Why doesn't all of that apply to Spider-Man?   Makes it seem that Batman wins because he's Batman is the argument being made.

Would Doc Savage be given the same consideration and latitude?  Isn't he everything that Batman is?  Would it sound as acceptable to argue that Doc would beat Spider-Man, the Hulk, Superman, etc.?

Suspension of disbelief is one thing but the fantasy has to be grounded in some kind of reality and if strength, speed, agility and anticipation are to be disregarded because of verisimilitude then I don't see how a conversation can be had about something like this.

Batman "could" win given the right set of circumstances but I think who "would" win in most situations is the fighter with clear advantages in all the measurable ways.  Spider-Man has fought every manner of gadget and planner and emerged victorious so to me, all of that becomes a wash and it's reduced to mano y mano.  So, as trained in fighting as Batman is, Spider-Man's superhuman strength, speed, agility and instincts would be too much of an advantage in a "fight".

I'm certainly curious about how Batman is defined.  World's greatest detective has certainly expanded and grown over the years.  Is there anything he isn't "greatest" at at this point?