Anonymous anything will be the first to go! The legal ( and its sound reasoning ) will be sure the first amendment provides you can say pretty much anything you want but it says nothing about you being able to do it in anonymity.

McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission says hi.

Believing is what keeps me alive.

I'm no doctor, but I think you may be undervaluing the contributions of food and oxygen.

Every human being on the planet is more attracted to light colored hair than dark

One, and only one, of the following is true:

1. 1. You personally interviewed every single one of the 7 billion people currently living on Earth - individually and confidentially, with the assistance of a magically infallible lie detector - and confirmed their preference for light hair over dark.
2. 2. You are stupid on a scale that should be counted as a war crime.

Seriously, "proven scientific fact"? By all means, please show us the pop-science article that you barely skimmed to come to that conclusion. If it even exists.

You did dismiss the wikipedia entry.

What am I alleged to have dismissed? What specific fact are you pointing to that proves your position? The answer is none, because you didn't cite any particular fact in the article that allegedly proves your point.

He's not a superhero, just like Tarzan is not a superhero, as isn't Zorro

I'm not familiar enough with Tarzan to make a claim one way or the other. But Zorro? Of course he's a superhero. He was Batman before there was a Batman. Hell, he's even specifically mentioned on that list I linked earlier. You know, the one you keep pretending "proves" the Lone Ranger not to be one by omission?

I think your anger and frustration show how much you care. I appreciate that you care so much and I am sure you are quite a valuable person

My anger and frustration are in your imagination; the fact that I'm thorough in my responses doesn't suggest otherwise. And you clearly care about this at least as much as I do, since you continue to respond. Also, this emotional argument that you're making is transparently a venting of your frustration that you're losing. You're acting like one of those XBox Live kids who loses a round of Halo and angrily accuses that his opponent of being a loser who just plays video games all day.

However, I don't care how many superhero tropes he fulfills, the thing is that he continues not to be a superhero.

Fulfilling numerous superhero tropes IS what makes a character a superhero. You still haven't stated anything that disqualifies him as one.

For example "The Man With No Name" is also not a superhero, and although he lacks the mask he still conceals his identity (by having no name). He's not a superhero is he?

I wouldn't say so, no. But he has far fewer "superhero" attributes than, say, the Lone Ranger. I'm not claiming one or two things qualify, but the Lone Ranger has too many of them not to be one. Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, etc.

I already bought into a person not needing superpowers to be a superhero, but this does not make him a superhero. For example Hawkeye, he is an unbelievably good archer, far better than any real archer could be, thus he's a superhero.

If Hawkeye were merely a competent archer, and had only bows and arrows that could exist in real life, he'd still be a superhero (just as Kick-Ass is a superhero despite having crap fighting skills). You claim you've conceded that superhuman abilities aren't necessary for a superhero, but what you're missing is that "super-skill" is itself such an ability. However, even that point is moot, because...

The Lone Ranger, while good with his gun was not amazing with it

...yes, he is. The Lone Ranger displays a degree of marksmanship that no real person could ever achieve. He regularly shoots the bad guys' guns out of their hands (not sure if he ever did in this latest movie as haven't seen it, but it's a staple of the character). Nobody in the real world could manage that on an even remotely reliable basis; in fact nobody who's competent with a firearm would even try. If you know what you're doing in a real firefight, you aim for center mass, and if you aren't fully prepared to kill the guy then you don't even draw (let alone fire) your weapon. But the Lone Ranger damn well does it anyway. Because he has incredible marksmanship skills. So even though he doesn't need super-skills to qualify as a superhero, he still has them. However, he'd still be one even if he was merely a decent shot.

And before you say it: No, I'm not claiming that every character with Improbable Aiming Skills is automatically a superhero, so you can put whatever TV cop you were about to offer up as yet another strawman to rest.

So, be cool, you can't win them all and you can't win this one because you are wrong

Then why can't you prove me wrong? Why can't you name the elusive must-have trait for superheroes that the Lone Ranger lacks? Why do you keep falling back on strawman arguments, appeal to popularity, argument from ignorance, and practically every other logical fallacy in the book?

did you ask your friends? All 10,000 of them?

Let's pretend I did and that they all said no. How would that prove you right, given that facts are not changed by popular opinion? It wouldn't, and couldn't. The pretense that it can is what we call appeal to popularity.

But as it happens, I did have a debate on this topic with some friends ten or twelve years ago. And I was arguing your position. And I did a much better job of it than you are doing now. But in the end, I couldn't deny the facts that were laid out before me. We concluded that the characters in question (this actually started around Zorro if memory serves, but the Ranger was brought up too) have so much in common with superheroes that they either:

A) are superheroes themselves, or

b) are exactly like superheroes in every way except one all-important one that "everybody knows" but nobody can articulate despite its obvious nature.

Occam's Razor suggests that A is the right way to go.

That's how I know I am not in fact losing this argument. I already lost it from your side.

Objective Facts? I thought we were talking about a made up character.

Not mutually exclusive. It's an objective fact that, for example, the Lone Ranger wears a mask during his adventures. That's provably true, even though he's a fictional character. Of course, you knew that, and you're just trying to weasel out of admitting that the facts in this argument are against you.

The thing is, not every radio/television/comic book character is a superhero.

Nor did I suggest that, so leave the strawman alone.

Are you really convinced that he is?

Well, he fits perfectly with a number of archetypal superhero tropes in terms of his backstory, personality, and actions, so yes. And I note that you have yet to successfully note anything that disqualifies him from the title. Seriously, how is he not a superhero? He fights criminals, while protecting his identity with a disguise (that by all rights shouldn't fool anyone), with the help of a trusted partner, as a direct result of an origin involving a tragic loss. That's enough to fill any superhero-trope bingo card. The only point you've brought up against him is the lack of superpowers, but I showed (and you even acknowledged) that said powers are not required to qualify.

I've already mentioned that he wasn't on the other list of non-special-power superheroes

And I've already pointed out that the list isn't exhaustive. Do you understand what that means? Go back to the beginning of this thread. You said the Lone Ranger isn't a superhero because he doesn't have super powers. That was it. That was your entire argument. By linking that list, I showed you dozens of examples of superheroes who share that same trait, thus refuting the one and only argument you have even attempted to make.

you didn't accept that

I didn't accept it because it's a bloody stupid argument. The fact that the Lone Ranger isn't explicitly mentioned on that particular list isn't evidence against his status. If I were to make a list of fruits that only mentioned apples, oranges, and lemons, would that be evidence that bananas aren't a fruit? Because that's exactly the kind of claim you're making here.

so you might also dismiss the wikipedia entry

What's to dismiss? You haven't pointed out anything in it that supports your claim. It doesn't explicitly call him a superhero, but then again it doesn't explicitly say that he's a human either, which by the reasoning you put forth "proves" that he isn't. Look up "argument from ignorance".

My pass at an insult was clumsy?

Quite.

I thought it was pretty funny,

Possibly by the standards of an 80's sitcom. Not one like Cheers or Night Court, mind you. Small Wonder, perhaps?

sorry if it cut too close.

Do you have a checklist of losing-the-argument cliches that you're working through? Are you going to try the puppetmaster defense next?

Ah, yes, appeal to popularity. That'll magically make the objective facts go away. Especially when combined with a clumsy pass at an insult.

Anything else?

Are you now suggesting that the above list is exhaustive? Because that would be really stupid. I shouldn't have to explain why.

Superhero = superpower, superintelligence, superstrength, and/or special ability

That is a common attribute of superheroes. Not a required one.
And if you want to justify those characters by saying that "special ability" includes things like fighting ability, then the Lone Ranger gets the same benefit, because marksmanship is as much a "special ability" as kung fu.

If we went by your definition Charles Manson would have been a superhero.

No. I wasn't saying that "an overwhelming need to express his self-righteous indignation upon the world with extreme violence" automatically made someone a superhero. I was pointing out that it is not a disqualifier. Nor is the lack of superhuman abilities, as has already been conclusively proven.

I think that, like most people who have this kind of misconception, you're operating on an unconscious assumption that "superheroes" exist solely in post-1900 urban settings. But like superpowers, that's a common attribute, not a required one.

My point here is that you described the Lone Ranger in a way that defines the core concepts of dozens of superheroes, and offered that as proof that he isn't one. That's like saying a penguin isn't a bird because it can't fly and eats fish.

A better response would have been "Oh, right, I just realized that I described one of the most elemental and well-known superhero archetypes, thus fatally undermining my own position".

No special powers, strength, size. Just an overwhelming need to express his self-righteous indignation upon the world with extreme violence.

You really didn't think that argument through, did you?

Yeah, the Lone Ranger isn't a superhero. He's just a guy who fights criminals, in disguise, without any kind of official legal authority, and operates according to a strict moral code. Totally different thing.

Right, just like he has your bank account because of the ATM in the store...

The wording is a little vague, but it might be referring to the "day one patch" that you need to download to remove the phone-home crap. Either that or Microsoft is still retaining a vestige of permission-to-play by forcing the initial setup to register the console with the mothership (perhaps to gather statistics on how often new consoles are set up vs. existing ones being traded, or some such).

You must have thought it was perfect, if you expected your OP to be sensible advice. Otherwise it's textbook Just World Fallacy.

Or you could just not commit a crime

Or ever be suspected or accused of committing one. What, you thought the 5th Amendment was just for the guilty?