The Instigator
monkeydude99
Pro (for)
Losing
16 Points
The Contender
johngriswald
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points

In MW2 the ACR is much better than the Tar 21, and the Ac130 is better than the Chopper Gunner

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/30/2009 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,896 times Debate No: 10288
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (7)

 

monkeydude99

Pro

I want to debate 2 of the guns in Mw2, and 2 of the kill streaks. If this debate is accepted then i hope to find an opponent who not only has the game, but has used all 4 things i have described. PLease be sure to answer the topic i brought up, and once that is done you may feel free to ask another question, or bring up a different point about the subject, i obviously feel that the ACR is superior to the Tar-21.. and that the Ac130 is superior to the chopper gunner
johngriswald

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for making this debate.

I await my opponent's affirmation, definitions, and supporting information for her affirmation.

Affirmation - an affirmation is a statement you are trying to debate for. Usually done in the "I affirm that _Topic___of___debate" format. In this case your affirmation would be I affirm that in Modern Warfare 2 the Adaptive Combat Rifle is much better than the Tarvor Assault Rifle for the 21st Century. Furthermore I affirm that the Lockheed AC-130 gunship (aircraft) is better than the Chopper Gunner.

Definitions and Explanation: Here is where you should define the words: much, better, give pictures of the weapons/vehicles, set up a strict standard for the words much and better. Making it clear where to draw the line between a little better and much better, and also setting up a standard between better and worse. These lines should be clearly distinguishable. For example if I was to bring up another 2 weapons or vehicles to compare to, I could easily see fit them into a category of worse, better, little better, and much better.

Supporting Information - This is where you would include reasons why the Adaptive Combat and the Chopper Gunner are better than Tarvor Assault Rifle for the 21st Century and the Chopper Gunner respectively. The supporting information should utilize your definitions and explanations. You should clearly show why they are better. As the person who created the resolution, you have the burden of proof and thus must prove, (using your definitions and explanations) along with examples factual/logical information why the guns/vehicles are considered better.

Thanks and good luck on the debate!
Debate Round No. 1
monkeydude99

Pro

Well to begin, I would absolutely like to thank my opponenet for accepting this debate and being serious about it. Just to clarify; I did not put much effort in my opening argument because honestly I was afraid that somebody would accept this debate that was not willing to really debate, such as what happened to me last time i posted this. Now that I have found a willing opponent, I will begin debating.

In my opinion i feel that the ACR is much better than the Tar 21.
In my opinion i also feel that the Ac130 is also much better than the Chopper Gunner.

On to the two weapons:
1. I have used both weapons, about the same amount of times. And I have noticed that I have gotten higher kills, and more killstreaks using the ACR, rather than the Tar 21. Now this could simply be a coincidence, or maybe the weapon just suits me better personally? Maybe I was simply better than all of the people in my lobby? Maybe I just have a lucky day when I use the ACR? If any of those things I mentioned were true, then it would disprove my argument entirely. But! I know that I am not lucky, or better than all of the people, and I know for a fact that when I use the ACR, it is no coincidence that I do well. It is simply, because of one thing. It is just becasue the weapon is better, plain and simple. Now I am not the only one who knows this. I have asked my friends what they feel is a better gun, and my results showed that most of them opted the ACR over the Tar-21 hands down. You can not argue the accuracy for the two guns. Because everyone on Gods Green Earth knows that the ACR is more accurate than the Tar 21. It is more accurate when aiming down the sights, aswell as when spraying standing still, and when spraying while running (This statement is not changed by whether or not both of the guns have steady aim). The bullets are also shot faster than the Tar-21's are. This gives you a higher accuracy, aswell as a faster bullet output, allowing you to get more shots off when you need to put bullets into the opposing player. And when you must reload, the ACR is faster then the Tar-21. The Tar-21 takes too long of a time to reload for an assualt rifle. In the game, the player brings the gun up, jiggles out the magazine, switches out the magazine, and then jiggles it back in. By that time you've already been killed and teabagged by the enemy. This is opposed to the ACR, where you just jiggle out the magazine, switch it, and place a new magazine in. So you'll be the one teabagging the enemy, not vice-versa.

On the two killstreaks:
2. The Ac130 is also better than the Chopper Gunner in my eyes, aswell as many of my friends. Just to throw a few facts out there about the two vehicles 1. Both are unlocked after an 11 kill streak(10 with hardline) 2. Both fly you into the sky and when inside the vehicle you are looking through a thermal vision optical sight. 3. Both vehicles portray a red square around enemies to make your shots easier.
Now on to why the Ac130 is actually better. Once again I have used both killstreaks around an even amount of times, and I have noticed a few major problems with the Chopper Gunner, that just simply does not happen with the Ac130. The first of these things is the elevation and lack of movement while gunnning the Choppper. As im sure you have noticed when piloting the Chopper, you are flying very low to the ground during most of your flight. This absolutely sucks when your playing on a map such as Skidrow, which contains many buildings and corners that you can not see around. With the Ac130 you are very high up in the clouds, and you have the easy oppurtunity to shoot around every corner. Another problem with the Chopper Gunner is that you are very still during parts of your flight. If the people on the other team are smart, then they will just play hide n seek for the 30 seconds your chopper is in the air. The lack of movement you have while in the Chopper only makes it easier for them. This is contrasted to the Ac130, where your plane is constantly flying around. The final problem that the Chopper Gunner has is that it is far to easy to shoot down, or atleast its much easier to shoot down than the Ac130. Both of the vehicles deploy flares so they are evenly matched on that affair. But, the Ac130 is very far away, which makes it harder to spot on the map. Unlike the Chopper gunner, which is very close to the ground, making it very easy to find.

These are my contentions, cant wait to hear your rebuddle :)
johngriswald

Con

My opponent has presented me with a resolution that can't be debated by adding "in my opinion". Opinions are not resolutions and thus are not debatable. How could someone possibly refute anything that is your opinion.

My opponent has also failed to define better, much, and has furthermore failed to give any distinguishable guideline in order to distinguish better from worse and much better from just plain better.

Furthermore, my opponent's entire supporting information is derived from himself and comes from no valid sources. Since my opponent is the one debating, all of his information that comes from himself is opinionated and is thus considered to be biased towards my opponents views. Since the information is biased it is invalid.

Unfortunately had this been a 4 (or higher) round debate, we could have continued arguing. However at Round 2 in the debate with no real affirmation, definitions, guidelines, or valid supporting information, I'm afraid the only option for my opponent is to forfeit the last round. Even if my opponent does come up with a clear resolution that contains no "in my opinion" (such resolution I suggested in R1), definitions, guidelines and valid supporting information it will only be rebutted without any chance of my opponent having any say or argument against.

It is my recommendation to my opponent to create another debate challenging me with a clear resolution(such resolution I suggested in R1), definitions, guidelines and valid supporting information. I will gladly accept the debate and participate in it. However with an opinionated resolution, there is no argument and thus is no debate. Since all of the problems of this debate lie with the fault of my opponent I urge all voters to vote con, or otherwise abstain from voting unless to give conduct, or grammar points.
Debate Round No. 2
monkeydude99

Pro

To be honest, I am a new debater to this site. And I probably did screw up my contentions a bit for that reason. But i did throw many things out there that could be debated. I provided examples of how it feels when piloting both vehicles, and what is wrong with the chopper gunnner. Now just because it is my opinion that does not make the subject undebatable. The reason you debate in the first place is mostly because of mixed opinions. So i urge my opponent to re-read my Contentions, and argue whatever you feel is arguable. Thank you
johngriswald

Con

None of it is arguable for the chief reason that it is your opinion. Biased examples are what they are, biased. You can't used biased information as your chief support.

For example I could say that it is my opinion that dog turds are good

My supporting information could be my first hand knowledge of dog turds, how I like the smell, and how I like eating them.

There would be nothing to debate. Dog turds are obviously disgusting, but what are you going to say? "No dog turds are disgusting I have smelled them and they are awful" Then I could simply rebut, no my opinion is, that I like them. And you lose the debate.

Discussing opinions using firsthand experience with someone is called an argument

Arguing a resolution with well defined terms and guidelines, using factual information from reliable sources is a debate.

With an opinionated resolution, there is no argument and thus is no debate. Since all of the problems of this debate lie with the fault of my opponent I urge all voters to vote con, or otherwise abstain from voting unless to give conduct, or grammar points.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by johngriswald 7 years ago
johngriswald
Yup no problem bro, start another debate with a clear affirmation definitions and supporting info and I'd be glad to have one with you
Posted by monkeydude99 7 years ago
monkeydude99
ok i understand, thanks for the help
Posted by johngriswald 7 years ago
johngriswald
It's a fact if you post a link that affirms that it has lower recoil, and then explain why it logically has better accuracy.

Otherwise it's again, biased opinion.
Posted by monkeydude99 7 years ago
monkeydude99
Yah but the ACR having lower recoil, hence better accuracy, is a fact?
Posted by johngriswald 7 years ago
johngriswald
All voters please leave reasons for your decision. I really only care about the RFD no matter which way it goes.
Posted by johngriswald 7 years ago
johngriswald
Again you gave no sources, thus all the information is biased opinion instead of fact.
Posted by monkeydude99 7 years ago
monkeydude99
OK, I understand where you are coming from. But what about the points such as the accuracy, and the lower altitude of the chopper?
Posted by johngriswald 7 years ago
johngriswald
"That is certainly an opinion, but it is factual. "

If it is factual you would have included sources that made it so. By making it anecdotal, the statement becomes opinion, not fact.

"first hand examples "
Firsthand examples are what is known as biased sources. The source is biased because you are the source. Because you are trying to win this debate and prove your point, it is biased information and thus is not valid because you have a reason for not telling the truth. Thus the information could and probably is skewed towards your point because you are biased, thus it is not valid.
Posted by monkeydude99 7 years ago
monkeydude99
Well what about my points about the ACR having better accuracy? That is certainly an opinion, but it is factual. And What about my stated fact that the ACR puts out more bullets. And speaking of the killstreaks i gave first hand examples of why the Ac130 is better. For example i stated how the chopper gunner is too low to the ground, therefore its easier to get kills in the Ac130. I do not understand why those 3 points are undebateable? This seems very easily debateable to me. Therefore you must vote pro because my opponent did not rebuddle my contentions.
Posted by johngriswald 7 years ago
johngriswald
I also apologize for the use of her, it was a typo.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by BewareItsAndrew 6 years ago
BewareItsAndrew
monkeydude99johngriswaldTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07 
Vote Placed by JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
monkeydude99johngriswaldTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07 
Vote Placed by monkeydude99 7 years ago
monkeydude99
monkeydude99johngriswaldTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:70 
Vote Placed by jl153 7 years ago
jl153
monkeydude99johngriswaldTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:70 
Vote Placed by Cherymenthol 7 years ago
Cherymenthol
monkeydude99johngriswaldTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by QpSmiley 7 years ago
QpSmiley
monkeydude99johngriswaldTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Awed 7 years ago
Awed
monkeydude99johngriswaldTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:22