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

My opponent insults my grammatical error, key word error. "I don't see this as a key voting issue, I don't even understand what my opponent is saying. Grammatical failure." you started this debate off saying you will show battlefield 3 is superior to battlefield 3. Then your last round you just did you said you will show how my opponent has won this debate. Another error. My opponent fails to realize the reason i bring up Cod waw is because i am giving an example that Cod has already used tanks so why keep bringing them into future games like MW3. I said they pretty much are as my source shows one of e reviewers who reviewed not in a forum stated that they are trying to much to be like Cod which is true. You stated "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." then you stated "Lastly, this is for console, and not allowing the PC side (BF3's main platform) to have a say." I state something about PC you say its only for PC and not console. I state something for console then you say i dont look at PC. Paradox? I dont understand this Also Mw3 does have a faster frame rate, my opponent seems to be relieing on false sources. I looked up several sites saying Mw3 is higher and IGN/Sledgehammer games stated its the competitive edge. http://www.vg247.com... "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." You have discussed realism alot and i havent argued with you mainly cause of one simple fact. This is a video game its not gonna be based on complete realism. Who wants to spend their whole time going across the map. You say its realistic. But re spawning isn't realistic either so it cancels it out. "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." Again this is not an unfair advantage. Everyone does bad at a game at one point. This game rewards those who are good and even those who are not good have a chance to get something. Hence the kill streak system that have low set kill streaks. Tell me this a new player in bf3 vs and experienced player? its still unfair is it not if we go by your case? Now an experienced player that knows how to maneuver and get to a tank vs a player who dosent try and o for vehicles often but decides to. Again unfair. A player in a tank vs a player not in a tank? again unfair if unfair s your answer then please look at scenarios. LIFE IS NOT FAIR Mw3 point streak support package allows a player to continua kill streak and unlock things and dosent reset the kills after death. Giving even though most negative player a chance to earn the simplest Uav up to an osprey gunner. "What "reviews" say BF3 is copying MW3. Again, no sources, no weight in today's debate." My opponent obviously didnt read my source i posted. If he did then he would see that it says since he didnt i will post it allowing him to see what he ignored which led him to make another Wrong assumption. "Those who buy the game for multiplayer likely won't care that these elements aren't up to par, but what stings most is the thought of what DICE could have done to evolve and expand its multiplayer design skills if the mantra of "BEAT COD" hadn't been drummed so relentlessly into the development process. Battlefield didn't need to be more like Call of Duty to succeed, it just had to double down on what it was already good at. Hopefully that's a lesson that will be learned by the time Battlefield 4 roars into view." http://www.guardian.co.uk... My opponent states the reviews are forums. Now do you see how many people agree with them. I AM NOT SAYING THAT IT IS ACCURATE. So i hope you dont use that against me because it would be another false claim. "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." This is not true. People ca camp yes but as your teammates progress the spawn system spawns enemy's near u so by the time you get one or two kills the enemy team hears you and is spawning nearby. I assume my opponent hasnt played much. I play alot and see this for myself. But camping is what enhances gaming as well. In the war you dont rush out into open fire all the time. Camping teaches players to check corners and encourages players to use sun grenades and flashes and become more tactical players. Call of duty is split up into 3 types of players basically. Campers, Rushers, and Tactical players. Campers>Rushers most of the time as rushing players move so quick they dont take the time to look. Rushers> Tactical players as Tactical players tend to be careful and throw stuns and grenades leaving them exposed. And Tactical players > Campers as they are careful and use tactics like grenades to clear rooms and take out players. Now this isn't always the case but it is usually the categories. My opponent dosent do much good research if he did he would have seen Cod Mw3 is enhanced in teamwork and lone wolf performance. Point streaks are my example. Support kill streaks hep out the team, (Uav's, Recon drone, Ballistic Vests) lone wolf players can use these to benefit for themselves but it also helps the team either way adding teamwork even when not intended. My opponent wants sources and i give most off them but its obvious he dosent read them so what is the point? but i still give them. My opponents arguments/my views 1. Vehicles- not everyone lives to play vehicles yes it adds sense of realism but at the same time people it a video game and you keep arguing about realism. I understand having realism but it is not the number 1 concern. 2. Multiplayer its obvious MW3 has decreased camping and the spawn system helps stop it to. Camping is 50% issue 50% helpful. It can be annoying but it helps players learn from over rushing. 3. My opponent didnt acknowledge that the graphics affect game play in a negative way in Bf3. 4. Its not that im not responding to his arguments its that i do and he rebuttles with realism which is really the only thing he has used. 5. Again no argument about survival and spec ops and offline multiplayer that allow families who can afford live to play and have almost endless choices. *Key factor 6. Graphics are not always the most important to a game which my opponent fails to realize a game dosent have to have the best graphics to be on top, Yes it would help but it dosent. An example is The Halo series not the best graphics still very popular. 7. "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." Yes but also xbox is the biggest online community. *you fail to look at my sources and acknowledge key points and only argue realism with almost everything. Not the biggest thing.