In CoD Objective game types, Slaying is as important as Objective running

My opponent provided a well thought out response. I will endeavor to return the favor. Counter ArgumentsKilling-Based vs. Objective-Based MatchesIn my previous round, I demonstrated that in objective-based Call of Duty matches, completing your objective is the only way to win. Pro replies with two other game modes that do take killing into account: Search & Destroy [1] and Demolition [2]. Search & Destroy gameplay is described as "A one-sided game mode, the goal is for an attacking side to either eliminate the defending team or detonate either one of two bomb sites. [1]" Demolition mirrors Search & Destroy but allows for player respawns. Now, as killing is a rewarded element of these game modes and can result in a win, they cannot be considered objective-based matches and are irrelevant in this debate. At best, these modes can be described as having objective elements, which doesn't fit the resolution. Pro is aware of the difference between game types and concedes that objectives MUST be completed in order to win objective-based matches: "As you said you have to at least some objective playing to win. But that does not make it more important then the Slayers(by slayer I mean someone who is killing rather then planting the bomb/capturing the flag) role." Since Pro agrees that objectives are necessary for victory in the game modes we're discussing, he also understands why the modes he presented above do not fit that criteria. Only Way to Win I agree with Pro's assertion that killing the enemy is a helpful practice, but it is done only to assist one's team in obtaining the objective or impede the enemy's advance on their objective. At all times, the team's overall task is the primary concern and the only means of victory. Now, if winning was impossible without having certain players dedicated only to eliminating the enemy, Pro's position would be stronger (but still ultimately incorrect). However, even Pro admits that victory is possible without slayers: "The only game type where they [objective-chasers] stand a slight chance is Domination. But even in that one the gamecan be forced to a tie at the very least, by keeping them off all flags all game long. Though admittedly that is rather difficultto do."Killing the enemy makes life easier but players can succeed without it. As objective-chasers are necessary to win and slayers are not, the former group is of more value. When it Comes to Experience, Capture > KillMy opponent claims an XP argument is invalid here because it does not impact the team as a whole. However, according to Pro, my burden in this debate "will be arguing that Killing holds "less" value in Objective based matches when compared to the objective runners." This says nothing about arguments focusing only on teams and not individuals. As various actions are given quantified values in these matches, this contention is both appropriate and straightforward.Pro concedes that completing objectives hold more XP value than killing. Still, he goes on to say that this difference can be overcome if someone kills enough. Similarly, if I gather enough pennies, they will eventually be worth more than a quarter. This does not make a penny more valuable than a quarter. In a one-to-one comparison, objectives are more valuable to players than a kill. ConclusionWorking solely from Pro's own resolution, examples, and descriptions, I have shown how slaying is less important to teams (in terms of winning) and individuals (in terms of improving one's character) than are objectives. If this was not the case, objective-based matches simply wouldn't exist. References1. http://callofduty.wikia.com... 2. http://callofduty.wikia.com...(Game_Mode)