Starcraft 2 is a strategy-intensive computer game

A final thanks to Z-Canoe and all the readers. I hope you’ve had as much fun as I have!As Con pointed out, this round will be reserved for concluding a housekeeping issue, rebutting my opponent’s case, and concluding remarks. Per the rules, I will not be addressing Con’s rebuttals. After the first round, Con can no longer impose new rules or change the debate parameters. As such, Total War cannot be the benchmark in this debate. We already had benchmarks: the resolution and definitions provided in Round 1. Of course, if this comparison was so important to his case, Con was free to simply discuss the relevant elements of Total War; I did the same thing with chess in my case. However, against his own rules, he waited until the final round to do this. New final round arguments are not allowed, so Con’s case for Total War will be ignored. Rebutting Con’s CaseMy opponent’s entire case rests on the claim that he has presented three unbeatable StarCraft 2 strategies that aren’t really strategies at all. Unfortunately, there are two very obvious, very debilitating issues with this line of reasoning. 1. Con Talks Tactics, Not StrategiesCon committed a common mistake here: he confused strategies with tactics. As I explained at the start of my case, strategies refer to overarching, long-term actions and plots, whereas tactics are specially combat related. The dictionary clarifies: “In military usage, a distinction is made between STRATEGY and TACTICS. STRATEGY is the utilization, during both peace and war, of all of a nation's forces, through large-scale, long-range planning and development, to ensure security or victory. TACTICS deal with the use and deployment of troops in actual combat.” [1]Considering Con’s arguments only attack StarCraft 2’s combat maneuvers, and considering those same arguments concede that the game involves non-combat elements such as economic planning, base construction, technological upgrades, and resource harvesting, it would seem that Con doesn’t actually discuss strategy at all. Instead, he is focusing on just a small component of the game’s strategy and thus has no case against the resolution. 2. Con’s Own Video Rebuts Him So, my opponent only discusses tactics and not strategies. Well, what if those three tactics are so good that it makes everything else obsolete? Good question, me, but Con’s second video answers that. In Round 2, Con presented three tactics he claimed were unbeatable, then presented a video in which the narrator explains exactly how to beat all three! Below are quotes directly from that second video [2]: At 00:08, the Protoss tactic - “Today we’re going to taking a look at a Terran build - Marine, Marauder, Medivac, supplemented with some Ghosts - as a proper response or proper counter to a Protoss 4 Gateway Build.” At 01:00, the Zerg tactic - “From the very beginning, our Terran player...is getting a Supply Depot not at the front wall. Basically, he is not walling off...wall-offs are only really most effective versus Zerg opponents where you have the threat of Zerglings or Banelings coming toward you.” At 07:28, the Terran tactic - “When you’re getting attacked by a Protoss player, if you have your guys out in the open and there’s no Stim-Pack [Terran upgrade] for them...once those Zealots get up to you, they’re pretty much gonna chop you down.” According to my opponent’s own case, all it takes to defeat these seemingly unstoppable plans is to make some mixed units, block the doorway, and attack in close, respectively. Why are counters so readily available? Because these are just tactics! As with any well-balanced game, StarCraft 2 designed every unit to have multiple potential counters [3][4][5]. That is why the game is strategy-intensive; victory absolutely requires not only excellent tactics, but also adaptability, planning, knowledge, micromanagement, and attentiveness. The Final VerdictWith strategy referring to large-scale planning and utilization of all one’s means toward victory, it is easy to see why my criteria - player options, planning opportunities, and attentional demands - are sufficient in determining a military game’s strategic intensity. By eliminating randomness, granting players complete control over their resources, and providing innumerable pathways through which players can express their individualized actions, StarCraft 2 fits the definition of a strategy-intensive game perfectly. Con’s attempt to simplify the game by focusing on tactics alone demonstrates a misrepresentation of the resolution and essentially robs him of any means of negating. Tactics alone could never lessen strategic intensity; not only do strategies consist of many non-combat elements, but the game is designed such that every tactic requires direct planning and implementation on the player’s part regardless. The fact that Con’s chosen tactics are all eminently defeatable, as explained by his own source, is only further damning. Thanks for reading!References1. http://dictionary.reference.com...2. Con's Second Video3. http://www.sc2guidereviews.com...4. http://www.sc2guidereviews.com...5. http://www.sc2guidereviews.com...