Ubercharge > Kritzkreig

I appreciate Pogosama's compliments and extend the same gratitude to him for responding thoughtfully and thoroughly. I certainly have my work cut out for me. One thing my opponent and I agree upon is the need for criteria by which we can evaluate the resolution. I have offered the only truly objective criterion that relies on the least number of variables: A weapon is better if it provides an increased team advantage in ALL scenarios for ALL players regardless of skill level or teamwork. Keep in mind that this is a debate, and all debate seeks objective truth. If my opponent wants his audience to accept the resolution as objectively true, then he must support that truth with objective evidence. Given my criterion, the Medigun is not better or worse than the Kritzkrieg, thereby negating the resolution. My opponent insists that situational evidence is a better criterion, and he supports his case with examples. As I stated before, examples are descriptive, not prescriptive. Examples show what has been, not what is possible or even probable. If I can show examples that refute his case, then it serves to show that situational evidence is not the objective criterion he hopes it to be. My opponent's examples all center on public gameplay, but what about competition gameplay? Competition matches are typically six players per team, and the preferred team composition is 2 Scouts, 2 Soldiers, 1 Medic, and 1 Demoman. In competition play, buildings are not an obstacle one usually faces (until a team is pushed into a corner, but then, usually a Scout switches to a Heavy). In this scenario, the Medigun and the Kritzkrieg are equally useful. It is common in competition play for the medic to wield the Kritzkrieg. It charges faster and its ï¿½berCharge allows a soldier to kill opponents in one hit. In competition play, eliminating opponents quickly decides matches. What happens then if competition play becomes the defacto standard of play? Will Medigun lose its status of being better? And if it can lose its status, can it truly be the better weapon? These are the kinds of questions that expose the variable nature of situational criteria. My opponent said, "To try and assign any meaningful objective criterion, one would have to take too many factors into account; there are simply too many different aspects to take into consideration." This is precisely why his criteria cannot achieve objective results. The number of players, player skill level, teamwork, and maps are all contributing factors that can greatly increase or decrease a weapon's usefulness. My criterion eliminates these variables. In short, I've argued that the better weapon is the one that provides a greater advantage no matter what these other variables are. Sure, in so doing, it makes it nearly impossible to for any gun to be objectively better than another, but that's just the point. Objective truth requires stringent criterion, otherwise, we're dealing with opinion. In conclusion, the readers are tasked with voting for the debater with the most rational criteria. If you find my opponent's criterion better suited to objectively affirm the resolution, then you must vote Pro. I submit that this is not the case as his criterion's output can change by altering one or more variables whereas mine produces the same result regardless of such alterations. Using my criteria, then, the Medigun is not better than the Kritzkrieg and the readers are justified in voting Con. Thank you, Pogosama, for keeping this debate interesting and showing up for all rounds. That may seem obvious, but you'll come to appreciate debaters that commit to the debate. I look forward to future debates you bring to this site.