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

Cod isnt good anymore

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 Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/24/2016 Category: Games
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 723 times Debate No: 88754
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




Call of Duty was once a great fun and simple game but now is nothing special no more 30 million copies sold game. I believe cod is gone because of the youtubers promoting it and money.


Thank you, Pro.

We assume the burden of proof is on Pro to show how Cod (or Call of Duty) is not good and how it once was good (as infered from the resolution).

I assume my opponent's first round was his opening statement, not an actual argument.

I therefore await my opponent's opening arguments.
Debate Round No. 1


My arguments is that youtuber and Activision's despie for money is ruining cod.



"My arguments is that youtuber and Activision's despie for money is ruining cod."

This argument has no source, and we dismiss this as a bare assertion.[1] Pro has not shown how youtuber and Activision's despie are ruining Cod. We simply do not have enough evidence to conclude that Cod is not good anymore.

Evidence that youtuber(s) and Activision's despie are not ruining Cod.

Activision publishes Cod. It doesn't destroy it. I don't think Activision has a despie. Acording to the only source I could find on the subject, a despie is a "female roleplaying character that concerns herself only with obtaining a boyfriend, by any means necessary."[2] Pro must mean something else.

Also, how do youtubers ruin games? That's like saying critics ruin art, or viewers ruin TV.

Debate Round No. 2


The youtubers for example Ali-a will tell you to buy cod and mislead the call of duty community. I will tell you the reason cod isn't thriving is lag, hit detection, and microtransactions. Which is not included in the videos of most Reviews of cod misleading the average consumer to buy the game. My evidence that cod is going down is that Mw2 made 1 billion dollars and the "newest" call of duty black ops 3 made 250 million dollars. . Activision has a money desire because there a business and I'll tell you. Micotransions in Advance warefare were hated but push the call of duty new worth over 10 billion dollars. Tell me why the would bring in back to the next cod? "That's like saying critics ruin art"-by you true but what if I told you that youtubers aren't critics there brid to say call of duty is a good game buy it. I'll tell you how there are brid. They get to play the game early before other youtubers and they sometimes get ps4s and more(youtuber who got ps4 Driftor for no reason). How does getting early content them money. Views from youtube. When black ops 3 wasn't out there was videos about it and they got money from views from youtube there is no direct money but an indirect flow of cash. If a journaler was reviewing an iphone and had a direct partnership with Apple should there review be question? I'll tell you now if you what call of duty to thrive get rid of the liaing youtubers and the main problems lag, hit detection, and microtransactions. I hope Activision will realize they're losing money and microtransactions will not make up the decrease of cells after 3 more years.



Thank you for your reply, Pro.

Pro's final argument seems to attack the Cod fandom and the community more than the game itself, which is what I thought we were originally talking about.

Pro mentions 3 things that we might say are bad (that directly relate to the game): lag, hit detection, and microtransactions. But we do not have evidence that this is the case from the sources that Pro cited.

Even if this is true, it may be the case that the games are good, but when too many people get on the servers, there is a burden that even good games cannot handle. It is conceivable to get too many people on any server. Are we going to call games bad because they can lag?

Pro says that Activision's desire for money is ruining Cod. But I cannot really agree with this argument because a lot of companies are money-hogs and they make 'good' products. Take Nintendo, for example. Nintendo and Disney care about nothing but money. But a lot of people really like their products. It is unwarranted to criticize a product just because its producer doesn't have good motives.

Pro mentions microtransactions, but we do not have evidence to criticize or endorse microtransactions.

Pro also describes a relationship between youtubers and Activision; apparently there is a bit of bribery and other 'behind the scenes' corruption. But it still could be the case the games are really good and they just need advertising. While I may disapprove of their methods, advertisement and publicity (in any light) is viewed as a good thing and generates sales.

The BoP (Burden of Proof) is simply not fulfilled by Pro. Pro describes somethings that are bad for games, (like lag) but these were not backed by any sources, so we cannot say they are in the Cod games, or that they are even bad. Game developers sometimes use 'slow-mo' effects that might be considered bad, but they also might be considered good.

Pro goes on to describe a conspiracy between youtubers and Activision, but this doesn't necessarily make the games themselves are bad.

The only sources Pro used were based on the sales of the game. But we cannot infer that Activision desires money just because they made money. So we do not have good grounds to say that Activision is even a greedy corporation.

Tips on How to Debate:

Pro has asked for some tips on how to debate. There are some things one can do to make their arguments better.

1: Structure. Try to make your arguments readable to yourself and your readers. Clear points are good; try to avoid huge paragraphs. One paragraph per point is a useful tool. It is similar to writing a fictional story; one speaker per paragraph makes the story much more readable.

2: Logic. It is good to study symbolic logic and logical fallacies so you know how to reply to any opposing arguments. Study all the implications of A⊃B. It is okay if you do not understand everything on your first read-through. Just continue soaking yourself in logic books and work on logical exercises.

3: Read! Study a particular controversial topic that you enjoy and look at all the arguments. Try to understand each argument and what each argument's limitations are. For instance, right now there is a lot of controversy about what the KCA (Kalam Cosmological Argument) would imply if it is valid and sound. While this won't make you an expert on the subject, familiarity will give you an easier time looking at any similar arguments or lectures on the topic.

4: 100 push ups, 100 sit ups, 100 squats, and 10KM running every single day!
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: queencoop// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Pro had good starting points just develop them more. As a girl COD player, I think the Black Ops series especially has been slowly decreasing. However my reason is lack of creativity. Very good argument topic though.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't explain sources. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter has to analyze specific points made by each side, and not merely generalize and then point to her own views on the subject.
Posted by DiegoJuan403 2 years ago
Sorry i'm new to debating so I made my final statement so may you criticize it so I can see my weakness and get better and can you give tips if you know how to debate real well.
No votes have been placed for this debate.