Ubercharge > Kritzkreig

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 ï¿½berCharge meter. When full, the Medic can release the ï¿½berCharge 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 ï¿½berCharge: 40 - 80 sec ï¿½berCharge 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 ï¿½berCharge: 32 - 64 sec ï¿½berCharge 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...