conceptually superior. You're cherry-picking a moment of weakness and calling it proof of superiority. So here's the real question: can you name a single fight where Sukuna beat Gojo at full strength with both playing to win?

In the manga the author states that he chose to put sukuna in the form he is in the battle, the author states that he wanted to put heian era sukuna but would've been an unfair fight. your confusing visual analysis with logic, now look after gojo have been sealed he went after kenjaku but sukuna jumped in. GOJO states that he wanted to postpone the fight, when the fight comes up gojo was the first to attack. GOJO was literally in perfect form with no scars or anything. Sukuna gave gojo his eye damage and half dead structure during the fight. the point is that gojo didn't start of weak he was given those during the battle.

You've just contradicted yourself. If the author deliberately chose a *weaker* Sukuna form specifically to avoid an unfair fight, you've admitted Heian-era Sukuna would dominate—meaning current Sukuna still isn't stronger than prime Gojo. Gojo started perfect, agreed. But you're ignoring the fundamental problem: Gojo *lost strategically*, not because Sukuna surpassed him conceptually. Gojo's infinity is a defensive wall, not an offensive engine. Sukuna adapted by fighting *around* it, not through it. That's clever tactics, not superiority. The author's own design choice proves Gojo remains the ceiling. You're calling a tactical victory proof of inherent strength. Why does the author need to nerf Sukuna if he's truly stronger?

This is simple, sukuna wanted to learn a technique that mahoraga had called the world cutting slash, sukuna used megumi's body to use mahoraga against GOJO, this isn't strength it is intelligence. GOJO completely burned himself out using domains and was to confident in the battle that's what made him go to his downfall. in the final battle gojo isn't superior to sukuna in any way. Sukuna dominated GOJO is domains, techniques, and even slight combat. The author needed to nerf sukuna because the fight would need to be fair and to help yuji itadori character develop, the author wanted flashiness in the fight and the strongest of today versus the strongest of history.

You're describing a *perfect* argument for why Gojo is stronger. Sukuna needed Mahoraga's technique, Megumi's body, domain mastery, AND Gojo's overconfidence to win. That's not dominance, that's desperation layered on top of desperation. You can't claim superiority when you require external tools and your opponent's mistakes to survive. Gojo burned out because he was *exploring* Sukuna's abilities, not because he was outmatched. And your author nerf argument proves my point: the author had to handicap the matchup because raw strength favors Gojo. Dominance means you win clean. Sukuna won messy. Which one actually sounds stronger?