The Instigator
JustinAMoffatt
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
DetectableNinja
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Resolved: Video Games should not have sequels as a matter of principle

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 3 votes the winner is...
DetectableNinja
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/30/2013 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,269 times Debate No: 36125
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (3)

 

JustinAMoffatt

Pro

This debate forms part of the Official DDO Prepared Championships for Summer 2013. Please see the forums for details. (http://www.debate.org......).

FORMAT OF THE DEBATE:
R1 will be acceptance only, with no new arguments to be introduced in R4. 8000 characters per round with a 72 hour response time, plus a voting period of 1 week.

Definitions

Sequel - "A work that continues the story of, or expands upon, a previous work. This includes spiritual sequels."

Principle - "
A rule or belief governing one's personal behavior."

Anything that DetectableNinja wants to further define or clarify should be mentioned through PM or comments.

Otherwise, it's game on.

I look forward to debating you, my friend. Best of luck.
DetectableNinja

Con

I accept the debate, and wish my opponent the absolute best of luck.
Debate Round No. 1
JustinAMoffatt

Pro

Thanks to my opponent for his response.

I stand to show why video games should not have sequels on principle.

P1: Call of Doody (Oh you know I had to)

Oh c'mon. You knew it was coming. Just like you knew that COD: Black Ops 2 (not so affectionately knowns as BLOPS2) was coming this year, COD: Ghosts is coming next year, and COD: Something or Other is coming the year after.

Call of Duty, the highest grossing video game franchise ever, is a perfect example of why it is wrong to have video game sequels. It is the fat, lazy, cash cow that rakes in its profit from adolescent, testosterone-driven, males. It hardly changes every year, but still manages to tweak just enough to convince its mindless consumers that it is a brand new game.

Games like COD give video games a bad name. They are what parents think of when they hear video games, just a mindless, cruel, profane shooter that wastes children's time and money. It not only ruins the reputation (and dating chances) of many gamers, but the industry as a whole.

P2: Lack of imagination leads to stagnation

New IP is needed in the gaming industry for it to survive. Every year, we've been seeing a decline in video game sales. [1] Meanwhile, we've also seen a rise in the trend of sequels. [2] Coincidence? I think not!

An article by www.mcvuk.com[3] outlines how this lack of IP will eventually lead to the death of video games if we are not careful.

It states how we trick ourselves, as gamers. We think that these sequels that put up such big numbers are helping grow the gaming industry, when really it is in decline. These rehashes of games do little more than to slow the eventual bleeding out.

The answer is obvious, we need new IP. Video game developers should make it their principle not to create sequels.


Well, that ends my short and sweet R2. I believe that, while my opponent will undoubtedly come back at me with some well-spoken points, but I beleive that these points alone should be enough to make my case for now.

A side note to my opponent. I'd ask that you not post your reply until Friday, seeing as I'll be busy through Saturday and this would give me the most time to respond. If this doesn't work for you, that's fine. I'll make do. But your support is appreciated!

Sources:

1. http://www.zacks.com...;
2. http://www.complex.com...
3. http://www.mcvuk.com...
DetectableNinja

Con

Note: Because I have the luxury of making refutations/defenses last, I will only post my case here, in true PF debate style.


Framework

First, I shall offer a framework for the round based on an analysis of the resolution and debate theory.


Following established theory in debate, the burden of proof (BOP) rests entirely on Pro with this resolution, as he is attempting to defend a positive, active proposition: that video games should not have sequels as a matter of principle. In other words, he is arguing that by principle video games should, actively, not have sequels due to a principle.


What this means is that when judging the debate, you should not frame it such that I am defending the proposition that video games should have sequels, but rather that I am simply negating the proposition offered by Pro. In other words, it is my position that video games should not necessarily not have sequels as a matter of principle.


Looking to the resolution, we can see that the resolution specifies that video games should not have sequels based on principle. Following the definition of principle, as a rule, and applying it to the video game industry itself, the following framework can be given by which to judge the debate: unless Pro can prove that the video game industry should not make sequels for video games across the board (and thereby following the rule governing its behavior, as the definition of “principle,” stipulates), Pro has not fulfilled his BOP and upheld the resolution in its entirety, and therefore cannot win the debate.


However, even though the BOP for this debate, as above analysis reflects, is on Pro, I offer the following contentions to support negation of the resolution.


Contention 1a - Video games are an art form and should be treated as such.


Although the debate about the artistic merit of video games has raged on for years, the fact of the matter is that it is becoming more and more conclusive, despite the arguments raised by critics such as the late Roger Ebert, that video games are definitively a form of art and artistic expression, with more and more outside sources agreeing. In May of 2011, for example, the National Endowment for the Arts made video games eligible for artistic funding, essentially establishing legal precedent for video games as art [1]. Further, in a decision made only a month later by the Supreme Court of the United States secured the status of video games as a protected form of expression under the First Amendment [2]. Clearly, externally, games are becoming accepted as art.


However, even within the video game community, games are becoming widely hailed as artistic, as an article from Game Informer demonstrates, with eight games discussed in detail as examples of art [3].


In short, video games are art, and due to their status, they should be valued as art.


Contention 1b - Art uses sequels effectively, and the same can be said for video games.


But, to the point of the resolution, sequels are used widely within the artistic world quite effectively, to develop themes more effectively. For instance, in JK Rowling’s Harry Potter series, she uses a total of 7 books, 6 sequels, to create not only a generally acclaimed large story arc, but to create things such as nuanced characterization and development of themes like love and death, all while developing her use of The Hero’s Cycle. The animated film studio Pixar developed a highly emotional and heartwarming story with their Toy Story trilogy, developing in a similar fashion themes of acceptance and coming of age, while developing a large, epic story.


And, video games being an art form should be allowed the same liberties as other art forms. Further, there are myriad examples of video game sequels that are artistically meritous and effective. Irrational’s BioShock 2 (B2) and BioShock: Infinite (B3) expand on the themes of BioShock (B1), touching on themes such as choice, free will, even indirectly criticizing the nature of games themselves. B2 in particular also offers a rounding-out of B1’s criticism of political extremism, going from the Objectivist dystopia in B1 to a collectivist nightmare in B2, with B3 rounding it out further with an indictment of nationalism. Rockstar’s Red Dead Redemption too was effective as a spiritual sequel to Red Dead Revolver, even rivaling the quality of the first game.


Essentially, the impact we see by affirming the resolution is that games no longer would be able to fulfill their full value as an artistic medium, which is detrimental to the nature of games itself.


Contention 2a - Video game sequels allow for a wider audience to be attracted to an IP over time.


With the release of every Call of Duty game, the multiplayer community for COD has grown and grown, even garnering the attention of local news outlets about midnight release parties. And, with the release of Black Ops II, the most recent installment, the statistics are staggering. At the time of this writing, there have been over 147 billion kills in BOII multiplayer [4]. That is a staggering number that shows a truly large group of players. And, at the launch of Blizzard’s World of Warcraft expansion (a sequel under the definition, expanding the original WoW) Mists of Pandaria, there were over 10 million subscribers to play WoW [5]. This, too, is staggering.


To make it short, when successful games have sequels, they also serve a function of drawing in gamers, which is in and of itself a positive impact.


Contention 2b - A large audience engenders a large sense of community.


But there is also another positive impact to video game sequels. As sequels bring in more gamers, a greater sense of community and dedication is engendered among them. This can be seen following the example of WoW. At BlizzCon 2011, a convention for Blizzard and WoW fans, attendance reached about 27,000 attendees [6]. This clearly reflects a level of growing dedication among fans for games, which can be tied to the growing number of fans that came about as a result of sequels offering more time for fans to flock to IPs.


This too is a highly positive impact of sequels. Not only do sequels offer the time to attract more gamers, but it also increases dedication and a sense of community, as evidenced with the thousands of WoW fans in attendance at BlizzCon.


Conclusion


And so, judges, when looking to this round, you must bear the framework in mind, with Pro carrying the BOP, as well as the specific framework mentioned in that section. However, there are also reasons to negate as well, namely that affirming the resolution denies video games the artistic liberties that they should inherently have as an art form, affirming the resolution reduces the flow of new gamers to the gaming community that sequels offer an opportunity for, and stemming from this, the flow of gamers fosters a stronger sense of community among gamers as well.


Thus, the resolution is negated.


References

[1] http://www.escapistmagazine.com...

[2] http://techland.time.com...

[3] http://www.gameinformer.com...

[4] http://elite.callofduty.com...

[5] http://wow.joystiq.com...

Debate Round No. 2
JustinAMoffatt

Pro

I thank my opponent for his response.

Framework

I accept the BoP. I must show that video games should not have sequels as a matter of principle. My opponent need only negate what I say effectively.
As for conetentions and such, I am fairly new to Public Forum debate and do not quite understand. I will argue them, but would be much appreciative if Con enlightened me a bit on how to format this to his liking.

Contention 1a - Video games are an art form.

I accept this.

Contention 1b - Art uses sequels effectively.

I agree that some works of art can have sequels which are effective and provide depth. However, this number pales in comparison to the monsters created by lazy game developers. For example, as my opponent mentioned, Toy Story was an amazing trilogy which touched many. But could the same be said for Ice Age? (Whose fourth installment recently has brought the series to all-time low.) Or what about the original Die Hard versus its slew of lackluster sequels?

The point I'm making here is that, while sequels can be beneficial, they also aren't most of the time. Combine this with my evidence showing that a lack of new IP is hurting the gaming industry, and you see that video games should not have sequels, as a rule of thumb. It's quite simple.

Contention 2a - Video game sequels allow for a wider audience to be attracted to an IP over time.

I completely agree, but new IP has been shown to attract new gamers to the industry as a whole. However, while COD is wallowing in its growing hordes of fans, and its increasing notoriety among parents, one cannot deny that the industry is on the decline as a whole. More gamers are being attracted to IP such as COD and Halo, but less and less are gaming at all. Is this really what's best for gaming?

Contention 2b - A large audience engenders a large sense of community.

I will concede this contention.

Conclusion

As we can see, my points still stand. For reasons such as repetitive IP trashing the name of the industry, and for the dying industry due to a lack of new IP, video games should not have sequels as a matter of principle.
DetectableNinja

Con

As a short note to my opponent the whole “PF style” thing was just an offhand comment, lol. Nothing really about the debate itself, just following the rules. But I digress:


I will first begin by addressing framework, then moving to Pro’s case, and then jumping back to my own.


Framework


Please note that Pro has accepted the framework presented by me. He has explicitly agreed to bear the entire BOP, but has also dropped my specific framework, that he needs to prove “that the video game industry should not make sequels for video games across the board (and thereby following the rule governing its behavior, as the definition of ‘principle,’ stipulates),” or else he has lost the debate. Because he has dropped this, extend this argument from last round, and flow it to me through the end of the debate. This is because Pro did not address it in R3, and, per the rules, attempting to bring in a new argument on framework in R4 would be abuse.


Therefore, my framework stands, and Pro must prove that the entire industry should not have sequels entirely across the industry.


Pro’s Case


Contention 1 - Call of Doody


Judges, this contention is largely irrelevant and must be flowed out of the debate for a number of reasons.


First and foremost, although Pro does try and provide some impact with this contention, ultimately, any possible impact of video game sequels rests solely on the assumption that Pro’s own personal feelings about the game: namely, that it is not only a poor quality series, but is also bad for the name and reputation of video games.


However, this impact also fails because Pro offers no relevant statistics or proof that the reputation of Call of Duty, let alone video games at large, is being diminished specifically because of the prevalence of Call of Duty sequels.


Additionally, Pro has not provided any sort of link by which to judge this impact. He talks about how the reputation of video games are trashed by sequels, but doesn’t give a link between reputation and the “health” of the industry, if you will. Further, he here has failed to actually define WHAT a healthy industry looks like.


Further, even if this could in theory be proved, Pro has failed to demonstrate that the impact of this contention is strong enough to fulfill his BOP and the framework. What I mean by this is that although, assuming the above issues ARE resolved, Pro has still ultimately failed to demonstrate why the shortcomings of a single game series’ sequels warrants an across-the-board cessation of sequel-creation.


In short judges, upon reflection, you must find that Pro’s first contention is not strong enough to stand.


Contention 2 - Lack of imagination leads to stagnation.


Now, judges, when looking at this contention, once again you should see that Pro fails to meet his mandate according to the framework, and even the BOP.


First, Pro makes the mistake of conflating correlation with causation. He presents two trends, and immediately declares a causal link. However, as it should be known logically, correlation does not automatically indicate causation. Unless Pro can prove a direct causal link, this contention should be considered too weak to stand and irrelevant immediately, and ignored.


However, even if you accept a potential causal link, as Pro does attempt to demonstrate by throwing a source at the correlation to call it a causation, the contention still fails for a simple reason: the impact of this contention is overblown and nonunique to video game sequels. Indeed, applying the very same source Pro used, the article acknowledges the fact that, while there is an illusion of stagnation, the fact of the matter is that it is widely accepted within the industry, and by the article itself, that any stagnation we might see is cyclical, in that as a console generation reaches its end, developers tend to stick to established IPs. However, similarly, with each new generation, there is a boom in new IP [1]. What this ultimately means is that this contention, and the resolution itself, is nonunique, in that any issue with a prevalence will ultimately be solved with each new generation of video game console, meaning that there is no reason to affirm the resolution at all, let alone the fact that is, per the framework, fairly drastic.


But lastly, this contention fails for another reason on top of all this: Pro does not link video game sequels with a lack of imagination in any explicit capacity, relying on what seems to be only an implicit link. This is insufficient, and, because this link is crucial to the integrity of the contention, the contention must be considered failed. However, offensively, cross-apply my impact from Contention 1a of my case. Indeed, affirming the resolution if anything would create a lack of imagination, imposing an arbitrary restriction on an, at heart, artistic community/industry.



In short, Pro’s case ultimately falls apart upon close analysis, having insufficiently provided either large enough impacts to warrant affirmation, insufficiently demonstrated these impacts, or simply insufficiently provided clear enough links within his own case to reasonably affirm.


My Case


My framework has already been covered above.


Contention 1a - Video games are an art form, and should be treated as such.


Extend this argument through the debate, as Pro accepts.


Contention 1b - Art uses sequels effectively, and so do video games.


Pro fails to effectively rebut this point in that he implicitly places the BOP on me to show that art uses sequels effectively all of the time, whereas in reality, the debate has been agreed to be framed the opposite way.


Now, Pro makes use of far too many generalizing statements, declaring that most sequels are of poor quality. However, not only is this a weak and unsubstantiated thing to do in and of itself, but it also entirely misses the point of this contention. Because, as Con, I am to negate the resolution, the point of this contention was to demonstrate a strong capacity for art to use sequels effectively, which, through Pro’s verbage, seems to have been the case. The impact of this contention is that if we are to value video games as art, as in C1A, then it is restricting to affirm the resolution in the face of such capacity for effective sequels.


Therefore, extend this argument.


Contention 2a - Video games allow for a wider audience...


Pro’s response to this contention, judges, is weak. He agrees with the contention, but argues that these new gamers are not part of the entire industry, parents view games negatively, and that gamers game less and less.


However, what Pro fails to realize is that if a person plays a single game, they by definition are contributing to the industry at large, just from purchasing that single game, making it arbitrary to set the entire industry as the goalpost, but also showing that that goal is met anyway.


Cross-apply my refutation of Pro’s C1 to the issue of parents (a lack of source and lack of impact).


Pro also makes essentially baseless and rhetorical games that the industry is failing, and that gamers aren’t gaming. However, he provides no actual basis for these claims that aren’t nonunique, or even supported with sources.


So, extend this argument as well.


Contention 2b - Community


Extend this argument too, due to concession by Pro.


Conclusion


In short, judges, not only does Pro’s case fail for myriad reasons above, spelling a loss for Pro, but my case ultimately stands for the above-mentioned reasons.


The resolution remains negated.


Reference


[1] http://www.mcvuk.com...

Debate Round No. 3
JustinAMoffatt

Pro

I'm glad my opponent has cleared this up. I was deathly confused.

Welllll.... time to make my final arguments in less than an hour. Procrastination and vacations ftw. ;)

Framework

I'm sorry. I meant, by accepting the full BoP, that I accepted that I must prove the resolution for the whol industry. I was not attempting to avoid consenting to anything.

Pro (My) Side

Contention 1 - Call of Doody

While I admit, this contention was first drawn because I was trying to put a more comical spin on the debate. I will concede this contention.

Contention 2 - Lack of imagination leads to stagnation

My opponent practically makes my case in his response to this contention. While he has been quite effective in his responses to my contentions, this one has a fatal flaw for his position. He admits that, despite it being cyclical, there is a stagnation that is related to new IP. This surge in new IP is linked to console generations, as my opponent showed. However, the fact still remains that it has been shown by my article that was referenced that the new IP is more beneficial to the system. Game developers need to take into consideration this fact when making their games. If old and redundant IP is bad but cyclical... why not just stop it altogether? We must merely acknowledge that old IP isn't as beneficial for the industry as new IP. By doing so, we have affirmed the resolution, that video games shouldn't have sequels, due to the fact that new IP is better for the industry.

There is no legal action being taken upon an affirmative ballot, but rather a simple nod to the notion that new IP is beneficial to the industry as a whole.

Con (his) Side

Contention 1b- Art uses sequels effectively, and so do video games.

Again, my opponent treats my case as if I were outlawing the creation of sequels. This is not the case, as I just mentioned. He also states that I try to give him the BoP to show how art uses sequels effectively. However, this BoP for this point is on him. I do not have to disprove his point. He has brought up a few examples of art with sequels that were used effectively. Great. This does not prove his case that video games should have sequels, and seeing that my case has been proven through the showing of new IP being beneficial vs old IP being harmful, we see that the affirmative viewpoint is better supported.

Contention 2a-

This argument is rendered largely irrelevant due to the fact that the stats, which show that the video game industry declines with old IP, still stands. Whether or not old IP grows a fanbase around it is totally unrelated. New IP is shown to effectively bring gamers in. Old IP does not.

Conclusion

While this debate was short and sweet, it shows us something very insightful about the game industry. There is a natural cycle to things.

A new console arrives. It brings new IP. The new IP is shown to be beneficial. This causes the gaming industry to flourish. The years go on. The new IP is squeezed for everything it's worth... and the industry stagnates... until the next gen with new IP.

All that is required is an acceptance that all new IP would be beneficial to the industry, more so than old, redundant, and worn out IP. That is all.

I don't think that's unreasonable. If you don't either, then please...

Vote Pro.





Thank you to my opponent for this debate. I have enjoyed it. I wish him the best of luck in his final arguments and his future debates. :)

Thank you.
DetectableNinja

Con

Framework


Once again judges, extend the entire framework argument, both BOP and the framework itself through to the end of the debate. Pro accepted the full brunt of the BOP, and effectively dropped the framework itself, tacitly accepting it. Therefore that too must be extended.


As a brief reminder, of the argument, Pro bears the full BOP, meaning that if he doesn’t effectively prove his case, he loses by default.


Further, the framework I provided in R2 was: “Unless Pro can prove that the video game industry should not make sequels for video games across the board (and thereby following the rule governing its behavior, as the definition of ‘principle,’ stipulates), Pro has not fulfilled his BOP and upheld the resolution in its entirety, and therefore cannot win the debate.”


This framework is extended, once again, for the reason provided above.


Pro’s Case


Contention 1 - Call of Doody


Extend this argument, Pro concedes this contention.


Contention 2 - Lack of imagination leads to stagnation.


Judges, Pro’s response to my rebuttal ultimately fails to adequately defend his now only remaining contention. This is due to a couple of reasons.


First, Pro drops the argument that he inadequately proves a causal relationship between sequels and stagnation. He still only relies on throwing a single article at the issue to defend his position, one that, as described below, leaves us with a nonunique and lesser impact than the ones posited by myself. As such, the contention should fail immediately.


Further, he still fails to provide an explicit link between sequels and a lack of imagination. Without this link, we have no reason to continue any further with this contention.


However, if the above issues taken are not convincing, Pro still hasn’t addressed the nonunique argument properly. Here, the defense that he provides is abusive to the debate, and should be discounted.


First, Pro clearly is attempting to shift the goalposts, declaring that now his position is merely that new IP is beneficial. This is simply a blatant lie. The resolution agreed to is an active statement that video games SHOULD NOT have sequels. He is NOT defending the position that new IP is beneficial.


Second, though, Pro raises the very first contradictory statement to the framework I provided in R2, it is too little too late, as, per the rules, he cannot raise new arguments in R4, making it abusive to address framework now, even if only indirectly. And, on top of that, Pro dropped the framework in the last round, automatically accepting and extending it through to the end of the debate. It’s far too late, and abusive, to contradict it now.


Third, the fact remains that any sort of impact Pro has provided is clearly nonunique to sequels, and is further quite small. Being cyclical, this impact that Pro attempts to argue is ultimately useless, as the impact is not lasting in any capacity.


Con’s Case


Contention 1a - Video games are an art form, and should be treated as such.


Extend, as Pro previously accepted.


I will note that this acceptance also includes the acceptance of the implicit criteria that video games should be treated as art.


Contention 1b - Art uses sequels effectively, and so do video games.


First, once again, Pro tries to contradict the framework that he dropped earlier in the debate. However, see the above statements on why this should be ignored: namely, he cannot address it after he dropped it and it was noted he dropped it, and that it’s abusive to allow him to argue it now.


Second, Pro tries to, once again, unfairly shift the BOP to me. He goes so far as to say that it’s my case/BOP to prove that video games should have sequels, when this couldn’t be farther from the truth. My role within this debate, as Pro has agreed, is simply to negate Pro’s case and the resolution. In theory, I do not even have to make any contentions myself. Indeed, these contentions are purposed to do just that: negate the resolution by showing a capacity for sequels to be good, thus negating the drastic action Pro posits per the resolution, the definitions, and the framework that has extended thus far.


As such, this attack is defended and the contention stands strongly. Extend it.


The impact of this contention, to bring it back into perspective, is the violation of the criteria that games should be treated as the art they are: here, the implementation of an arbitrary restriction.


Contention 2a - Video game sequels allow for a wider audience to be attracted to an IP over time.


Pro’s attack here largely fails in that the importance of 2a is, in part, its link to 2b, which he conceded to.


Basically, not only do we have an impact here of sequels expanding fanbases, but with contention 2b we see that larger fanbases increase a sense of community as a second, also strong impact. As such, Pro misses the point of this subpoint, and this contention should be extended.


Contention 2b - A large audience engenders a large sense of community.


Extend this contention due to Pro’s concession, and see above for its impact calculus.


Conclusion


In short, judges, Pro’s case fails in that he does not fulfill his BOP (which he accepted), nor does he fulfill the framework of the debate (which he dropped). His contentions relied largely on subjective opinions and nonunique, unlinked, and insignificant impacts, and his attacks against my case either missed the point, were weak in general, or were abusive. This alone negates the resolution per the framework.


However, further, my case as Con still stands as alluded to just above. My case demonstrated several impacts, all of which had a lasting impact on video games unlike Pro’s: by affirming the resolution, we impose an arbitrary restriction on an art form that should be treated like all the others, we lose the means at attracting more gamers and larger fanbases, and we lose the ability of engendering a stronger sense of community among these gamers/fans.


As such, and in conclusion, the resolution is negated once more.


Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 2-D 3 years ago
2-D
Mass Effect 2 is the best game ever... resolution fails.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
pro's R1 link is not working.
Posted by TUF 3 years ago
TUF
doing an RFD
Posted by rajun 3 years ago
rajun
Pointless here in terms...Con blow the pro!!!! of course pro is doing well but much can be irrelevant here.
YO here.
Posted by JustinAMoffatt 3 years ago
JustinAMoffatt
Fixed. :)
Posted by DetectableNinja 3 years ago
DetectableNinja
I would have defined it as, like I said in the PM, "A work that continues the story of, or expands upon, a previous work. This includes spiritual sequels."
Posted by JustinAMoffatt 3 years ago
JustinAMoffatt
So would you like to define it as "A work that is based off the plot of another"? Or you could even do "A work that is not new IP"?
Posted by DetectableNinja 3 years ago
DetectableNinja
What I mean is that the way the definition is worded is that it says that sequels are ONLY spiritual successors, when clearly works that continue the plot of a previous work, or continue with a character from a previous work, or take place within the same setting, are sequels.
Posted by JustinAMoffatt 3 years ago
JustinAMoffatt
Well... but if you include a soft definition (with mays and may nots) then you don't really have a definition at all... I think it'd be more beneficial if we chose what specifically was and was not a sequel.

(Spiritual successors, yes. Reboots, no.) etc. Will we have the most accurate definition? Probably not. But it'll be the most accurate simple definition, and we have to have a hard definition to use in the round.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
JustinAMoffattDetectableNinjaTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: vote removed.
Vote Placed by tvellalott 3 years ago
tvellalott
JustinAMoffattDetectableNinjaTied
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: I'm afraid this was curb-stompage on the part of DetectableNinja, who's effective arguments regarding the BOP of Pro, coupled with his staggeringly efficient counter-arguments. Con's argument was air-tight; if he was able to prove that even one sequel SHOULD have been created on a matter of principle (which he did) then argument go to him.
Vote Placed by TUF 3 years ago
TUF
JustinAMoffattDetectableNinjaTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in video