Confusing “More Powerful” with “Better.”
A character’s power level is not equivalent to that character’s worth. For example, Green Lantern is technically a more powerful character than Batman. Heck, the Flash is more powerful than Batman. Does that make either of them better than Batman? No.
I’ve gotten into a lot of debates over why one character is subjectively better than another (because I’m a glutton for punishment, you see), and a lot of times, when I ask why the other person feels the way they do, the answer is typically “because [insert character] is more powerful.”
What. Does. That. Prove?
Horses are more powerful than house cats. Does that mean we automatically should like Palomino’s more than Calico’s? That may have been an odd analogy, but still, the point is, if we were supposed to prefer characters on the sole basis of their power levels, than there would only be, like, seven characters anyone ever cared about. That’s boring.
And that’s not to say that we can’t like a character because of their abilities/power level/whatever. By all means, do as one does. But to expect others to hold the same view and offer only “because they would win in a random encounter” as the only justification is numbingly pedantic. And while we’re on the subject of enforcing narrow viewpoints…