Instigator / Pro
Points: 7

Electro Dragon is Good


The voting period has ended

After 1 vote the winner is ...
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Judicial decision
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Characters per argument
Contender / Con
Points: 3
Round 1
I say that electrodragon is really good because it resets, it strikes up to three units, and does 57 *3 damage per second. 

This means that decks that use sparky are screwed because it can reset the sparky at a safe distance in the air. Giant Sparky is going to not work anymore because of the combination of being in the air and hitting up to three targets, and the fact that it resets. The damage it does is enough to kill the support units reset the sparky and deal chip to the giant. This leaves with at least 4 elixir to deal with the giant and kill it. Off of that you can start a good counter push. Inferno tower can be countered if there are no spam cards to tank for the 3 shots and reset, but by that time the tank card will probably get to the tower. Inferno tower won't be completely done, but if they have electrodragon don't rely on inferno tower for your defense. 

This means that many of the decks that are in the meta right now will cycle out for different ones. This shows that this is a balanced and good card.

Round 2
Round 3
extend argument

The Electro Dragon, even though it resets inferno dragon and sparky, is a terrible card, it
- Does only 57 dmg per second, less than most cards
- Can activate king tower
- Is easy to kill

Sources: Clash Royale
No comments yet
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Arguments: Pro presents the argument that the Electro-Dragon is good because of it's ability to reset, strike up to three units, and do large amounts of damage. Pro then gives a detailed example of how to use the Electro Dragon effectively. Con posts in the last round and concedes 2 of Pro's points, instead choosing to make his own case. He goes into how it does little damage, how it can activate king tower, and how easy it is to kill, which is incredibly non specific. Overall, Pro wins arguments because Con drops almost all of them and only presents 3 arguments, only 2 of which are decent points.
Sources: Con's source "Clash Royale" is fair enough. I'll tie it.
S+G: Fine on both sides.
Conduct: Con forfeits more rounds, and posts new arguments in the last round, which is generally poor conduct.