The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points

Call of Duty:Modern Warfare 2 is a better game than Call of Duty:Black Ops

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/8/2011 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,332 times Debate No: 17827
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (2)




I intend to prove that Modern Warfare 2 is a better game than Black Ops.

Time to Argue: 24 Hours (The quicker the better)
Rounds: 4 (First round acceptance)
Argument Max: 4,000 characters (Lets keep it short and simple.)


I accept this debate.
Good Luck to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1


Sorry for lack of sources and horrible grammar i am mainly using myself as a source ( and I'm typing very quickly. My next response will depend on how serious you are taking this debate. As of now this is what you have to work with.

Camping - While it may be true that camping occurs in both games, the overall problem with it in Black Ops is that there is only 1 or two routes you can go from any given direction (Maximum 3) also, with the introduction of motion sensor campers have an INSANE advantage.

Shotguns/Primary - The introduction of shotguns as a primary weapon would have been great if shotguns in Black ops were not so terribly useless.

Knifing - the knifing in black ops is so ridiculous it drives me nuts. I am more likely to find a leprechaun then to experience a knifing encounter that makes any sense whatsoever.

Spawning/Weapons - The spawns in black ops are just as dumb as the weapons. Spawns put you either directly behind someone or them directly behind you. There is no winning when you spawn on Black ops. Weapons are the same thing. Either the gun is WAY overpowered or way underpowered the weapons in black ops are so unrealistic its stupid.

Lag - With the introduction of "In Game Buffering" and recording game play black ops has such bad latency... the game is so horribly flawed in this aspect that i had to stop playing after a few days.


I would like to thank my opponent for such a wonderful debate.
Now to the debate.

Burden of proof issues
My opponent has the burden of proof which means he has to show how Modern Warfare 2 is better than black ops.
I just have to negate this resolution. I DO NOT have to prove black ops is better than modern warfare.

Camping Rebuttal
Excerpt straight from wikipedia

"In most games, camping is a legitimate style of play. It often proves frustrating, particularly to newer players, as it rewards those who invest a considerable amount of time in the game (which allows them to know the layout of the maps and the best defensive positions); as well as those with accurate aim."

Camping is a legitmate tactic in all game. I do not have a problem with it in any game I play.
As the excerpt said camping is only frustrating to newer players and rewards player who have played the game a long time.

Shotguns Rebuttal
How are shotguns useless? I see no evidence in this matter

Excerpt straight from Call of duty wiki

"Unlike other firearms, Shotguns fire a volley of multiple pellets at a time, but have a limited range. These traits make Shotguns more powerful than any other type of firearm at close range, where the a large amount of the pellets will connect with the target, allowing for an instant kill."

Most if not all shotguns allow for instant kill. They might be useless to you but that's an opinion

Knifing Rebuttal

Another excerpt from the wiki, this time about knives

"In the Campaign, the knife sees a lot more use in scripted events and has a wider range for different uses, usually when stealth is required"

A video game does not have to make sense. It's not real life an does not need to conform to your wishes.

Spawning/weapons Rebuttal
Again it is a video game. It does not have to be real.

Overview of my Opponents case
It seems my opponent is not present any arguments for the game, he is merely saying things HE doesn't like about the games. Most of these problems probably are the result of his own gaming techniques and/or a bad system.
Some of the problems can also be attributed to the fact that these games were made by different developers
My opponent has not presented any solid arguments about why Modern Warfare 2 is better(Plus the burden of proof is on him to do so)

My case-keeping it short

Black ops is the best selling game in the world

"Call of Duty: Black Ops was the best-selling game in February, retaining the top selling spot since launch in November. It has now become the best-selling game in history, topping Wii Play."

This shows that black ops appeals to a larger crowd than Modern Warfare ever will

Definition of better
What is the definition of better in this context?
Does it mean Sold more? Or perhaps it means played more?(Both of which Black ops has Modern Warfare beat)
Since my opponent did not state and definitions or criteria for this word, I will simply assume that there isn't a definition that can help my opponents side.

My Sources are slightly valid with either wiki's that relates to the round of reasonably sources(Forbes)
My Opponent source is himself, which further shows my claim that my opponents case is based on his personal problems with the game. Plus on his Blog( I see nothing related with this game that my opponent has said, making me wonder is he an expert on this subject.

I would like to again thank my opponent for such a wonderful debate and wish him luck next round

Black ops best-selling of all time-
Debate Round No. 2


I first off would like to congratulate my opponent on such a well thought out rebuttal. You are taking this debate much more seriously than I previously thought. However, your Wikipedia definitions are more than slightly misguided. Unfortunately my responses are going to be very limited due to the character limit

Notice "MOST" in your definition, it by no means declares camping is an acceptable form of game play in black ops or MWF2. Also, if you speak with any experienced player he will tell you camping is most defiantly not acceptable. Everyone does it because it is easy to do and gets you the most kills. It doesn't make it right.

"In the Campaign, the knife sees a lot more use in scripted events and has a wider range for different uses, usually when stealth is required"
In scripted events… the character is not being controlled by you in these events. If he was being controlled by you it is completely different

I never stated spawning had to be real, how could it be you're a person appearing out of thin air. My point was this; if the spawns on black ops were better it would make the game a lot more fair.

Definition of better:
My definition of better is not what sold more, but what would of sold more if the game was purchased off of its own merit instead of some insane marketing campaign… this game would never have sold like it did if it wasn't for it having the largest marketing budget of all time for any of the Call of Duty franchise. Before I buy a game I ask friends and research a bit before I do, as I'm sure most other do. The hype on this game was so big though that everyone pre-ordered instead of even playing it first, preorders on this game surpassed Modern Warfare 2. This game produced two very large budget commercials, one with "More stars in it than the Oscars" and the other featuring a limited edition "Black Ops" Jeep[1]. You cannot sit here and tell me honestly that having the largest marketing budget of all time for the franchise didn't have anything to do with the amount of copies they sold. Not only that but black ops has one thing that Modern Warfare 2 does not have, Nazi Zombies. Which on its own could be accounting for over half the sales. That actually can be defined as a different game completely. Most, if not all the people I know who play Black Ops (Including myself) only play it now for Nazi Zombies.

Lets keep it simple though, User Satisfaction:

User reviews off of IGN give Modern Warfare 2 a rating of 8.6 [2]
User reviews off of IGN give Black Ops a rating of 7.8 [3]

Also, a slightly large exerpt from states.

"Black Ops seems to be taking it on the chin at Amazon, too. Both the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 versions are hovering at 3.5 out of 5 stars, slightly better than average, but below expected levels given mainstream critical consensus. The Windows version, by contrast, drops to a painful 2 out of 5 off 33 reviews.

"[T]his game was a huge letdown," says one reviewer of the PC version. "It is filled with bugs, laggy servers, graphics issues, and an overall 'tacky' feel. The graphics are also a downgrade from Modern Warfare 2, which is severely disappointing."

Compare Black Ops' critical ratings on Metacritic against its user scores and the disparity's thrown into stark relief. The game's overall score, averaging 41 critical reviews, holds at 90 out of 100, but the user rating for the Xbox 360 version drops to just 6.7 out of 10, the PS3 version to 5.9 out of 10, and the PC version to a startling 5.2 out of 10."[4]



Many Thank you to my opponent

Camping Argument
My opponent says that camping is not acceptable simply because an experienced player says so.
No Source
No definition of experienced player
My Rebuttal to this is that I used a valid source edited daily by hundreds of people.
If the majority of people thought camping is not legit than that's what would've said on the page.

Plus there are many more problems with my opponents argument
What is camping exactly? How long do you have to stay in on place for it to be considered camping?
Is camping the same as defending?

My Opponent fails to make this a valid point without addressing these problems

Knifing Argument
My Opponent make no sense in his rebuttal.
Again it doesn't have to make sense, simply because it is an AI.

How are they better? How are they worse?
Please Clarify your point more with sources please.

Second Overview of my opponents case
My Opponent again is coming from a personal standpoint.
He has failed to put any sources in his defense about anything and is trying to state that he is an expert an this area(Simply because he has a blog that started earlier Last Month)
My Opponent also talks about experienced players
What is that? How does one become experienced?
Do you have any of these "experienced players as a source"?

Definition of better
This technically wasn't an argument, I was just trying to see what grounds he was trying to argue on.
Judges you can say this is more of a clarification point.
My Opponents definition of better is "what would of sold more if the game was purchased off its own merit instead of some insane marketing campaign"
His definition of better is not "based upon user review".
Any arguments relating to user reviews should be dropped according to my opponents definition.
Now my opponent goes on to talk about how Black ops was all in the marketing campaign.
I would like to note that all games have a marketing campaign and just because they did good with the marketing does not prove the marketing campaign directly influenced sales.

Research Sub Argument
My Opponent says how himself and everyone he knows does research on a game.
Does this seem contradictory to to what my opponent says of user satisfaction?(Which is a point that still should be dropped according to my opponents definition)
Also, If people researched an saw user satisfaction ratings, how did black ops still sell more?

User Satisfaction Argument
My Opponent tries to argue about how black ops has a lower rating than Modern Warfare 2.
But according to my opponents definition of better and following the resolution this does not judge today's debate.
So this does not decide which game is better

Black Ops has Sold more Argument
My Opponent has not addressed this argument anytime during his second speech.
This should be counted as a drop against my case.
More people play black ops.

Sources Point
My Opponent's entire first speech was based upon a blog.
He has brought Sources into his second speech.
But the ign based sources do not work for me(Which is a shame, those are pretty valid sources)
The innovate source worked but later goes on to state "This is the highest grossing entertainment launch ever".
The Pc world source also worked, but should be dropped on my opponents side according to his definition of better and my clarification about the user satisfaction point.

Burden of Proof Point
My opponent has never contested this, so the burden of proof is still on him to prove that Modern Warfare is better than black ops under the defintion that he has defined. I DO NOT have to prove black ops is better.

I await a response from my opponent.

I would also like to insert a Camping joke
"You want to know what's intense?"

Say it to yourself if you don't get it.
Debate Round No. 3


Thank you again for participating in this debate.

I am very surprised to not be able to find sources on camping/shotguns/knifing in this game because it is such a huge problem and complained about constantly. You can have those three points they are irrelevant to my point anyhow. I will be dropping all of my personal experience out of this conclusion because you have such a huge problem with it.

Experienced Player Clarification:

I define as someone who puts a considerable amount of time into the game to get good and/or play online competitively. Unfortunately the only experienced players I have sourced is my own team, I will not waste any more space on this point though.

Finally found a legitimate source to prove my point.

The game seems to be respawning players must closer to the enemy compared to Modern Warfare 2, and while the spawn points in that were by no means perfect, it looks like Black Ops isn’t better off either.

Furthermore, we’ve seen that the game often respawns you in a random place next to a teammate, but this has often proved a disadvantage more than an advantage, as you often get wiped out by the rushing enemy before you have a chance to find your bearings.

Obviously, there is nothing worse than dying straight after you have respawned, so we hope Treyarch address this issue in their first patch update to the game.”[1]

Definition of Better:

Oh my… I should of known you would have twisted those words. My definition of better IS what would have sold more if it was purchased off of its own merit instead of some “insane” marketing campaign. MEANING user reviews directly correlate with a game being better. That I thought was clear but it clearly wasn’t… I’ll explain a bit further when we get to Black Ops selling more.

Black Ops Selling More:

Black Ops selling more is by no means showing that its better. Let’s say ProductA is quite obviously better than ProductB, however ProductB has a HUGE marketing budget. Both Products are available for pre-order. ProductB gets two large budget T.V. Commercials and a Jeep named after it, ProductA does not. Which do you think will sell more pre-orders? And eventually more in the long run without people even trying it.

Of course ProductB, that’s not even arguable…[3]


As I stated before, yes I research and ask around about a game before I buy it… now… tell me. How do you research a game before it’s released? You have to accept what the developer shows you as truth. You cannot ask friends or other consumers because it’s not out yet. Black Ops pre-sales were through the roof because of the marketing behind it, it was the new shiny toy everyone wanted to play. Once again, having to repeat myself.

Further Evidence of User Reviews:

Call of Duty: Black Ops Vs MW2: Which is better?

  • MW2 is an easy winner (46%, 4,792 Votes)
  • Black Ops wins hands down (23%, 2,386 Votes)
  • MW2 edges it (17%, 1,806 Votes)
  • Black Ops just slightly (14%, 1,409 Votes)” [2]


I have clearly proven that Modern Warfare is a better game than Black Ops, I have shown you user reviews and reasons why the game is poorly designed. My opponent has only tried to rebut my arguments about the games design flaws, (mostly) succeeding, but still not able to rebut the user reviews other than try and make my definition of better seem like something it’s not, thus negating my argument about user reviews. Furthermore my opponent repeatedly referred to Black Ops selling more as an indication that the game was better, which I have proven is not true. I thank my opponent for this wonderful debate and wish him luck in the voting period. Thank you all for taking the time to read this debate and vote.




[3] Common Sense



I would like to thank my opponent for this debate opportunity.
For this round I will be going over the entire round of the debate and addressing everything made in this debate.

My Opponents case
Knifing Argument/Shotgun Arguments/Camping Arguments
Because my opponent cannot find any sources
My Opponent has openly stated that I may have this point.
I would like to note that ALL OF THESE arguments were Three of my opponents Five original points

Lag Argument
This argument was not even addressed by my opponent.
So this point should be count as a voter for the Con side.

Spawn argument
This was the only argument my opponent actually kept and backed up with a source.
But I would like to point out multiple things wrong with this argument and source.

First of all, an Excerpt from a popular Gaming patch and update site.

"�€�Added a negative influencer to all spawn points to decrease the chances of spawning near an enemy. This will further improve spawning protection on top of previous updates."[1]

The company has already addressed this issue in the latest patch. My Opponent might not have the latest patch, when this issue was fixed.

Second I would like to look at my opponents source date.
That article was written on November 10, 2010.
Black ops was released on November 9,2010[2]
A one day later article? How is that article legit?
This proves the invalidity of this point and also proves the developers have fixed this now, non-existing problem.

Now Everything up to now was my opponents original case. He has tried to take some clarification points I have brought up during the round an put them on his side. I will address these points, but I would like to note that his original case has already been addressed.

Now to some clarification points

Experienced player Clarification
My Opponent has stated the only experienced players he has sourced is his team.
So how much time have they spent on the game?
When do they become experienced? Do you guys have any proof of your experience?
From looking at your blog I do not see anything about experience
My Opponent never clarified this point fully, so what is an experienced player?

Definition of Better Clarification
I was only stating what my opponent said. If my opponent wanted the criteria to be "based upon user reviews". That's what he should have said.
Judges, my opponent is trying to use a source with one set style of attacking(this attack being the marketing campaign)
and trying to incorporate another attack under it(That being of user reviews)
You see he is trying to add on to his original definition.

Research Clarification sub-point
Well, that is your own fault, You pre-order an new the risk of being first for something.
An if the game is not in your opinion of good, then that's your fault for not researching as you said you did.

Evidence of user Reviews Sub-point
Well, Lets take a look at the article date shall we?
November 12,2010.
This time his source is a an article that was two days after Black Ops release date.

Black Ops Selling More Argument
This was my main argument this round.
His rebuttal might have slightly held if he did one important thing.
A Source to prove how the marketing budget directly affect the sales.
Do you have a poll to show how many people brought black ops because of the marketing campaign?
How about an article to show how many brought it because of the marketing campaign?

The only source he says is common sense(which isn't even a real source)
That is why this argument stands

My Opponent has honestly proved nothing.
His sources were outdated and immediately followed the release of Black ops(Which was Nine months ago).
Four of his original points were dropped.
Another was rebuttal with an outdated source.
He tried to switch his definition to save himself and incorporate more non-sourced attacks.

Thank you


I'm sorry but no joke this time
Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by bossyburrito 4 years ago
*Says that spawning infront of someone occurs*
*Get's strawmanned*
Posted by HTML_iLegendary 4 years ago
If you would like to bring this topic back up, I'd like to challenge you in your assumption that MW2 is a better game. This debate is actually what made me create an account, and I think I could do a better job debating against your arguments.
Posted by Steve0Yea 5 years ago
I thought it was an awesome source... haha
Posted by Cobo 5 years ago
Have you ever seen common sense as a source?
Seriously, common sense.
Especially when you are trying to prove that a marketing campaign has a direct effect on video game sells?
Posted by seraine 5 years ago
@ Cobo

I don't see anything wrong with using common sense on a source if it is that obvious.
Posted by Cobo 5 years ago
Will, anoyone take a look at his source in his final speech?
Posted by DictatorIsaac 5 years ago
Pro probably should've stated his definitions earlier on. But really, Black Ops was a huge letdown for many fans as noted by many user ratings, especially on non-Xbox platforms.
Posted by Cobo 5 years ago
Well, I was going to use the arch burger as an example but ran out of time and space.
Posted by Cobo 5 years ago
Nope. Still not working.
Posted by Steve0Yea 5 years ago
Are the IGN links really not working? They work fine for me...
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by DetectableNinja 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct and S/G were too close to call. Sources: Pro used sources that were unreliable. Con used more source in general as well. Arguments: Pro didn't defend his stance well enough. The resolution is negated.
Vote Placed by CD-Host 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Great debate, especially given the topic! Both had excellent conduct and a good use of sources. I have to give S&G to pro due to sentence fragments in Con especially round 3. Neither side addressed each other's rebuttals and there wasn't a clear knock out on convincing. I hate to decide an excellent debate on S&G but...