Call of Duty:Modern Warfare 2 is a better game than Call of Duty:Black Ops

No Source No definition of experienced player My Rebuttal to this is that I used a valid source edited daily by hundreds of people. If the majority of people thought camping is not legit than that's what would've said on the page. Plus there are many more problems with my opponents argument What is camping exactly? How long do you have to stay in on place for it to be considered camping? Is camping the same as defending? My Opponent fails to make this a valid point without addressing these problems Knifing Argument My Opponent make no sense in his rebuttal. Again it doesn't have to make sense, simply because it is an AI. Spawns How are they better? How are they worse? Please Clarify your point more with sources please. Second Overview of my opponents case My Opponent again is coming from a personal standpoint. He has failed to put any sources in his defense about anything and is trying to state that he is an expert an this area(Simply because he has a blog that started earlier Last Month) My Opponent also talks about experienced players What is that? How does one become experienced? Do you have any of these "experienced players as a source"? Definition of better This technically wasn't an argument, I was just trying to see what grounds he was trying to argue on. Judges you can say this is more of a clarification point. My Opponents definition of better is "what would of sold more if the game was purchased off its own merit instead of some insane marketing campaign" His definition of better is not "based upon user review". Any arguments relating to user reviews should be dropped according to my opponents definition. Now my opponent goes on to talk about how Black ops was all in the marketing campaign. I would like to note that all games have a marketing campaign and just because they did good with the marketing does not prove the marketing campaign directly influenced sales. Research Sub Argument My Opponent says how himself and everyone he knows does research on a game. Does this seem contradictory to to what my opponent says of user satisfaction? (Which is a point that still should be dropped according to my opponents definition) Also, If people researched an saw user satisfaction ratings, how did black ops still sell more? User Satisfaction Argument My Opponent tries to argue about how black ops has a lower rating than Modern Warfare 2. But according to my opponents definition of better and following the resolution this does not judge today's debate. So this does not decide which game is better Black Ops has Sold more Argument My Opponent has not addressed this argument anytime during his second speech. This should be counted as a drop against my case. More people play black ops. Sources Point My Opponent's entire first speech was based upon a blog. He has brought Sources into his second speech. But the ign based sources do not work for me(Which is a shame, those are pretty valid sources) The innovate source worked but later goes on to state "This is the highest grossing entertainment launch ever". The Pc world source also worked, but should be dropped on my opponents side according to his definition of better and my clarification about the user satisfaction point. Burden of Proof Point My opponent has never contested this, so the burden of proof is still on him to prove that Modern Warfare is better than black ops under the defintion that he has defined. I DO NOT have to prove black ops is better. I await a response from my opponent. I would also like to insert a Camping joke "You want to know what's intense? " "What? " "Camping" Say it to yourself if you don't get it.