The Instigator
Pogosama
Pro (for)
Winning
22 Points
The Contender
KRFournier
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Ubercharge > Kritzkreig

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  
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: 11/4/2009 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,401 times Debate No: 9932
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (4)
Votes (5)

 

Pogosama

Pro

Hello, you can all call me Pogosama, and this will be my first debate on Debate.org. I'm looking forward to matching wits with the lot of you in due time. For now, however, we shall delve into the world of the cult classic Team Fortress 2, to debate a little weapon vs weapon.

First, some clarification.

The topic, when fully fleshed out, is that the Ubercharge is a more useful tool both offensively and defensively then the Kritzkreig.

Also, I would prefer if we did not discuss strategy within custom maps, but rather maps that Valve has accepted.

Argument 1
The Ubercharge (or Uber) gives 8 seconds of invincibility to damage. Invincibility has proven time and time again to be a more useful tool then the 8 seconds of pure critical hits that the Kritzkreig (or Kritz) provides. If you need to move into a heavily fortified area on an offense/defense map (such as the payload and capture point game types), then the Uber gives you offensive flexibility. That is, it allows you a greater range of opportunities then the Kritz does, thanks to those ever so plentiful sentry guns.

http://tf2wiki.net...

For example, in the objective map Badwater (see link below for top down map) the attacking team must push the "cart" through to the final point. However, on the final point, not only does the defense have spawn advantage (they spawn closer to the point, teleporters notwithstanding), but there is only a single path from which you may approach. Because a Kritz charge does not make you invulnerable, you are much more likely to die while charged on the attack. But an Uber allows you passage into the base, and enough time for a decent Heavy, Pyro, or Demoman to take care of the sentry areas.

http://www.tfportal.de...

Argument 2
It is a well known fact in Team Fortress 2, that "buildings" (machines built by the Engineer class) ignore critical hit damage. That is, they take the same amount of damage from a regular hit as they do a critical. Therefore, it stands to reason that an Ubercharge is a better choice. Of course, a Kritz charge would help kill an Engineer faster, but many Engineers "camp" their buildings. A Kritz charge would fall victim to a turret's rebuttal before the building was destroyed, where as an Ubercharge would allow you to kill both the sentry and the Engineer, as you could absorb the sustained fire from both.

http://tf2wiki.net...

Argument 3
The Uber allows for a more solid defense in key moments. If an Uber is deployed against you, you can merely counter it with another Uber. But if a Kritz is deployed against you, an Uber would tip the odds in your favor, as Kritz charges cannot penetrate Ubercharges. Ubercharges can also allow you to push back a powerful offense, as they are helpless against an invulnerable opponent. This of course assumes that "the best defense is a good offense," but if it work effectively, then this is hardly an arguable catch.

I'm looking forward to my first debate opponent. I wish you good luck. :D
KRFournier

Con

Welcome, Pogosama, to Debate.org. I am glad to see a new debater join the ranks and even more pleased that he plays Team Fortress 2.

To preface, I wish to remind the readers that to refute my opponent, I can either show the Kritzkrieg to be better than the Medigun, or I can show them to be equal.

====================
BACKGROUND
====================

For the benefit of the readers not familiar with the game, Team Fortress 2 (TF2) is an online, team based game. Teams typically have anywhere between 6 and 16 players depending on the server hosting the game and whether or not the game is for public casual play or for professional competition play. A player has a choice between nine classes, each with their own strengths and weaknesses. The class that is the focus of this debate is the Medic.

Every class has a primary weapon, but the Medic's primary weapon is not offensive. It cannot do damage. Instead, the Medic uses his main weapon to connect a healing beam of energy to his teammates. For every second the Medic spends healing teammates, he fills his �berCharge meter. When full, the Medic can release the �berCharge at any time to give his teammates a burst of power. The effect of the charge depends upon the weapon the player has chosen when he selected his class.

The basic stats of these weapons are:

Medigun [1]
--------------------
Time to �berCharge: 40 - 80 sec
�berCharge effect: Both Medic and target are invincible for 8 seconds, but can still be slowed or diverted via gunfire and other player abilities. Critical hits (3x damage against players) may still occur based on standard critical hit chances, but are not guaranteed.

Kritzkrieg [2]
--------------------
Time to �berCharge: 32 - 64 sec
�berCharge effect: The target shoots 100% critical hits [3] for 8 seconds. Both the Medic and the target are vulnerable to attack.

====================
ARGUMENT
====================

In order to frame this debate properly, it is necessary to determine the criteria that makes one TF2 weapon better than another. My opponent has chosen to rely on situational use of these weapons, which I fear is insufficient in supporting his position with any degree of certainty. Just because one weapon is useful in more situations does not make it better than the other weapon. Other contributing factors are player aptitude and teamwork. Furthermore, situations are just that--examples. Examples are not prescriptive, just descriptive. In short, my opponent is offering mere circumstantial evidence in lieu of more objective evidence.

I contend that there is objective criteria by which we can judge whether one of these guns is better than the other. A weapon is only better if it provides an increased team advantage in ALL scenarios for ALL players regardless of skill level or teamwork. Herein I have cited two objective criteria:

1. All Scenarios

If the Kritzkrieg is better in just one situation, then the problem cannot be attributed to just the weapon. The Kritzkrieg might be perfectly counter-balanced to the Medigun but has been largely ignored during level design.

2. All Players regardless of skill level or teamwork

If there is at least one player that plays better with the Kritzkrieg, then the problem cannot be definitely attributed to the gun. Perhaps the Kritzkrieg requires more skill and teamwork to be effective, but this does not mean the gun is worse, it just means it's more difficult to master.

I contend that neither the Medigun nor the Kritzkrieg meet my objective criteria. Since either gun may be useful depending on both situation and player skill, it stands to reason that both guns are EQUALLY capable of giving the team an advantage. Since they are equal, the Medigun cannot be better than the Kritzkrieg and the resolution is negated.

Now that I've established my criterion and my case, I will use my position to specifically rebut my opponent's opening arguments.

====================
REBUTTAL
====================

Argument 1

It doesn't matter how many times invincibility has been more useful, as I can simply offer an alternative explanation: most players are unwilling to invest the skill and teamwork necessary to use the Kritzkrieg. Thus, argument 1 does not prove that the Medigun is better, only that it is preferred.

Argument 2

The ability to take out buildings is not simply a matter of weapon design. Player skill and teamwork, again, are vital to the success of breaking any defense. At best, my opponent has shown that unskilled players have a greater chance at destroying buildings with the Medigun, but this does not prove the Medigun is better, only that it is preferred.

Argument 3

The fact that the Medigun is more useful in defensive scenarios only goes to show that the weapon is more useful in some situations. If the Kritzkrieg were always better in offensive situations and the Medigun were only better in defensive situations, it could not be said that one is better than the other. Only if my opponent can show that the Medigun is better in ALL situations--both offensive and defensive--would he prove that the Medigun is better. As it stands, he's merely proven that the Medigun is preferred on defense.

As you can see, all three arguments effectively show the Medigun as the preferred weapon in TF2 among players. However, preference is a purely subjective criterion and cannot affirm the resolution as objectively true.

====================
CONCLUSION
====================

The trick with a debate such as this is to define the criteria by which we judge a thing's value. I have offered an objective criterion. My opponent can win by either explaining why my criterion is invalid or by showing how the Medigun meets my criterion. Until then, I assert that both weapons are equal. Therefore, the Medigun is not better than the Kritzkrieg.

====================
SOURCES
====================

1. http://tf2wiki.net...
2. http://tf2wiki.net...
3. http://tf2wiki.net...
Debate Round No. 1
Pogosama

Pro

First off, I would like to thank KRFournier for accepting this debate and for including the background of the topic for the audience of DDO. I'll be sure to include that within the contents of my next debate. I must admit, I was not expecting such an esteemed opponent as my first, but I will defend my argument to the best of my ability. I wish you the best of luck in the final round.

Now then, shall we?

The objective of my rebuttal is to prove that situational evidence, such as the examples I provided in the first round, are a more powerful tool (speaking in reference to the objective criterion you mentioned) to judge the effectiveness of a weapon in Team Fortress 2, and thus should be the determining factor when deciding which weapon is better then another.

As my opponent is surely aware, Team Fortress 2 has the potential to be a very chaotic game. With nine different classes, each with specific strengths and weaknesses, each class performs differently based on the situation. Now add to that mix weapons that handle differently for every class. You are potentially dealing with thousands upon thousands of different match-ups. To try and assign any meaningful objective criterion, one would have to take too many factors into account; there are simply too many different aspects to take into consideration. As such, I believe that the objective criterion you have established are woefully inadequate.

http://tf2wiki.net... (A summary of all the classes is included in links from this page, where you can observe for yourself just how many aspects one must take into account before deciding how to fight an opponent.)

In addition, the entire nature of a multi-player based game such as this, is how one can react and adapt to the combat situations they are presented with. It stands to reason that the weapon that allows you the most options to effectively adapt to any given situation should be hailed as the better weapon. Of course, it is physically impossible for me to go over every situation that a Medic may encounter, and weight the pros and cons of the Uber versus the Kritz, but even a cursory scan over the most likely of Team Fortress 2 encounters (such as Engineers amassing a battalion of sentry guns in the "flag" room of the popular map 2fort, or a Demoman using sticky bombs to guard a capture point) can be said to give to give better odds of success in favor of the Uber. Therefore, with this logic, I refute my opponents claim that "a weapon is only better if it provides an increased team advantage in ALL scenarios for ALL players regardless of skill level or teamwork," and assert that situational evidence is the only real way to determine if a weapon is better or worse then another, given that the skill level of all players is even.

http://tf2wiki.net... (Draw your attention to the large article concerning the "Engineer stack in the Intel room", whilst keeping in mind that a Kritz charge does effectively 0 extra damage to buildings, and leaves you vulnerable.)

http://www.steampowered.com... (A list of Team Fortress 2 stats as recorded by Valve, the developer of Team Fortress 2. Pay special attention to the list of maps and how often each are played. 2fort is ahead by a LARGE margin. Thus, my 2fort scenario is not only common, it's practically the norm.)

http://tf2wiki.net... (See the strategy section of the sticky bomb launcher.)

On that note, I must mention that players using the Kritzkreig typically have more experience then those using the Medigun, as the Kritzkrieg must be unlocked in game. In order to unlock the Kritzkrieg, a player must obtain at least 16 of the 36 available medic specific achievements. A cursory glance will reveal that these achievements are no simple feat. For example, one achievement requires you to "kill five enemies in a single life, while having your �berCharge ready but undeployed," while yet another requires the player to "accumulate ten thousand heal points in a single life." The former requires a medic to kill five enemies without relying on his Uber, which I'm sure even my opponent must admit is extremely difficult! Of course, one can "farm" these achievements with friends (that is, manipulate the party system to achieve these objectives unfairly), but many admins have taken advantage of a community plug-in that stops people from "farming". One can also earn the Kritzkreig randomly, as some weapons are randomly given to players in game, but because you can re-earn the same weapons over and over, the actual chances of this happening are minuscule enough to be ignored, given the large amount of players that have unlocked the Kritzkrieg honestly. Thus, players that have the Kritzkrieg have more experience using a Medic than players who use the Medigun, as the Medigun is readily available to all players, while the Kritzkrieg must be awarded for a players skill at using the Medic. Therefore, the objective criterion you have established paint an inaccurate picture of the comparison at hand.

http://www.msleeper.com... (An example of an admin who fought against achievement farmers on his servers.)

http://tf2wiki.net... (An exhaustive list of the Medic's available achievements.)

A response to opponents rebuttal is not necessary at this point, as he has said himself "As you can see, all three arguments effectively show the Medigun as the preferred weapon in TF2 among players." This preference is due to the Uber's high margin of success in diverse situations, which I have proven thus far to be the better evidence when comparing weapons.

CONCLUSION

As I have refuted my opponent's claims, and proved the merit and applied superiority of my own, I assert that the Medigun's Ubercharge is a much more effective tool then the Kritzkreig's Kritz charge. I have won the debate by my opponent's own terms.

"My opponent can win by either explaining why my criterion is invalid..."

For these reasons, and the thousands of other situations in which an Ubercharge would soundly trump a Kritzkrieg's charge, I strongly urge a vote of Pro.

Now that that's over with, I would like to thank my opponent for taking this debate seriously, and helping me through it. His way of presenting his points and organizing his arguments were a very helpful learning tool. As the Heavy would say, "You are great debater!" I wish him good luck once more, and will now head off to play TF2.

Cheers mate!
KRFournier

Con

I appreciate Pogosama's compliments and extend the same gratitude to him for responding thoughtfully and thoroughly. I certainly have my work cut out for me.

One thing my opponent and I agree upon is the need for criteria by which we can evaluate the resolution. I have offered the only truly objective criterion that relies on the least number of variables: A weapon is better if it provides an increased team advantage in ALL scenarios for ALL players regardless of skill level or teamwork.

Keep in mind that this is a debate, and all debate seeks objective truth. If my opponent wants his audience to accept the resolution as objectively true, then he must support that truth with objective evidence. Given my criterion, the Medigun is not better or worse than the Kritzkrieg, thereby negating the resolution.

My opponent insists that situational evidence is a better criterion, and he supports his case with examples. As I stated before, examples are descriptive, not prescriptive. Examples show what has been, not what is possible or even probable. If I can show examples that refute his case, then it serves to show that situational evidence is not the objective criterion he hopes it to be.

My opponent's examples all center on public gameplay, but what about competition gameplay? Competition matches are typically six players per team, and the preferred team composition is 2 Scouts, 2 Soldiers, 1 Medic, and 1 Demoman. In competition play, buildings are not an obstacle one usually faces (until a team is pushed into a corner, but then, usually a Scout switches to a Heavy). In this scenario, the Medigun and the Kritzkrieg are equally useful. It is common in competition play for the medic to wield the Kritzkrieg. It charges faster and its �berCharge allows a soldier to kill opponents in one hit. In competition play, eliminating opponents quickly decides matches.

What happens then if competition play becomes the defacto standard of play? Will Medigun lose its status of being better? And if it can lose its status, can it truly be the better weapon? These are the kinds of questions that expose the variable nature of situational criteria.

My opponent said, "To try and assign any meaningful objective criterion, one would have to take too many factors into account; there are simply too many different aspects to take into consideration." This is precisely why his criteria cannot achieve objective results. The number of players, player skill level, teamwork, and maps are all contributing factors that can greatly increase or decrease a weapon's usefulness. My criterion eliminates these variables. In short, I've argued that the better weapon is the one that provides a greater advantage no matter what these other variables are. Sure, in so doing, it makes it nearly impossible to for any gun to be objectively better than another, but that's just the point. Objective truth requires stringent criterion, otherwise, we're dealing with opinion.

In conclusion, the readers are tasked with voting for the debater with the most rational criteria. If you find my opponent's criterion better suited to objectively affirm the resolution, then you must vote Pro. I submit that this is not the case as his criterion's output can change by altering one or more variables whereas mine produces the same result regardless of such alterations. Using my criteria, then, the Medigun is not better than the Kritzkrieg and the readers are justified in voting Con.

Thank you, Pogosama, for keeping this debate interesting and showing up for all rounds. That may seem obvious, but you'll come to appreciate debaters that commit to the debate. I look forward to future debates you bring to this site.
Debate Round No. 2
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
I'm still not sold on the actual game but I enjoyed the debate =D

C: Tie
S/G: Tie
A: Pro - I understand Con's proposed standard but given the aim of this game, I'm not sure it's fitting. If one weapon seems to be more effective at killing more players more often, I'd find that to be sufficient evidence of superiority. Pro's arguments satisfied me in this regard.
S: Pro
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
Sources: PRO
CON's sources just established the facts of TF2. PRO's actually aided in the rebuttal.

Conduct, spelling, grammar: Tied
Nothing notable on either side in terms of poor conduct or gramatical errors.

Before: Tied
I'd never heard of TF2 before this debate.

After/Argumentation: PRO
CON's 'objective criterion' never made sense to me. I don't see why it must be better in every single possible situation to be considered better; that's certainly not how I use the word 'better.'

PRO was the only one with any real reasons why his weapon of choice was superior in general. CON's rebuttals were somewhat convincing, but there weren't any arguments in support of the Kritzkrieg. At that point, any points made by PRO outweigh the 'nothing' given by CON.
Posted by Pogosama 7 years ago
Pogosama
Team Fortress 2 is quite possibly one of the best multiplayer shooters I've ever played.
Posted by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
I've never heard of this game. It seems a bit interesting.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
PogosamaKRFournierTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Vote Placed by Pogosama 7 years ago
Pogosama
PogosamaKRFournierTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Equinox 7 years ago
Equinox
PogosamaKRFournierTied
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 Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
PogosamaKRFournierTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
PogosamaKRFournierTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50