Instigator / Pro
16
1479
rating
3
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#1993

Plants vs Zombies 1 is not better than Plants vs Zombies 2

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
18
Better sources
4
12
Better legibility
6
6
Better conduct
6
6

After 6 votes and with 26 points ahead, the winner is...

User_2006
Tags
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Six months
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
42
1470
rating
50
debates
40.0%
won
Description

PvZ is not better than the sequel.
I need a fan to accept.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

PRO did not provide sources.
PRO provided 1 sentence arguments that CON refuted easily.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Arguments: One sentence answers.
Sources: Zero sources from Pro vs some sources from Con

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

This debate came down to Con outlining several issues with pvz 2 while Pro either agreed or replied with his own opinions. Basically, both sides should've looked more into objective sources, if Con and Pro give me 2 opinions that conflict I can't side with one over another unless one can appeal to the opinion of gamers as a whole. This locks down several contentions, basically making them tied. But, Pro conceding the graphical point and the point about legacy really turn the tides against him. Moreover, he never properly refuted con's points about the monetary burden of pvz 2. He seemed to appeal to his opinion rather than the totality of gamers, some of whom spent money on the game when they may not have needed to in pvz 1.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

The Instigator only provided single-sentence points, and gave no sources.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Con provided more in-depth arguments while Pro just listed a few things in single sentences.
Con used a few sources as opposed to Pro’s none.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Pro did not make an argument differentiating the true benefits of 2 over 1. Pro pointed out some grievances with 1 over 2, but did not compare and contrast. Pro just sat in rebuttal mode, and through their rebuttals. Pro also agreed with Con on two occasions in round 2. It is not a full concession, however it is demonstrative of the persuasiveness of Cons arguments.

Con used sound logic in pre-emotively negating the quality of graphics challenges, and that led directly to some of the concessions.

The narrative was not as organized as it could have been. Overall Con has it.