The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

C&C Generals is the most cheating video game ever made

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 5/24/2014 Category: Games
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 745 times Debate No: 55265
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (0)




First round is for acceptance only.


I would like to see Pro's proof for this fallacious statement and then I shall explain why this is not true.

Also can he please define cheating.
Debate Round No. 1


I want to thank my opponent for accepting this debate
Just for the record, I have been playing C&C since the original DOS version came out.

Up until Generals C&C games were pretty fair. The armies were evenly matched and the maps were also fair.

C&C Generals has 3 armies: GLA, China and USA

GLA is the weakest. It doesn't even have an air force which is a big disadvantage on big maps. The tanks and other vehicles are all very weak and can be destroyed very easily. The soldiers and tanks move very slow and you can't even start to build tanks without first building a resource collecting building, which makes you prone to rushing.
(I'll get back to that later.)
If you use GLA it's an automatic loss. There's no way GLA can defend itself from both ground and air strikes at once, without having its own air force.

China is the neutral army. It has an air force, and decent tanks, so it can kick GLA's AZZ very easy. However, compared to USA it's a joke.

USA is an outright cheat. Anything you shoot at a USA tank gets disintegrated before it even touches them.
USA can build unlimited helicopters for a crazy unchallenged air assault.
USA rocket launchers are almost impossible to kill and they can get any hiding troops garrisoned in a building, out with a flash pot bomb, which they have an unlimited supply of. It takes 20 GLA tanks to kill one USA tank full of rocket launchers.

Oh that reminds the beginning of the game, you can choose "random" so your opponent won't know what army you have...what a cheat that is! You can't even know what defense to use, because you don't even know who your enemy is! You might as well guess that random = USA since 90% of the time it is. Not that "random" after all!

Back to rushing:
If you play USA, the me will last less than 30 seconds. By the time you're done building anything, you'll have tanks and troops at your front door without any way to defend yourself. What a joke.

C&C Generals is a cheater's dream. It's the most un-even game I've ever seen. Why even bother with it?



I will attack this semantically. If my opponent has a problem with this then this is too bad, he shouldn't have set the voting to 7000-7500 elo and I might have been nicer to him. Now that I realize the voting restrictions, it's extremely unlikely I'll win this I will happily humiliate him even if it loses me the conduct mark of the voter that is yet to come.

Semantic Attack 1: Cheating and rules.
Cheat: Gain an advantage over or deprive of something by using unfair or deceitful.
Nothing Pro stated was an example of deceitfulness. It is also only unfair if not everyone is capable of getting into the strong army. It is possible and so it is not cheating.

Semantic Attack 2: Cheating is not an adjective.
The resolution indicates that a noun (video game) has a quantifiable adjective (cheating) that CCG can show the 'most' severity of pertaining. This is not the case. Cheating is not an adjective and the noun it stems from is cheat.

Semantic Attack 3: The fact that the game is so openly uneven indicates that there would be far more difficulty for one to cheat on it than a fairer, easy-going game where the slightest act of deceit would be severe cheating.
Debate Round No. 2


My opponent said, "Now that I realize the voting restrictions, it's extremely unlikely I'll win this I will happily humiliate him even if it loses me the conduct mark of the voter that is yet to come."

I have news for my opponent. There is no "voter yet to come". This debate is impossible to vote on.
So, it is is 100% unlikely that he'll "win".

That being said, my opponent pretty much gave up on this debate. His behavior is exactly why I no longer allow votes on my debates. He resorts to fighting over what the word "cheat" means. That reminds me of when Bill Clinton wanted to fight over what the word "is" is. Total red herring to what the debate is about.

Now, if it's just my opponent's goal to "humiliate me", I see no win here, anyway. That's not what debates are for.

So, yes I do have a "problem with this", because I came here to debate ideas about a video game, not semantics.
Yes, it is "too bad", because my opponent somehow thinks he can still "win" this and get rewarded for his bad behavior.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way on my debates. Either you debate fair, or make yourself look like a crying cheater, trying to "humiliate" and sacrifice a conduct point in order to gain 6 other points.

That's what makes the voting system on DDO unfair and encourages bad conduct. The conduct point is like punishing a millionaire with a dollar fine. If you can sacrifice 1 point to gain 6, what good of a deterrent is the conduct point?

This kind of thinking has backfired on my opponent. He really thinks somehow that he will get a vote on this debate, so he resorted to such conduct. His loss.
He could have really debated my points and made himself look intelligent and fair. Instead he made himself look like the desperate cheater that he is.

So, now that my opponent knows where he really stands, I will invite him to use this last round to attack my points and redeem himself. I don't mind losing a debate when it's done fair by proving my facts wrong.

If my opponent doesn't want to do that, he just humiliated himself.
Too bad.


Non-prophet offers 0 ways to cheat.

He doesn't give a single way to cheat in CCG and instead explained how the non-cheaters have an unfair bias to certain nations' armies.

This does not fit the definitions of cheating.

This debate is minimum elo 7000 and maximum 7500; it is not impossible to vote on, it's just unlikely someone will fall into that elo category in time.

All my points stand uncontested.

I urge you to vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by oculus_de_logica 2 years ago
I'm sorry to whomever cares, But I'm going to take Nonprophet's stand on this.

He has, on repeated occasions, expressed his well understandable desire to debate without voting. Even if I cannot expect Con to actually have known about this desire as he only joined last week it is quite clear that there is an Elo restriction that WAS mentioned as he accepted the debate.

Even if he didn't actually pay attention to the debate specifications before accepting, which in its own right is rather irresponsible, he might just as well have left out mentioning that it was impossible to vote: anyone who would attempt would have noticed and don't need to actually be told. His argument was semantically, a perfect example on how to win a debate without actually debating and dodging the resolution's clear meaning and what the instigator wanted to debate, that C&C Generals is the most unfair game, the game that sees to cheat or a game that has a flawed game mechanic that makes certain players have the ability to gain an advantage against other players simply by being present and giving them said bonuses for this and that, or whatever format you wish to word the resolution in.

If someone wants to debate just for the entertainment of debating then I see no harm in that; but accepting a debate just to try and attack the resolution itself from a semantically orientated standpoint with no regard to the actual debate topic, in addition to openly claim that the purpose is to "humiliate the opponent", is terrible conduct and is poor debating etiquette that should not persist on DDO, in no form and from no debater.
Posted by nonprophet 2 years ago
Oh well, no votes.
Posted by nonprophet 2 years ago
@Subutai No
Posted by nonprophet 2 years ago
Oh, but it's OK to fool me and cheat and laugh at me because it "wasn't against the rules", right?
It happens to me all the time.
Posted by Subutai 2 years ago
Do you not want any votes on your debates?
Posted by Romanii 2 years ago
Nonprophet, you are a terrible member of this site. Kthxbai.
Posted by nonprophet 2 years ago
It wasn't against the rules. So sue me.
Posted by Subutai 2 years ago
That was horrible conduct by pro. There are no debaters with an ELO between 7000 and 7500 actually, but I think pro knows that. Just goes to show you to always look at the debate terms before you accept a debate.
Posted by Subutai 2 years ago
That was horrible conduct by pro. There are no debaters with an ELO between 7000 and 7500 actually, but I think pro knows that. Just goes to show you to always look at the debate terms before you accept a debate.
Posted by nonprophet 2 years ago
"I urge you to vote Con." LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No votes have been placed for this debate.