Starcraft 2 is a strategy-intensive computer game

Curse my laziness for putting off posting this round until 30 minutes until I forfeit. This round is going to be very brief and very skimpy. But before I start, just two comments:First, the nature of the resolution means that it needs to be strategy-intensive. Meaning that there needs to be buckets and buckets of strategy required to play Starcraft 2 competitively. A good comparison to a game that is strategy-intensive that I would like to make as a sort of benchmark to what affirms and what negates is the Total War(1) series by EA. I will concede that the Total War series is strategy intensive. If my opponent can successfully argue that Starcraft 2 requires strategy that is comparable to the Total War series, he will win the debate.Moreover, most of the strategies I'm going to post are obviously counterable. That's a given. For every abusive strategy available to players, there's always going to be a counter to it somewhere. However, most of the time those counters are hard to impossible to actually pull off. For example, if my opponent is zerg rushing me as I'm building my first gateway, it's kind of absurd to say "whelp, you should of had a few colossus to counter the rush". Some strategies just preclude available effective counters. Another example, if I'm terran and my opponent builds a proxy pylon right outside my base early and is swarming me with zealots from a warp gate, I can't exactly go to the strategy of "build thors and squash the zealots" because I wouldn't be anywhere close to being able to produce thors in any number to be effective. So to allow my opponent to just say to any abusive strategy I propose "Whelp, that's when you do ____ and _____. See, look at the strategy!" is extremely unfair. With that being said, I will present three common and abusive strategies that really don't require much in the way of strategy. Strategy One: Zerg Rush(2)Okay, I can't make an argument about abusive strategies without bringing up the Zerg Rush. This is the infamous strategy where, as a Zerg player, you rush your spawning pool and get out as many zerglings as you can as quickly as possible, and rush your opponent's base early. This strategy is so infamous that even Google made a mini-game where you clicked on the "zerglings" before they destroyed your search results(3). The abuse here is that it's such an early powerhouse strategy where as you're building your first or second Gateway as Protoss or your first or second Barracks as Terran and you already have a handful of zerglings at your doorstep. And this lacks actual strategy since it's simply getting as many tiny critters as you can and sending them over to your opponent's base. It's one of the most popular strategies as Zerg, and thus is a strong impact to say that Starcraft, at least from the Zerg side, is not strategy intensive.Strategy Two: Marine-Marauder-Medivac(4)This strategy is a Terran strategy that is powerful in the early to mid game. It allows Terran players to not only go toe-to-toe with powerful armies (providing they have a large enough Marine-Marauder-Medivac ball, which will be abbreviated to MMM for now), but it allows them to use the carrying capacity of Medivacs to carry their Marines and Marauders around to different parts of the map to harrass your opponent from multiple different sides, stretching their army numbers out too thin to be able to adequetly push you back on all fronts. The abuse here is not only does it involve just massing as many units as you can and sending them over to the other person's base, but both units (Marine and Marauder) are avaiable in the beginning Barracks, Marauders need the Tech Lab add-on (but that isn't that hard to get). Medivacs are only an optional add-on.Strategy Three: Four Gate Push(5) Running out of time, so I'll make this one quick. This strategy is a Protoss strategy where you rush four Warp Gates as quickly as you can, and then spread pylons out to various points in the map, which allow you to teleport your units around to wherever you want them. This allows you to amass units quickly at your opponent's doorstep with little to no warning as to what you're doing. This is an abusive strategy because, again, not only does it just involve warping in as many units as you can and just sending them over to the other person's base (noticing a trend?), but it literally prevents your opponent from being able to adequetly respond to you, effectively making any response to your offense non-existent. Expected arguments from ProI expect that pro will bring up the point of macromanaging and micromanaging your units and economy. This is the skill of being able to manage your entire field of units and buildings, such as creating more units while attacking your opponent's base at the same time, and the ability to command your units in the heat of battle to get the maximum effectiveness out of them, maybe by repositioning and attacking and moving. The problem with this is that it really doesn't do all that much on the larger scale. Sure I can micro my units with the best of them, but if my strategy just isn't as effective, I'm not going to be able to win. Like, if I'm a boss as macro managing, that doesn't help me stop a Zerg Rush 4 minuts into the game. It just doesn't have that great of an impact.ConclusionWith three popular strategies from all three factions being lacking in strategy, I see no way that Starcraft 2 can be a strategy-intensive game. Thus, the resolution is negated.Sources:(1): http://www.totalwar.com...(2): http://www.youtube.com...(3): https://www.google.com...(4): http://www.youtube.com...(5): ;