What is the best Clash Royale card
The voting period has ended
After 1 vote the winner is ...
Time for argument
Characters per argument
The best card in clash royale is the Pekka the Pekka has a strong attack an can do as much as 800 damage. This means the Pekka can take a tower in just about 3 swings. The Pekka has many hitpoints and can survive practically any card. The Pekka not only is good by itself but it can also be used as a meat shield for other troops such as a wizard or so. Not only is a Pekka good on attack it is also amazing on defense. The Pekka can shred through many other troops such as wizards e barbs, prince, and golem.
I think the best card in the game is inferno tower. This is because it can take out almost any tank with the help of a couple spam cards. This card takes out any tank in the game. It can also pull units over to a side of field so that both towers also are targeted on the troop it is pulling. The tank will die in, at most, 6 seconds. After the tank is dead the support unit will die too because it is still targeted on the inferno tower. Most tank pushes are at least 12 elixir. Inferno tower is only 5 elixir. This leaves you with more elixir to counter push then what they have for defense. One of the tanks inferno tower kills is Pekka. Which my opponent has used as the best card. Pekka can be countered easily with inferno tower. This means that Pekka isn't really a very good card if it can be countered by just a 5 elixir card.
No comments yet
|Better arguments||✔||✗||✗||3 points|
|Better sources||✗||✔||✗||2 points|
|Better spelling and grammar||✗||✗||✔||1 point|
|Better conduct||✔||✗||✗||1 point|
Arguments: Pro presents arguments about Pekka having a strong attack damage, good defense, and Pekkas' ability to be used as a meat shield. Con only somewhat rebuttals one of these arguments about Pekkas' ability to defend by showing that the Inferno Tower can kill it in one hit, but drops the rest. Con's arguments on the Inferno Tower concern it's attack damage, ability to move units to the side of the field, and it's elixir cost. These arguments cannot be addressed by Pro because Con posted new arguments in the last round, which I will go more into detail about in the conduct point. But overall, since Con drops most of Pro's arguments, Pro fulfills his Burden of Proof and thus wins the argument point.
Sources: Neither side used sources, so this is not applicable.
Spelling and Grammar: Both had some comma mistakes which did not detract from the debates' readability, but I'll give the edge to Con here because Pro has several bizarre sentences which detract from the readability of the debate such as:
"can also be used as a meat shield for other troops such as a wizard or so."
Conduct: Since both sides forfeited an equal amount of times, no conduct points can be addressed there, but Pro overall has better conduct because Con posts new arguments in the final round which Pro cannot rebut, which is generally considered poor conduct.
All things considered, this debate is a win for Pro.