The Instigator
Con (against)
4 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
2 Points

Contender chooses topic (Video Games)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/6/2015 Category: Games
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 986 times Debate No: 67848
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)




I'm pretty sure this is my 5th attempt at this, not once did I get a valid topic...

10,000 character limit
BoP is ALWAYS shared
72 hours to argue
10 days voting period
Open to anyone

You must follow the rules, failure to do so will result in an automatic 7 point forfeit.

1. The topic must be about video games
2. The topic must be debatable
3. The debate must be a normal debate (no rap battles, tic tac toes, wars, etc.)
4. You must argue in round 1, after explaining the topic
5. Due to rule 4, you cannot argue in round 5 (don't care what you do, just don't argue or forfeit)
6. No trolling or spamming
7. You must take the pro side of the topic
8. No forfeit

Good luck to my opponent!


Resolved: Counter-Strike: Global Offensive is a better game, with better gameplay, than Call of Duty: Ghosts.

( I hope you've played this game before! )

Game 1: Counter-Strike: Global Offensive is an online multiplayer FPS[1], in which two distinct teams compete in various matches in order to win a round. The various rounds consist of:

-Classic casual (or competitive): This round consists of two sub-missions: The Bomb Scenario, and Hostage Rescue.

In the bomb scenario, one member of the Terrorist team is selected to carry the bomb, and it is the rest of the team's job to defend the bomb holder and allow him/her to plant the bomb at one of the bomb sites, A or B, which are strategically placed around the map. The Counter-Terrorists attempt to prevent the terrorists from planting the bomb, but if they succeed, there is a limited amount of time for the Counter-Terrorists to defuse the bomb.

In the hostage rescue, there are two hostages placed around the map, and it is the job of the Counter-Terrorists to rescue a hostage, and return them to the safety zone, which the terrorists will be defending.

-Arms Race: This round is a free for all, in which players attempt to "level up" their guns by killing other players, en route of getting the highest level weapon which means they win the game.

-Demolition: This round is essentially a team version of Arms Race in which players must eliminate the opposing team, while their weapons are automatically upgraded each round if they killed an opponent during the previous round.

-Deathmatch: This is a standard team vs. team match, in which players fight in ten minute rounds in attempt to gain the most kills each round. During these rounds, the players are given the option to buy weapons and create separate loadouts, or can be assigned a random gun after every spawn. Also, players can take the advantage of special weapons, available after a short period of time.

-Offline with Bots: This is a mock-up of a regular casual game, with the only difference being that you are playing with the computer, rather than other players. This can be helpful for practice for beginners (noobs) or even the most experienced players (pros).

This game is actively searched for cheaters and hackers (one in the same), and you can volunteer to aid the moderators of the great game by selecting the "Watch" tab, where you can watch matches played by other players which are suspected of hacking, and you can make your observations in a short report form afterwards.

This process helps to maintain security of the game and its platform, and leads to a fun FPS game for loads of people to enjoy.

Game 2 (This will be shorter, and more up to con to promote): Call of Duty: Ghosts is the tenth game in the Call of Duty series, and is an Online FPS where players can choose to play the campaign mode, where they go through a story and complete various missions.

The player can also choose to play online multiplayer in different game modes, such as these:

-Search and Rescue: A take on Search & Destroy, but rather than having a single life per round, in Search & Rescue a player's team can revive them. It combines that teamwork and communication from Kill Confirmed with the objective-based cooperation of Search & Destroy.

-Gun Game: Similar to versions in previous games, the player starts with a pistol and continues to gain a new weapon for each player they kill. The match ends when a player cycles through all of the available weapons.

-Cranked: In this team-based game mode, the first team to earn 100 kills wins. Once a player kills an enemy, becoming "Cranked," the player who earned the kill has 30 seconds to earn a subsequent kill. If they do not earn a subsequent kill within 30 seconds they blow up. It does not appear that the detonation harms nearby teammates or enemies. If a player earns a subsequent kill within 30 seconds the timer resets to 30 seconds. Once a player is "Cranked" their movement speed is increased, they throw grenades more rapidly, and they aim down sight more quickly, among other effects.

-Free For All: The classic gamemode from previous installments in the franchise returns, in which players must rack up a total of 30 kills to win the game against seven other opponents or rack up to most kills in a 10 minute time limit.

-Team Deathmatch: Team Deathmatch returns in Call of Duty: Ghosts: two teams, 10 minutes, 75 kill limit.

-Search and Destroy: A gamemode in which one side has five minutes to plant a bomb at a choice of two sites and the other team is tasked with defending the sites, the catch of this mode is there are no respawns and the game ends once one team wins four rounds.

-Domination: A gamemode where three flags are scattered throughout the map for players to take and control. Every five seconds a flag in controlled will gain a player's team a point, if a player's team controls two or three flags they gain two or three points. The first team to 200 points wins.

-Team Tactical: A mixture of objective games involving four on four matches.

-Kill Confirmed: A gamemode in which two teams battle, similar to TDM, with the catch being that when a player kills an enemy they drop a dog tag, which is worth points when collected. If a player collects a fallen teammate's dog tag, no points are award to the enemy team; first team to 100 points wins the game.

-Infected: Similar to the Modern Warfare 3 infected, one player is randomly infected at the beginning and can infect other players until either all survivors are infected or time runs out. Playlists will rotate between several different scenarios involving various loadouts.

-Blitz: This team-based game mode is similar to Capture the Flag in that the player needs to go to a portal located at the enemy's spawn point while preventing players from the enemy team from reaching theirs. These portals are temporarily closed for 10 seconds when they are captured to prevent players from rushing.

-Hunted Free For All: Players start with a pistol, two throwing knives, and a flashbang. Crates are dropped in random locations throughout the match that contains more weapons and ammo for the players to compete for. The game mode has a 25 kill limit.

-Drop Zone: Teams take turns capturing drop zones for point


Now after all of my info, I will begin my argument.

1. Multiplayer
As you can see, there are fewer game modes in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive than Call of Duty: Ghosts.
My response is, "Does it really matter?"
Both games have similar game modes, but Call of Duty has more. Call of Duty also is played on many different platforms, where as Counter-Strike is only played on the PC/Mac, and has not been released on any other platforms (yet).

None of the maps of CS:GO are ridiculously difficult to navigate, or are too big to make your way from one side to the other. This was a problem with Call of Duty: Ghosts. There was an uproar about the maps of the game being to large, and difficult to navigate without the map. This is no problem in CS:GO as there is a clear map in the corner of your screen (much like Call of Duty) and the majority of the maps are bright and easy to navigate, and not dark and confusing. Also, there are countless bugs in Call of Duty: Ghosts. All games have bugs, including CS:GO, but the Call of Duty series can be recognized for their bugs. CS:GO has a fair share also, but the game is constantly moderated, and kept tidy of any mishaps in the game.

2. Cheating
All video games have cheaters, I mean, lets be honest.
I can guarantee that there is no online multiplayer game that cannot be hacked, or modified (maliciously) by users in any way. CS:GO has an active cheater protection service, where members can watch footage from reported players, and then go from there. These videos are shown to more than one player, so there is no worries on, " Well what if they lie?", because the moderators and others players will watch the same clips. The size of the Counter-Strike community is also manageable enough to keep things in order--don't think I am saying that it is small, because that is not the case. However, because the Call of Duty fancies and community is so huge, hackers are prolific, and some are not found, and are not stopped. Of course many are taken care of, but who knows when you may be placed in a match with a hacker? Wouldn't that take all of the fun out of the game? Being up against something you can't defeat? Again, CS:GO still has their fair share, but they are not of the same caliber (meaning size).

3. Innovation
Many video games start from one idea, and then evolve as years go by, and technology becomes more powerful, and can create digital things even more realistic. This is the case for both games, but the Counter-Strike games are even more impressive. As each new game is produced, graphics become better by each game in both series. The Counter-Strike series consists of four games. The Call of Duty series consists of ten games. This would lead one to believe that Call of Duty has developed the most over the years, rather than a four game series.
This is a picture from the first Counter-Strike game 1999 [2], and the first Call of Duty game 2003 [3].
The Call of Duty game has better graphics right? Well, here are pictures from the most recent games. (Ghosts for this argument)
CS:GO 2012 [4], Call of Duty: Ghosts 2013 [5]

[1] A (F)irst (P)erson (S)hooter
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting the debate!

Rebuttals/Some Arguments
1. Multiplayer
Pro says the fact that COD ghosts has more game modes does not matter, it depends on the market, but I believe it does. Tired of playing the same competitive Team Deathmatch or Bomb Defusal? Call of duty has many game modes for people at parties to play. As you can see, some of these modes in COD don't have a lot competitive value, but they are lots of fun. It gives a break from the gritty, serious type play that some modes possess, and ALL of CS:GO's game modes are serious, no fun party mode. This makes COD more of a party game and makes the game more fun multiplayer wise.
Pro also makes the point that Call of Duty Ghost's maps are too confusing. Yes, the maps are big, but they compliment the Call of Duty setting. Being in a big map makes the setting, a battlefield in a war, much more intriguing. It feels like you are actually in a big battlefield in the middle of war, with gunshots everywhere. Counter Strike's setting is counter terrorism, not a war. So it's natural for the maps to be smaller.
Have you heard of updates? Call of Duty Ghosts gets updates, not to make you frustrated, but to fix bugs. So Pro's argument about Counter Strike's bugs getting fixed, while COD's don't, disproved.

2. Cheating
Pro argues that CS:GO has less hackers. While that is true to some degree, Pro concedes the point that COD hackers do get caught, so this disproves his point that CS:GO hackers get caught. Also, he brings up the point that you may get placed in a game with a hacker, and that takes the fun out of the game. Let me introduce you to the "exit" button, of you get into a game with a hacker, just simply exit the game and join a new one. While this also applies to CS:GO, I have countered his argument.

3. Innovation
This argument basically consists of why CS had better graphics then COD. He shows 2 pictures, one from CS:GO and one from COD ghosts, he says that CS has better graphics. Well, I disagree. Look at [1](CS:GO) and [2](COD Ghosts), in my opinion (comparing graphics is hard not to be biased) COD wins. Look at the in game screen shot, it is highly detailed and look at the render distance, beautiful. We can't say much more on innovation on this, since both series don't innovate all that much.
Now for my own arguments
1. Multiplayer
COD Ghosts has a much more appealing multiplayer than CS:GO, here's why. First of all, COD Ghosts is on console, which is known for it's local multiplayer. Multiplayer is much more enjoyable with friends, and all you have to do is have your friends come over and just give them a controller. While on PC, everyone needs a computer, everyone has to bring a computer, and you need a powerful machine just to RUN CS. Also, I stated this earlier, COD has a wide variety of game modes, and very unique and fun ones that ARENT serious and competitive. Some examples of this are Cranked, and Infected. Plus, there's also a bomb defuse mode, which mirrors CS, so it isn't exclusive to CS. In addition, the maps are larger and it's fun to have that sense of immersions, compared to the cramped spaces of CS.

2. Single Player Campaign
While FPS campaigns are usually short, COD actually has a campaign, while CS doesn't. COD's campaign has a story and has some pretty enjoyable missions to keep you playing and enhance the experience of the game, while CS just doesn't have a campaign.



You're welcome, and I am enjoying this debate.

Rebuttals and Arguments:
(One from my first group)

3. Innovation
I ran out of characters to say this, but Counter Strike was first released in 1999, and Cod was first introduced in 2003. I showed how they both had comparable graphics, but given the advances of four years difference, Cod was better. Then I showed how Cod had slowly advanced in graphics, but Counter Strike escalated, through just four games over fourteen years!
Con states that both series do not innovate very much, but I disagree, as CS has gone from near 8bit graphics to beautiful rendering, as well as COD, but COD made so many games, that the changes leading to each are miniscule.

More Rebuttals
1. Multiplayer
Pro states that COD ghosts has a more appealing multiplayer because it is a console game, and known for its local multiplayer. CSGO has both features, where you can choose to play a local community match, which takes longer to load than a general match, but is still worth it if you want to play with people around your community. Pro also states that all you need to do is give your friends controllers, and have everyone convene at your own house to play, while CS requires everyone to have a computer, and you need a powerful machine to run CS. CS runs on Source, which does not specifically require much ram. Also, your friends do need to have a computer to play on, but you can still create games where just you and your friends can play together, without anyone else from the internet joining. Finally, Pro states that COD has some non-competitive game modes, while CS does not. CS and COD are both generally serious games, and are meant to be competitive. Both games have modes that are not super competitive, but all of them are to an extent. You are welcome to play either game as a non-competitive game, but it is not what most people do. And laslty, Pro states that the maps that are large, and fun because it gives a more immersive face to the game, but really, how annoying is it when your opponents are in the opposite corner of the map than you, and you can't see them?

2. Single Player Campaign
Unfortunately, CS does not have a single player campaign, where COD does. If you only want to play the Campaign of a video game, COD is the obvious choice. If you are looking for a game with a great multiplayer environment, with minimal issues, CS is the choice.

My only argument

On CS, there are nearly infinite weapon camos that can be bought in the Steam Marketplace, for .04$ all the way to 400$! (anything more is sold outside of the game for other reasons i.e. system can't deal with 1k$ transactions). So essentially, if you are lucky when opening a crate that you may have gotten as a drop in-game one day, you could get a 35$ skin for a gun, and sell it on the marketplace, and go and buy Skyrim, or some other game for sale on Steam! So, by playing this game, you can make enough money to buy even MORE games! How great is that?!!
By opening crates with keys (total of about 3$) you have a chance of getting a weapon worth .10$ to 1000$.
Debate Round No. 2


3. Innovation (#3 because that was the original number)
While, yes, CS has had more improvements between installments compared to COD, you have to remember that CS games took a lot of time to release, while COD games were released pretty quickly. I will supply a list of the games, and you'll see what I'm talking about.
COD: 2003
COD, United Offensive: 2004
COD, Finest Hour: 2004
COD 2, The big red one: 2005
COD 3: 2006
COD, Roads to Victory: 2007
COD, World at War: 2008
COD, Modern Warfare 2: 2009
COD, Zombies: 2009
COD, Black Ops: 2010
COD, Modern Warfare: 2011
COD, Black Ops Zombies: 2011
COD, Black Ops 2: 2012
COD, Black Ops 2, Declassified: 2012
COS Strike Team: 2013
COS, Ghosts: 2013
COD, Advanced Warfare: 2014
Now I will list the CS games
CS: 1999
CS, Neo: 2003
CS, Condition Zero: 2004
CS, Source: 2004
CS, Online: 2008
CS, Global Offensive: 2012

As you can see there is one COD game per year, while the CS games are released from time to time. Since CS games are release with time in between them, they can make use of the technology they didn't have years ago. For example, I bet they have better graphic technology in 2012, compared to 2008. COD still makes improvements, but they are a lot more subtle, since the games are released every year. However, COD is still above CS when it comes to graphics, rendering Pro's point useless.
Plus, when I said "Both series don't really innovate that much," I was talking about GAMEPLAY wise. Not just graphics. Advances on graphics isn't innovation, it's improvement.

1. Multiplayer
Pro tries to make PCs look like they have local multiplayer, but they don't. When I say local multiplayer, I mean multiplayer on the same system. PCs don't have that since you can't share a keyboard In a FPS, while consoles can have multiple controllers connected to the system and have a good split screen, so you can have your friends play with you at your house.
Pro also says you can have a private match on CS, while in COD you don't. Well, there is a private match option you can use in COD, and you can invite your friends to play with no one on the Internet joining.
Pro tries to say that COD and CS are meant to be competitive. If they were meant to be competitive, how come there are non-competitive game modes in COD? This is to cater to the people who actually want to have fun at parties or just play non-competitively.
Pro also tries to do disprove my point about the bigger maps improve the gameplay. Well, how fun is it if people are just camping? It's hard to camp in a large map, since there's a lower chance of players coming into their line of sight.

1. Marketing and Business (That's right, 2 number 1s...)
This does not necessarily make the game better. Sure, you can get good stuff and sell it, but what are really the odds of getting a high value item. Very slim. If you are able to get one, good for you, but it doesn't make the gameplay better, just a fun little reward gimmick. Just like McDonald's monopoly promotion, the promotion doesn't make the restaurant better, it just makes you go and eat there more.

[1]: Google Search: List of COD games (brings up timeline)
[2] Google Search: List of CS games (brings up timeline)



3. When I say... Innovation, I mean that they revolutionize their games. Lets put this into symbolism.

Say a prosthetic leg for instance. Scientists and engineers would be trying to build a new leg time after time, to make it better. Would you want to spend crazy sums of money year, after year? Or would you rather pay less money every couple of years? Every couple of years right? Well, considering that the COD games are upwards of 45$ when they are released, and typically stay around 60$. This is outrageous, compared to the 15$ game of CS:GO where you can easily profit from the community marketplace (almost to that topic). When I say innovation, don't think more is more, less is less, think about price and quality.

1. Multiplayer
I'm not trying to show that PC's have local multiplayer, I'm telling you that they can be connected with each other, in the same lobby, organized by one person. There is a choice in the menu to "Play with Friends" where you can add people who you are friends with that have CS, and you can just play a private match with your buds. This is nothing like a console such as Xbox, where everyone needs a controller, and you can play in the same room. On the PC, you can play with your friends no matter where they are, Russia, U.S., Africa, anywhere!
Large maps are fine, but they are just optimal for some gameplay. Consider the fact that you may not be skilled with long range weapons, and the whole enemy team is going to snipe across map. This really blows (of course you can leave the game) because you are at a loss. With a medium sized map, you can snipe, or clutch with ease.

1. Marketing and Business
This doesn't make the game better? Making easy money doesn't make the game better? Really?I hope you know how Steam works. Steam is a Huuuuuge gaming platform used by millions of people on their PC's, Mac's, and Linux. You can buy nearly any game under the sun on Steam (If it has been made for the PC). So say I get bored one day, of playing CS or say Borderlands 2. Well, I could check up on my inventory, and see the camos that I had acquired over a while, and take maybe 3 or 4 and put them up for sale on the Market for maybe 6$ a piece (they all have different values, from .04$ to 400$) and they are guaranteed to sell within ten hours or if not that, in a day. I now have about 20+$ to spend on more games. That is great marketing, am I wrong? If you can basically set up your own market for items on a game, it would be pretty cool huh? Well rather than the one-time-buy of COD, you can just buy CS:GO, and then get a bunch of camos, and buy even more games! I could even buy COD:Ghosts if I wanted to. There are three basic ways to receive camos. One: Trade. You can trade things with your friends on Steam, and who knows, maybe they'll toss in a gun for free! Two: Buy cases. Its just like a little lottery. You buy a case and key, Approximately 2.90$ in total, and you can unlock the case, and receive items worth 1$ to 30$ to 400+$! There is one extremely rare item (400$) and a few rare items (60+) a quite a few special guns (40$) and about twenty regulars (1$ - 5$) the odds are better for players to buy at least 5 cases (10$) and they will most likely win a Rare, or medium rare (no, not a burger :( ) camo, which they will probably use in-game a few times, then sell it. Three: Ingame Drops. When you play on a multiplayer server in CS:GO, there are three time-bonus packages you can get. This is like a special case drop in COD, only its something that you keep and can sell. These are guns ranging .04$ to maayyybeee 40$? They aren't going to give you a 400$ knife just for playing their game, of course not! The most common drop is a case, and from experience, in the past week and a half, I got 4 Chroma cases in Drops, which are marketable for approximately 4$ a piece as of right now. Crazy right? For playing about eight hours in the past two weeks, CS:GO gave me about fifteen to sixteen dollars to spend on guns, or on new games (this category includes buying guns off the marketplace). The people on steam that play this game, are pretty generous at times, and If you catch some people (trollers), they will put 40$ guns out for 5-10$ just for kicks, and they will FLY off the Marketplace. I will refresh my page, see it, refresh, its gone. I think that marketing is a great way to advertise a game, and if it includes its own little market inside of it, I would count it as a plus!

Thanks for your time, and I really am having to pull this stuff out of my brain; I never get to debate on stuff like this.
Debate Round No. 3


Well, here we go.
3. Innovation
Um... I hope you know what innovation means .
Innovation: something new or different introduced
Nothing to do with with prices or timeliness.

As for the other argument, here is my rebuttal:
It seems cheaper and better to buy games from a franchise that only comes out every so often, but here are some downsides. First, losing appeal. With 4-5 years between each installment, what happens when you get bored of the new installment? There isn't a lot of other games to choose from, and a new installment won't come out for a while. With a series with a lot of installments you can go to the store and get another game, or, you could wait for the next installment, which will come out in a little bit.
Second, up to date software. If you play a game from a franchise that doesn't release games too often, you are stuck with an outdated game for a while. Think about it, they can't improve the graphics or the gameplay with a patch or update, they need a new game to keep the games up to date. While a series that releases games every year can stay up to date, let's be honest, who doesn't want to play an awesome game with the newest graphics, gameplay mechanics, and the fastest frame rate?

1. Multiplayer
You can also play with your friends around the world on console in a private room. You can play with your buddies around the world, you don't all have to be in the same room.
There are also small maps for newbies to play in.

1. Marketing and Business
We are debating about which game is better. Being able to make easy money on CS is cool, but it doesn't enhance the gameplay. May I remind you of my analogy with the McDonald's monopoly campaign. It makes it more worthwhile to go there, but it doesn't make the food or the establishment better.


3. I do know what innovation means, and the topic took a turn from the main point, which was that CS took more time to improve their games, while COD just rushed theirs, creating new game, after new game, after new game. Sure they had different campaign modes, but they didn't have to come out in such a hurry.

Con states that with 4-5 years wait between an old game and a new game, you lose interest? Would this not make you look forward to the new game even more? Just like the Hobbit movies, where everyone was pumped, even though the first hobbit movie came out 11 years after the last Lord of the Rings movie came out. They were bored of the old movies, and ready for some new ones, right? Distance brings people together, as Time also brings people together. After 11 years of no new movies, one would yearn for a new one more than that of a person waiting 2 years. This is just like the CS/COD situation with release dates. Cod comes out year after year, but CS makes the players yearn for the new games, almost as if they are special treats every couple of years. Each new CS game also came out with better graphics, faster frame rate, etc.

1. Multiplayer
I acknowledge this fact, but really, comparing different game platforms and consoles is difficult, as they were both built for different purposes. With a computer, you have better access to the internet, and instant internet connections, while with an Xbox for example, you have to go through the process of hooking it up to your wifi and all of the above to be able to play with other people. This does not include just playing a private game with friends, which is possible in the same room on both consoles.

1. Marketing and Business
Yes, we are debating which game is better, and what I mean when I say that you can make money, is that it allows the player to modify his/her game substantially with different weapon camos, similar to that of COD, only the ones on CS are actually worth money. There is a reason that this is not like McDonalds Monopoly campaign, and let me tell you why. While you may be spending money on these crates, you will always get something in return, you see, with McDonalds' campaign, the chances are close to none for you to come even close to getting something in return. Although you may not make your money back, you still get a sweet camo to show off in-game in all of its glory.
Debate Round No. 4


I kindly remind Pro that he cannot argue in this round.

3. Innovation
The topic didn't stray from the main point. Games that are released very frequently can always stay up to date. For example, let's say you are creating a video game series, you could release games every year, or release games every 5 years. Assuming that your first game comes out in 2015, here is the technology you will have access to:
Game 1:2015
Game 2:2016
Game 3:2017
Game 4:2018
Game 5:2019
Game 6:2020
Game 7:2021
Game 8:2022
This means that your games will always be up to date with the newest technology. Now, if you chose the other option of releasing games every five years, here is the technology your games will have access to:
Game 1: 2015
Game 2: 2020
Game 3: 2025
Game 4: 2030
Game 5: 2035
Game 6: 2040
As you can see, the option where you release games every year would make sure your games stay up to date with the newest technology. Games that are released every 5 years don't stay up to date. The franchise has a sudden spike of technology, making it up to date, however, in that next 4 year gap, the game is out of date. The technology is outdated since new technology came out that year, but you can't add it to your old game.
As for losing appeal, you would lose interest. Yes, you would be hyped up for the next installment, but what about the most recent installment? After a year or two you may have nothing else to do in the game, you would've already unlocked most of the content and there's nothing new to explore. The game gets boring, that's why people are hyped up for a newer installment, they're bored. Furthermore, if the series stays dead for too long, people start to forget. Look at Half Life, yes, people are still sold on the idea that Half Life 2, episode 3 will come out soon, but the majority of people just use "Half Life 3 confirmed" as a joke now. Some people have already moved on to other games. So the franchise loses steam and valuable fans.

1. Multiplayer
When setting up your Internet, it's a one time process, just like a computer. You also have pretty fast connections on console. The truth is, console multiplayer is superior to PC multiplayer, and Pro concedes this fact.

1. Marketing and Business
Of course it's not the same to the McDonald's Monopoly campaign, I'm using it as an analogy. Again, it doesn't make the GAME better, just makes it more worthwhile. Pro's last bit of text is that you get a sweet camo that you can use. You also have awesome camos in COD Ghosts that you can use to personalize your load out and character.

In conclusion, COD Ghosts is better than CS:GO, and COD is overall better than CS due to the following reasons:
Newest graphic and performance technology, since it's more recent.
You can have fun with your friends at the same house.
There are more game modes that cater toward the non-competitive crowd, or parties.
Single Player campaign to play
Large, immersive maps
Huge community
Overall better multiplayer system
And other reasons found in the previous rounds

Thank you Pro for the awesome debate, and thank you voters for voting.
Vote Con!
Again, pro cannot argue in this round.


This was a great debate, and I thank Pro for not forfeiting at any point!

Thank you and please enjoy! :)
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Hylian_3000 3 years ago
Endarkend, that's the fun of it. I still have to debate against it.
Posted by Reeseroni 3 years ago
I used all 10k :) Oh, and I apologize for source [3], please type the url extension after navigating to the hyperlink! Thank you.
Posted by Reeseroni 3 years ago
This is going to take me a few hours to compose, but the resolution is: Counter-Strike: Global Offensive is superior to Call of Duty: Ghosts. If you haven't played either game, I'd do my research if I were u ;).
(Btw I've never played COD:Ghosts, but I think I have sufficient info on cs:goto prove it is better).
Posted by EndarkenedRationalist 3 years ago
What if someone picks a topic you agree with?
Posted by Hylian_3000 3 years ago
I make it open to anyone for a reason. I want to debate something new.
Posted by Valkrin 3 years ago
I would be arguing Pro. Would you like to debate this?
Posted by Valkrin 3 years ago
Nvidia graphics cards perform better than AMD graphics cards.
Posted by amandamllr23 3 years ago
It seems like Faquet is trolling. Also I don't play games and I'm not strong or beautiful therefore proving that one wrong. So I call a troll. Could still be an interesting debate if it continues though.
Posted by Hylian_3000 3 years ago
Open to anyone
Posted by LatinaGirl8894 3 years ago
Dragon Age Inquisition is the best game of the set.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 3 years ago
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro get's sources for having more sources than Con, 5-4 is the count on sources unless I missed one. Conduct is tied for both members displayed reasonable conduct. Spelling and Grammar goes to Con as Pro has quite a few noticeable grammatical errors. As for arguments I'll have no choice, but to give it to Con, because Pro drops a few very important contentions and it's because of these contentions the resolution would be negated and thus Con wins the debate.