Steinitz vs Morphy

Who would win: Morphy or Steinitz (both at their peak)?

I like morphy so I think morphy

That doesn't make sense. Steinitz was the first player to put emphasis on defense. I think Morphy's attacks would vaporize.

Did he mention attacks?  lol 

He said he chose Morphy because he likes Morphy.  An unusually honest answer I think!

Honest, but nonsensical. I like Lasker, but I would never put him ahead of Capablanca. That would be contrary to evidence.

Read this article:

Why didn't Morphy play Stienitz?

They never played because they were not contemporaries. 
Paul Morphy had a brilliant but short chess career. He played from 1857 to 1860, when he retired from active play against the top competition, unofficial second world chess champion after Anderssen Adolf. After that, he played casually and in demonstrations playing well blindfolded against many people at the same time. 
Steinitz did not emerge as a chess power until 20 years later in the 1880s. He became the first official champion in 1886. 
Steinitz actually met Morphy in New Orleans, but the conditions Morphy set for the meeting were that they could talk about anything except chess. When Maurian delivered Morphy's message to Steinitz, Morphy told him to tell Steinitz that "His gambit (the Steinitz gambit in King's Gambit) is entirely unsound." This shows that Morphy was familiar with Steinitz's games, but he had already given up playing chess with all but his life-long friend Maurian. 
The most Morphy ever played blindfold at one time was ten, many times it was eight. 
Nobody ever dared call himself World Chess Champion while Morphy lived. The title was created after Morphy died. This is why Stienitz more popular then Morphy also.

That's why Morphy is better than Stienitz

A difficult question. Both players were innovators in the field of strategy... Morphy in the theory of open games, Steinitz in the theory of closed games.

I would put my money on Morphy.

I wouldn't. Steinitz played far more complex chess.

Morphy was rarely able to show his true strength... because he outclassed his contemporaries by such a wide margin that really complex, tensely-fought Morphy games were rare.

At Morphy's time it was rare to play not only attacking play, but stradegy play.

If they played in the early 1860's there is no doubt that Morphy would destroy him. Steinitz still played the old 'hack & slash' style against Anderssen in 1866, so he would have no chance against Paul.

Steinitz, version 2.0 appeared after 1872. Hard to say what would happen then. The positional-defensive style he played would be well suited to counter a player like Morphy. Remember that a person can only play as well as others let them. I would still put my money on Morphy though. He would have no trouble with modern time control and was a master at endgame calculations.

Morphy's game rarely reached the endgame.

Lasker only won a single game after their Championship, and in their World Championship match Lasker struggled for a win in every round.

Yet somehow in his fifties he managed to win the New York 1924 tournament...

Interesting argument. I think the "heat issue" is just a poor excuse from Lasker for his embarrassing losses. 

It reminds me of the "old age" argument used against Lasker in his 1894 match, yet the "old man" was still swift and accurate enough to play this (one of his best):

FINAL SCORE:  Lasker 10;  Steinitz 5 (4 draws)

Obviously a similar excuse...

Chessgames.com has 105 games where a Morphy game went over 40 moves and 46 games that went over 50 moves. I suggest that you play through some of these games and study his endgame knowledge.

When Steinitz battled Anderssen in the World Championship match, they were near evenly matched, with Steinitz pulling away in the final few games:

Steinitz - 8 wins

Anderssen - 6 wins

When Anderssen faced Morphy, it was completely one-sided, so much so that Anderssen began playing new openings because he couldn't survive past the middlegame against Morphy. Anderssen was elated when he managed a win with 1.a3 the tenth game, the epic grind-out that lasted nearly 80 moves--while Morphy was ill with the flu. Even so, Anderssen knew he was bested, and made no attempt to hide his awe at Morphy's superiority.

Morphy - 12 wins

Anderssen - 3 wins

Anderssen played Morphy with the Anderssen opening three times. Anderssen drew, lost and won all one time. The anderssen opening starts with a3. Here is the game that anderssen won with:

In all the tournaments that both Capa and Lasker were in, Capablanca only finished ahead of Lasker twice-in 2 tournaments from 1936, when Lasker was 68(!) Even in 1935, at the age of 67, Lasker finished well ahead of Capa in Moscow.

That may be true, but in every encounter Lasker lost.