Starcraft 2 is a strategy-intensive computer game

This round is specifically for addressing the claims made in my opponent's case. My opponent will do the same, and will not address any of the arguments I make against it. Likewise, I won't be able to respond to his refutations as well. This makes it (somewhat) even. But let's first start with some comments on my opponent's comments to my comments (wut? ). My opponent rejects the benchmark of the Total War series that I provide, saying that I had to do this at the very start of the debate in Round 1 in order for this to be legitimate. I disagree, as establishing the comparison as to how we actually judge the strategic intensity of Starcraft 2 is something that would be almost crucial in my case. It functions as any argument I had written in my case. As it's merely an observational argument on the nature of the resolution and how we evaluate it as debaters and as judges, I won't hold my opponent addressing it against the round structure. Moreover, I would argue that without some sort of a benchmark as to what is strategy-intensive, we have no way of evaluating if it's actually strategically intensive. Just like without the concept of what was really bad or what was really good, we wouldn't be able to evaluate the badness or goodness of an action, without an idea of what is strategy-intensive, we can't determine the strategic intensity of a different game. Thus, I posit that a benchmark is something that we need to really evaluate Starcraft 2 in any sort of way as to get an affirmation or negation on the resolution. My opponent then claims that even if we take a benchmark, that we ought not use Total War, as I haven't explained how it is more strategy intensive than Starcraft. The first problem with this is that my opponent doesn't provide an alternate benchmark to use in his case, and thus we have to default to the example I gave. But the secondly, I'd love to explain how it works as a benchmark. The Total War series gives the player control of an entire nation, and gives them the goal of global domination, and let's them go about it in nearly any way they want to. You manage each city that you take control of, while defending your borders from other nations and establishing good relations for trade and other such purposes with those who are friendly toward you, and beating the stuffing out of those who hate you (Thanksgiving jokes for the win). You can create massive armies and wage multi-pronged attacks on enemy fortresses, send diplomats to barter for trade or ceasefires of war, among other things, or you can send assassins and spies to report on enemy positions or eliminate key buildings and/or personel within enemy cities. To compare it to Starcraft, it would be like you building up an army of Marines as a Terran player to attack the Zerg player across the map from you, while sending over a few SCV's to the Protoss player on a different map to try and establish trade agreements so that you can get some extra minerals. All the while your spies are trying to stage an assassination of their High Templars so that your allied Terrans can take them over. The strategy required to be successful in Total War is mind-boggling, and is vastly greater than Starcraft. With that being said, Starcraft doesn't even compare to Total War in terms of strategic intensity, and thus we cannot consider it to be "strategy-intensive" since the actual strategies are not very strong in strategic thinking (as I outlined in my case). With that, though, let's actually get to my opponent's case. My opponent seems to define strategy as having choices (the more choices available being the more strategic), as well as other details such as planning and actual execution. I'll get to the second and third one in a bit, but first I would like to address the absurdity of his argument as to what is strategy. If strategy were simply defined as the availability of choices, this would lead to the logically necessary conclusion that everything in life is strategy intensive. There are many different ways one can flip a coin, many different ways that one can prepare a slice of toast, many different ways that one can put on a pair of socks, as well as a multitude of different actions and choices that definitely aren't strategy-intensive. Since the conclusion is logically incorrect, and the only premise of argument is his definition of strategy, the only available option is to reject his definition. Moreover, options don't even hold much relevance in determining the strategic worth of a game unless those options are actually taken. Take my opponent's example of chess, for instance. If there were a series of moves that would guarentee win you the game in four moves, it doesn't matter how many other openings or other series of moves there were; everyone would use that guarenteed win. According to my opponent's definition of strategy (little planning, low demand), it wouldn't be all that strategy intensive. To compare this to Starcraft, it doesn't matter how many tech options there are, it doesn't factor in unless those options are actually utilized. This is where you prefer my arguments as I actually take popular strategies from online games and show that they require little to no actual strategy to execute and be successful with. There's little actual planning and little actual demand, and while there are other choices (certainly, I'd be a fool to deny that), those choices don't actually have an impact on the calculus since they aren't ever taken! So even under my opponent's own definition, we would be defining Starcraft as a low-strategic necessity game, which means that the resolution would be negated. To now speak directly against the opportunities and attention demands sections, I already outlined in my case under Predicted Pro Arguments why these don't have that much of an impact. What my opponent describes as Planning Opportunities is know as "Macro-gaming", and what my opponent describes as Attention Demands is known as "Micro-gaming" in the online community. As I already stated in my case, these don't have that much of an impact on the resolution since I could have the best macro-gaming, yet lose to an early Zergling rush. Or I could have the best micro-game, but lose because my opponent massed so many Marauders that they're impossible to kill entirely. Moreover, I've already outlined in this round how even under his own definition of strategy (which these two terms factored into), that Starcraft would still be lacking in actual strategy. So the arguments there fall as well. My opponent's last argument is one that says regardless of how people play the game, it doesn't actually diminish the strategic worth of the game, as the worth exists independently of the play. However, this just isn't true. Things only have worth when we assign them worth. The dollar bill in my pocket only has worth because the people that printed it established that it was worth one dollar in United States currency. Otherwise, it would just be a slip of paper with George Washington's face on it. Likewise, a game only has worth if we prescribe it worth. The way we prescribe worth to a game is by playing it. The way we play a game determines the actual worth of that game. One could argue that there is so much strategy that goes into winning a game of Super Smash Bros, with different moves and abilities and how they work together, yet lose to a 6 year old mashing the A button without thinking. This is why we have to look to my arguments about how people play the game and how their strategies lack actual strategy.