The Instigator
JustVotingTiedDebates
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
lord_megatron
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

Clash royale is dependent more upon luck than strategy.

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 2 votes the winner is...
lord_megatron
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/16/2016 Category: Games
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 379 times Debate No: 92818
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

JustVotingTiedDebates

Con

Clash royale does not depend on luck as you are the one to adjust the battle deck.
What if you just make the deck full of rubbish. Won't you lose? Do you call that luck?
lord_megatron

Pro

I suggest you increase the rounds, or else I will be having the upper hand all the time.
Anyways, clash royale is partially a card game, and therefore the luck system.
Sometimes deck with low elixir cost (rubbish) has managed to win as the enemy is overwhelmed with small critters. Moreover, it just depends if you get prince and skeleton army together or not. Furthermore, the chests give random cards, and luck becomes a factor. I didn't get prince for months while a newbie starting the game got a level 3 prince in no time. Is that fair at all? All I get is damn goblins and skeletons.
Debate Round No. 1
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Crede 1 year ago
Crede
JustVotingTiedDebateslord_megatronTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was right that it needed more rounds. Even though I agree with cons position, if stated it doesn't completely hinge on luck, pro capitalized on the poor definitions. It is a strategy game and pro could have won if he articulated his resolution better and had at least 1 more round.
Vote Placed by Omniscient_Debater 1 year ago
Omniscient_Debater
JustVotingTiedDebateslord_megatronTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither sides have provided cases that were very convincing, however, Pro responded to Con's point (that if you make your deck full of "rubbish", that it is a lack of skill) by arguing that it is possible to win by overwhelming the opponent with creatures that have less elixir, and while I wish he would give examples of this and he didn't have a potent case overall, the simple fact that he refuted Con's main argument gives the victory to Pro.