Nintendo Wii U Is Better Than Xbox One

Con is now heated up with Pro in this debate and now begins to personally attack pro at a much more offensive level than pro did in the previous round. I ask the audience to penalize con for doing so. Anyways, my introduction may have lacked those requirements, but that is not an excuse to blame con for being offended by pro's personal attacks and attack even more in their rebuttal. Like I have said, this is my debate; therefore, it is my rules and I get to decide how things are done here. Whether or not opponent finds these new rules stupid is entirely up to their opinion; unfortunately, opponent agrees with one's rules at beginning and contradicts themselves by disagreeing with the newer rules simply because they have not adapted to such a debating style with any opponent except for this debate, and that it is not in the introduction and within the arguments to be used as rebuttals. Though one may have done such an act, opponent has also made other mistakes that they have recognized themselves do as well. It appears that con does not fully understand the wording of my rebuttals. I have stated that while the graphics for games on Xbox One may be superior to that of the Nintendo Wii U, the first party exclusives still manage to outnumber those games in terms of graphics (pun entirely intended). Opponent assumes that I am agreeing to them that Xbox One is superior to Wii U graphically no matter what - but no, that is not the case at all. I am simply saying (in a complex way) that Wii U still outmatches the Xbox One graphically even though the latter has lower quality graphics than the former. A good example to make things easier to understand is even though the United States is superior to Vietnam in terms of military strength, Vietnam still won the Vietnam War - despite Vietnam being the weaker country. If opponent still refuses to accept that my statement of graphical comparison is invalid, than please get anti-fanboyism therapy by yours truly, Phil Spencer. Yes, comparing ports to exclusives is invalid, so how about the exclusives on Xbox One be compared to exclusives on Wii U. What exclusives are even on Xbox One? Oh right. .. let us see: Halo Remastered Collection, Titan-Fall, Forza, Dead Rising 3. .. not that much. Comparing them to exclusives on Wii U is a joke; as opponent said earlier, since the Xbox One is still young in its life-span, its fullest potential has not been realized yet. Speaking in terms of graphics, the graphics for Xbox One still isn't in true native 2160p 4K UHD. For now they are all in non-native 2160i UHD, running at 1080p HD/30 FPS; for all Microsoft knows, they can really be native 1080p HD and 720p HD/30 FPS upscaled to look 2160i UHD. Therefore, the graphics on Xbox One aren't so great; besides slightly higher resolution textures, slightly accurate character models, and slightly better lighting effects, there isn't much of a graphical difference. Especially since the Nintendo Wii U is at native 1080p HD at 1080p HD/60 FPS, which is superior to PS3 and Xbox 360 being native 720p HD, which makes the graphical difference between this and last generation even smaller. As for the other arguments regarding the features and Xbox One's fullest potential, there are already features on Xbox being similar to that of Wii U. It's called Xbox Smart-Glass that has existed since the Xbox 360; because such features already existed with the Xbox One and 360, opponent's rebuttal of Xbox One not reaching its fullest potential is invalid. This add-on is inferior to the Wii U gamepad, as the Wii U and PS4 can do much better, especially since they both also have cross compatibility with their respective handheld cousins - the Nintendo 3DS and the PS Vita. There is no such compatibility with the Xbox One, and speaking of which, why hasn't opponent mentioned the arguments regarding backwards compatibility. .. oh, that's right, they were successfully refuted due to the Wii U being compatible with the NES, SNES, N64, Wii, GBA, and DS, while Xbox One only being with the Xbox 360 and not the Xbox or the PC. Opponent then refutes pro's arguments stating that if the users are used to Windows 8 or the Xbox 360 GUI, than it should be no challenge to easily convert to the new GUI. Then opponent contradicts themselves several times, by stating that the Xbox One layout is similar to the 360 layout, but still similar to the Windows 8 layout simultaneously. I thought opponent stated that one GUI resembles the other, and not both at once; now they say otherwise? Opponent must either be making a paradox to purposely confuse their opponent, or just stupid. I may have unintentionally started a paradox, but using one to refute a paradox only makes it more of a paradox, right? Users can get used to the simplicity, but due to its striking resemblance to the Windows 8 OS, users may as well resort to PC as literally all games on Xbox One can be played on PC as both are produced by Microsoft, and that the Windows 8 OS (while similar to Xbox One) is superior to the GUI on Xbox One for being original and not a knock-off. However, on PC, there are exclusives not available on Xbox One that also run at 4K resolution, and also having several different platforms, specifically Steam and PC Online that are not available anywhere else (except for Mac). There are even multiple ways to play PC games with different controllers, such as the traditional keyboard+mouse, Xbox 360 gamepad controller, Xbox One gamepad controller, and (shock) a retro arcade joy-stick. That and PC being superior to Xbox One in every way possible, but now I am going off-topic. .. Speaking of controllers, opponent states there is a reason for gamers not preferring the Wii Remote in competitive gameplay, yet fails to provide a valid reason other than using casual gamers as a scape-goat. Opponent goes on to state that I have twisted the words to my advantage, yet opponent does just that with their first rebuttal in order to emotionally comfort themselves and to convince opponent for being unfair to the rules, when clearly the debate was set up by their opponent and therefore their opponent gets to decide the rules. If the debate was set up by them, then I will gladly debate based on their rules, even if they are randomly added every now and then. Now the opponent finally gives a reason, but it is too vague; by joy-stick themed controllers, does opponent mean controllers with joysticks, or controllers with control-sticks? If that is the case, then my rebuttal has been successfully been refuted - if not, then opponent has failed to make a valid reason to explain the Wii Remote being too "casual". Opponent does not seem to grasp the difference between joy sticks and control sticks. Joy sticks are long sticks with gigantic colored balls that allow movement or selection of characters and menus in an arcade game. Control sticks are short sticks with flat circles attached to the top, primarily used for video games and on gamepad controllers, whereas the latter is used for arcade games on arcade machines and video games of the first and second generation (Atari and PONG comes to mind). If opponent never knew such a difference, then they should have done some internet research or asked their opponent. It appears opponent is ignorant, as the original PlayStation controller had no control sticks (except for the newer model) and that gamepad controllers have no joy-sticks. The Xbox controllers have barely changed in terms of the buttons; yes, the shape and design has, but the buttons are still the same - only the two menu buttons on the original Xbox have been removed; all others have been prominent with the Xbox 360 and Xbox One.