Is Goku vs Thor just a matter of whos the better debater?

In this case, it doesn't matter how good the debaters are, they're both wrong for trying to compare a composite "Thor" drawn from hundreds of incompatible stories with a character from yet another incompatible story in terms of something as inconsequential as the strength of a fictional character, a thing which is impossible to assess directly because it is inconsistent, constantly modified by the capricious forces that solidify the abstract snapshots that are panels. These forces are precisely the point; whatever happens on the page must serve the intent of the writer. But there's no intent to speak of (which is made possible by: the big two's basing their perverse business model on the possessiveness of ideas such as characters, which also must be tools of the intent, and have no artistic value on their own, which is why it is so easy for a duplopoly that owns them to languish in mediocrity, as we have seen; and the inertia of their overgrown "canons"), so comic fans are reduced to arguing useless trivia.