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

Modern warfare 3 is better than Battlefield 3

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/6/2012 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,151 times Debate No: 24998
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)




I strongly BELIVE that modern warfare 3 is so much better than battlefield 3.


I shall accept this debate, as most of the BOP is on Pro, while I shall provide some proof myself, just in case.
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks for accepting my debate...
First off, I pre ordered BF3, and after prestiging 5 times in MW2 and 9 time Black Ops, I was excited for a new experience. In the weeks prior to the release of both games, I was already proclaiming my love for BF3. I put 30 hours into BF3 and sold it, using the money towards MW3.

Why don't I like BF3? Many reasons. People say MW3 is unbalanced but BF3 is EXTREMELY unbalanced. Literally every game I play my team is either losing badly or winning badly. I've never played a good match on BF3 where we win or lose by only a small score.

Second, there are pretty much only 2 game modes on BF3, Conquest & Rush (Domination & Demolition in COD) plus Team deathmatch. This is BORING. MW3 has the above plus capture the flag, headquarters, sabotage, etc. plus my personal favorite search and destroy, plus hardcore modes that actually feel different (BF3's hardcore mode was just laughable), PLUS 2 really fun new modes Kill Confirmed and Team Defender. These are really, really fun.

Next, true, BF3 is very realistic. MW3 is not. But I like that. I love how BF fanboys bitch how COD is filled with campers when BF3 is NOTHING BUT CAMPING. In real life, soldiers camp. Nobody "runs and guns" per say. IMO camping is boring and getting killed by campers is bulls***. I like how COD actually requires good reflexes. This keeps you on your toes constantly and is what makes it fun.

I also hated how if you back out of a match in BF3 you lose all your progress from that match. Why? I don't understand that. And matches could last up to 40 minutes. What if you genuinely had to go? You'd lose all your progress.

In conclusion, I am also a sucker for COD's prestige system but that's just my personal taste. Ppl either hate it or love it, and I love it. I'm planning on reaching prestige 10 in MW3. Also, MW3 has a lot of co-op options, from spec ops to survival to online splitscreen. BF3? Nothing. Purely single player. Plus I'm having a lot more fun in MW3's campaign than in BF3's.


I'm not very familiar with DDO's Game Debating format, but I think you're going to need a more solid argument then 'Really Fun'. Debates aren't supposed to be won on opinions, they are to be won by facts, and facts I shall provide. Nonetheless, I thank my opponent for putting time into this debate. I shall rebut your arguments.

R1: BF3 is Unbalanced

My opponent does not supply any numerical proof of the average Margin of Victory of BF3 nor Modern Warfare 3 online matches. His results could be a coincidence, as he could be playing against players that are either extremely skilled or not skilled. Therefore, this point of his is null.

R2: BF3 doesn't have as many game modes as MW3

I concede that BF3 doesn't have as many online game modes as MW3, which has 19 online modes[1] in total. That is a valid argument.

R3: BF3 is more realistic than MW3

This isn't as much of a rebuttal as it is emphasizing this point. My opponent concedes that BF3 is more realistic than MW3. While the general genre of these games is FPS (First Person Shooters), they also qualify as RPGs (Role-Playing Games). The primary purpose of these games that aren't opinion based is realism. So, since my opponent concedes BF3 is more realistic than MW3, he also concedes that BF3 executes the primary focus of the game better than MW3 does.

R4: Backing Out

My opponent points out that the possibility of genuinely having to go in the middle of the game, and how you would lose all progress. The reason why losing all progress happens in BF3 is the high amount of quitting involved. My opponent will surely concede that in MW3 and BF3 that there are high amounts of quitting involved, and that's why that feature is there.

R5: Co-Op options

I do concede that there are more options in Co-Op in MW3 than in BF3. However, BF3 instead focuses on Campaign, which Pro will concede to playing more than Co-Op, which requires a 2nd player.
Debate Round No. 2


Battlefield 3 is more focused on team play. Therefore it only takes one idiot to f**k up your whole team. The campaign of Battlefield 3 is too slow paced. (The first level, First your in a truck, Then slowly walk off to briefing then walk over to where you need to be.)

Mw3 is more customisable, where in bf3 it is class based. You have to swap your whole class and not just your weapon.


I thank my opponent for his final round of this debate. My opponent didn't respond to any of my rebuttals in Round 2, so I shall only rebut the new arguments he made this round.

R1: BF3 is more focused on Team Play

My opponent does not explain the consistency of how much a not as skilled player ruins games. BF3 also provides options for single online play as well as team play.

R2: BF3's Campaign is too slow

As my opponent conceded in Round 2, and as I emphasized, BF3 is more realistic than MW3. This also extends to Campaign mode, as all of the slowness is designed to make Campaign more realistic, which makes Campaign in BF3 better than MW3.

R3: MW3 is more customizable than BF3

My opponent point out that in BF3, you can't change out the individual weapon. You have to switch the whole class. What my opponent fails to point out is that you can customize the classes themselves, making it insignificant to change out the individual weapon.


Through my rebuttals, I have proved that MW3 is not superior to BF3. I hope the voters' voting reflects this. I thank my opponent for the debate, and I am thanking the voters in advance.

Missing source for Round 2

Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by bossyburrito 4 years ago
"While the general genre of these games is FPS (First Person Shooters), they also qualify as RPGs (Role-Playing Games)"

Posted by bossyburrito 4 years ago
Armored kill 4 lif3
Posted by bossyburrito 4 years ago
I SOOOOO want to debate this.
Posted by xXECLIPSEXx 4 years ago
There we go Duckey. Changed to 3 rounds
Posted by Ducky 4 years ago
Are five rounds really necessary for a video game argument?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by tvellalott 4 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither of you get argument points. Pro provided no evidence and Con simply rebutted Pro's points. The old 'herpa derp, Pro has BOP, therefore I don't have to make an argument" chestnut. So boring. However, Pro's spelling and grammar were inferior, so they lose that point. Pick up your game people.
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 4 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments were short, weak and did not make a strong enough case to illicit a win.