Also, I will refer to something else to further illustrate my point. Good ol' Wikipedia footnotes, where the sources come from...
Definition of Superhero
And notice the numbers in the brackets? They will automatically take you to the bottom, showing the footnotes. In this case...
Now, let us observe the footnote...
Per sources including
Niccum, John (March 17, 2006). "'V for Vendetta' is S for Subversive". Lawrence Journal-World (Lawrence, Kansas). Archived from the original on November 14, 2014.
Gesh, Lois H.; Weinberg, Robert (2002). "The Dark Knight: Batman: A NonSuper Superhero". The Science of Superheroes (PDF). John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-471-02460-6. Archived from the original on November 18, 2014.
Lovece, Frank (July 16, 2008). "The Dark Knight". (movie review) Film Journal International. Archived from the original on November 7, 2014. Batman himself is an anomaly as one of the few superheroes without superpowers…
While the Dictionary.com definition of "superhero" is "A figure, especially in a comic strip or cartoon, endowed with superhuman powers and usually portrayed as fighting evil or crime,"
the longstanding Merriam-Webster dictionary gives the definition as "a fictional hero having extraordinary or superhuman powers; also : an exceptionally skillful or successful person".
In other words, I've been making this case the whole time, thus I'm in the right, and you, while merely reiterating my points, either unknowingly, or unaware, while trying to point to the opposing argument, are wrong.