Age Of Empires is better than Civilization

First off let me thank you for your speedy reply. I like to keep these debates fast so they are still in my mind. First I will give my rebuttal. My opponent states... "AoE is a war game its mostly about how well you can develop and use your armies, as well as the aspects of gathering resources makes more sense rather than waiting for your citizen population do it make them (this is how ancient empires actually worked)" My opponent seems to claim that ancient empires spent their time collecting recourses and developing armies. This is mostly the truth in many ancient cultures. But did these cultures have reasons for doing these things? Yes, yes they did. Is there any of this reasoning and thoughtfulness in AOE. No there isn't. This in-depth historical gameplay can only be found Civilization. I think I have already explained adequately how civilization brings these real-life in-depth aspects to the table. Next my opponent stated that AOE does have this historical thoughtfulness. MY opponent put forward that AOE puts forward events like "The Crusades, The Conquering Of The Aztecs, Genghis Khans Quest For Domination, The Fall Of Rome, Rise Of Babylon, The Rise Of Egypt, and many more". This is true. But this is not in-depth gameplay. This is a marketing scheme so that producers can list these things on the back of the game box. After destroying the "red-team" and shooting arrows at all their houses until they collapsed on themselves (not realistic), does the player know why this battle has happened? Do they know who these people are and what they stand to gain through this event. According to my opponent AOE brings you the fall of the roman empire. Does the AOE know anything of why this has happened? Do they know that the fall of the roman empire was caused by deep seeded greed and corruption within the roman imperial system leading back to Julius Caesars decision to cross the rubicon? No, they don't. They learn that the roman empire fell because the "blue-team" chopped down all the walls with axes and destroyed the city center. Realistic? I think not. Next my opponent basically tried to bring civilization down to AOE's level of basic-ness. -- "even Civilization has war so if my game is bad yours is just the same" -- My opponent seems think that I am saying that war in video-games is bad in general. I am not. Basic "Chop tree, kill other color" war is bad. In-depth thoughtful war like Civilization presents is good. I will give the following chart to prove my point. AOE reasons to go to war: I don't like their color. Civilization reasons to go to war: Because they are the prominent power in the oil-rich region, and to get ahead in society we will need to develop trade relations dependent on a supply of oil., they are a Buddhist country and our population can't stand polytheistic states., an enemy country has ICBM's and we want to secure them before they are used against us. ext. ext. ext. Now my opponent didn't really make a case of his own, he just refuted mine. And I think the majority of my cases stand strong. In the next round if my opponent could put forward some contentions of his own on why AOE is better (not just why it is good), we will be able to continue this debate and not be stuck with old contentions to deal with. ---thanks for listening (reading)---