Call of duty Modern Warfare 3 is better than Battle field 3 as far as sales, campign, etc

My opponent laid out why he won the debate in key voting issues. To prove that I am right, I will argue all 8 of his reasons why he won the debate, and then move on to his key voting issues. After, I will prove why I have won through voting issues and a summary paragraph. "1. Spec ops, Survival, system link. Key factors considering people dont always have live and that many family's and people enjoy the living room gaming experience of playing against each other." BF3 others different game modes in their games and COOP. While it may not be the same as MW3, I am not here to prove that they are the same, but that there are reasonable alternatives on the con side to those choices of game types. My opponent states "system link." However, there are lan tournaments who follow this idea and hook up PC's to a lan created match. Exactly the same thing. Lastly, "living room experience." Again, this is an unreasonable factor because people can still choose to play with friends next to each other, and his "having live" argument is invalid towards this debate. Xbox players pay for Live to pay online, however, because BF3's main platform is on PC, there is no live charge and this is a huge factor that MUST be looked at in the debate. 2. The online play gives advantages to team work and lone wolf. Game play is fast and theres action just about around every corner. Game dosent take hours of play to be good at. My opponent is misconstruing my arguments. There is a bare minimum of teamwork and realism in MW3. In BF3, teamwork is essential and creates a more realistic scenario for people who choose it. However, there are gametypes for lone wolf in BF3, which my opponent fails to see. 3. Bf3 has large maps that are time consuming and sometimes people die before even getting across the map. BF3 has large maps is a good thing, because getting across maps is quick with vehicles available which BF3 provides and MW3 does not. "People die before even getting across the map." This is REALISTIC, the fact is, there is always that option of getting shot by a tank by a stray shot. However my opponent makes this an unreasonable statement and over exaggerates it completely. 4. Mw3 has decreased in camping and theres more than one entrance to every building and very little camping due to fast pace action. As to Bf3 who added tanks for people to camp in. (Cod has already put tanks in one of their games not as original) Very little camping is an understatement, and can be seen in MW3 all the time. People still choose to hid in corner, however in BF3, because walls are destructible, this makes the option of a direct suicide run to kill the opponent not the only choice and opens up alternatives. My opponent then says, "people camp in tanks in bf3," yes this may be true, BUT THERE ARE CLEAR WAYS TO DEALING WITH THIS. A simple RPG, anti tank mine, using another tank, an airplane, etc. He also FAILS TO REALIZE were discussing MW3 and not COD:WAW. 5. Mw3 offer ability to edit classes to further extent, along with call signs, Famous prestige mode, titles, emblems, accolades, stats listing, as Bf3 does have class options its not original as it almost a rip-off from Cod-games. Reviews show that BF3 shouldn't have tried to be like Mw3 and shouldn't have to try and copy simple things. BF3 is not a rip off of any of this and my opponent is LYING. BF3 offers the ability to modify your armor type, bullets, vehicle modifications, etc. Even though you can't dress up your character like a barbie doll, BF3 does not make this a key factor for losing. What "reviews" say BF3 is copying MW3. Again, no sources, no weight in today's debate. 6. As state Bf3 co-op allows 6 levels of 12. I don't see this as a key voting issue, I don't even understand what my opponent is saying. Grammatical failure. 7. Mw3 has a better frame rate and frame rate is an issue for Bf3 heres my source on BF3 issue MW3 doesn't have better frame rate, and my opponent fails to realize this is PC issue and not an Xbox issue. He is also using a "forum" where people can post whatever they please, when they could be 100% completely wrong. BF3 and MW3 run perfectly fine on both Xbox and PC, BF3 just requires a better PC due to the amount of realism is put in. 8. Mw3 Kill streaks give players a little extra to work for from being able to operate ac 130's, to calling in juggernaut rewarding players for doing good in a game. Unfair advantages for people who play this game constantly and can dominate new players. BF3 offers equal opportunity for all players and that is why BF3 is the clear winner over this statement. "Here is a source for problems with Bf3. http://www.egmnow.com...; My opponent fails, yet again, to realize this is discussing PC issues, and not console. And on top of that, this was posted in OCTOBER 27th, when BF3 has already patched these issues. "Here is my source for everything i have stated this round Reviews: http://www.guardian.co.uk...; Lastly, this is for console, and not allowing the PC side (BF3's main platform) to have a say. "as it states it takes you through the eyes of soldier in past events and what not. http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com...; Wouldn't this be conceding to my arguments, saying that BF3 makes realistic scenarios unlike MW3? "Voting issues 1. My opponent has not answered all my questions. 2. two of my sours, my opponent asked for the server source and the black ops source being similar in campaign. ( i stated that i played campaign and seen BF3's campaign and they are alike you can read the plot anywhere online for both, this is my knowledge and i cant just source my knowledge unless i got it from a website. 3. I attacked my opponents cases because he has a lack of argument with them. i have defended my topic really well" I will address all his voting issues now. His #1 is completely pointless, because my opponent created no questions (and if he did, please state which round they were made and word for word so I can search for them in previous rounds.) His #2 is completely pointless, because my opponent again does not cite sources and uses his "personal knowledge" and is clearly acting lazy and not doing the appropriate research to back up his stuff. His arguments are subjective and should not be weighed in this debate. His #3 is completely pointless, because my opponent says I have a lack of argument and he has defended his topic really well. Let's leave that up to the voters, shall we? I will know restate why I have won the debate with a majority of the SAME key voting issues. Key Voting Issues. 1. I have successfully defended my main arguments for my side of the case, and they must flow through into the next rebuttal. On top of that, I have successfully argued his key voting issues and why he won the debate. I have also provided the appropriate sources needed unlike my opponent. 2. Provides 0 sources for the two that I asked, so his two arguments must fall, and you must look towards my side of this round. His sources he chooses to provide are unreliable or unreasonable to the debate and must not be weighted. I have won this debate because I have stayed to the resolution, unlike my opponent, who argues previous COD games, provided RELIABLE sources in today's debate that are not biased / unreasonable, deconstructed my opponents key voting issues and his key reasons why he won the debate, and because of this successfully defended my main case and my key voting issues. It is for these reasons that I STRONGLY urge a CON ballot in today's debate. I know turn it over to my opponent to hear is conclusion on today's debate, and remind you that no new arguments should be made because it would be unfair for me to argue them back without you having a say. **TO WHOEVER HAS READ THIS MUCH, MANY THANKS AND URGE YOU TO STAY TUNED TO THE 5TH AND FINAL ROUND** Good Luck Pro!