The Instigator
Loveshismom
Pro (for)
Winning
26 Points
The Contender
Dan2199
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Accept if you Dare #3: Flappy Bird is an Absurd and/or Terrible Game

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
Loveshismom
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/21/2014 Category: Games
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 996 times Debate No: 53037
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (14)
Votes (5)

 

Loveshismom

Pro

Hello! This debate is part of a series called "Accept if you dare," where I take unorthodox topics and instigate debates on them. I will argue that Flappy Bird is absurd and/or terrible. By "absurd," I am saying politely that Flappy Bird is stupid. And by stupid, I mean that it is characterized by or proceeding from mental dullness and/or annoying or irritating [1].



A1: It is always the same thing. All you do is tap the screen to fly through green pipes and across a background that were both apparently ripped off of Mario until you crash into either a pipe or the ground. There is no variety.

A2: the game relies solely on the player's determination to get the high score. I will clearly demonstrate that getting the high score is one of the least important things in life. If it is that unimportant, then anyone who places a high level of value on it lacks sufficient self-discipline and/or intelligence, and that makes Flappy Bird and other games like it absurd.

SA2A: Whether or not a person gets a high score can only have a negative impact impact on them, if any. Getting the high score will not make you more popular, help with a friendship, make you more "worthy" than others, or get you a job. Skill at a job requirement and skill that makes you the best in the world at a video game are two entirely different things. Because of Flappy Bird's constant pace, achieving the high score is time-consuming because you must play it constantly in order to build up your skill. Because this takes so long, it is impossible not to be addicted by the time you are able to get he high score. People have also been known to literally die simply by playing video games excessively [2].

Conclusion: Flappy Bird is a monotonous game that has with less effect the less value he player places on attaining the high score, and is as dangerous as any other game if one becomes addicted to it, and is therefore absurd.

Sources:

[1]- http://dictionary.reference.com...
[2]- http://www.ranker.com...
Dan2199

Con

Hello Loveshismom! I happily accept this debate and your terms! I would also like to point out that this is my first debate, and I am all ears to any constructive criticisms you can give me!!

A1: Flappy Bird is not an absurd game, because it revolves around muscle memory, and helps to increase your concentration and memory skills. The pattern of the Bird going up and down helps to keep a rhythm and stimulate muscle memory.

A2: From a financial point of view, Flappy Bird is a marvelous game because it makes a lot of money! The game was made to be addicting, in order to stimulate interest in a large population and make money off of both ads and purchases.

A3: The high score "idea" is not bad as it stimulates the determination and perseverance to continue to beat the highest score and to become one of the best, which is key in aspects of today's life, to be offered a job, and succeed in overcoming obstacles.

Conclusion: Flappy Bird is not an absurd game because it makes a lot of money, and practices valuable skills that many games offer.

Once again, I would like to cordially thank my opponent, and ask for any helpful criticism!
Debate Round No. 1
Loveshismom

Pro

A1: Previously, you argued that Flappy Bird revolves around muscle memory, and increases concentration and memory skills. However, the fallacy in this argument is that his will only be the case if they play the game too much, and they will only play the game if they are excessively driven to get the high score, which I showed in round one to be unimportant. This can cause the game to become frustrating, and thus he frustration would easily distract the player from anything the game was teaching them.

A2: "...Flappy Bird is a marvelous game because it makes a lot of money!" Flappy Bird actually makes 50K. Games that are actually by no means absurd actually make much more money. I will be using Super Smash Bros Brawl as an example game in my argument. It has actually sold millions of copies [1] and therefore obviously made far more money than Flappy Bird.

A3: "The high score 'idea'...stimulates the determination and perseverance to continue to beat the highest score and to become one of the best, which is key in aspects of today's life, to be offered a job, and succeed in overcoming obstacles," that argument is completely invalid because SSBB can teach a player the same thing because there are many trophies, songs, and characters to unlock, and this requires tremendous skill and perseverance. How much of these two qualities each game requires is irrelevant to this debate.

A4: Unlike Flappy Bird, SSBB has plenty if variety and takes a long time to feel monotonous to a sufficiently intelligent and self-disciplined player.

Also, you have done nothing to refute my point that it is a monotonous game or that people have died just playing video games.

Conclusion: Flappy Bird can have only the same positive effects a less absurd game can have and makes much less money, and that makes it absurd.

Sources:

[1]- http://video-games.findthebest.com...
Dan2199

Con

A1: There is no need to play the game "too much" in order to attain the same benefits. If playing flappy bird is like running, you do not need to be an Olympic level runner with one of the top times in the world in order to enjoy the physical benefits of running. One could run a far smaller amount and still enjoy the same benefits of running. Frustration also does not pertain to the argument, as in the same running analogy, not having the number one time in the world does not take away from the advantages of playing the game.

A2: I know that my opponent would never willingly do quote mining, but I do want to correct him on the amount of money that Flappy Bird makes. Flappy Bird's producers are said to make "more than 50K dollars A DAY" (1) which if it had been out the same time as SSBB would be making the approximately the same amount of money.

A3: Your argument is completely impertinent to this debate, since you have stated before that SSBB is not an absurd game but you have said that the two games can "teach the same thing{s}" . Also I have played both of these games and according to me, achieving a score over 1000 in Flappy Bird is at least equal to the skill needed to completely complete SSBB.

A4: The game may be monotonous, but that does not make the game itself absurd. Tetris, and Pong are monotonous that does not make them absurd games. Also, regarding the death toll, the threat of death is very low and happens in all games. People have died of heat exhaustion in soccer, motion sickness in ALL video games, and injuries in other sports, this does not mean that because there is a very minor risk of death in games, makes the game absurd or stupid.

Source(s); http://www.cnet.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Loveshismom

Pro

A1: First of all, everything in your second argument can be applied to many other video games that are by no means absurd. There is Sonic Colors (Wii version,) SMG2, Mario Party 9, and many more. They are all long and hard games. Finding all the red rings so you can become Super Sonic is also very hard. As for how much money it makes a day? Its developer recalled it and said why himself: because it is "too addictive" and he "couldn't sleep" thinking about the effects of the addiction on players [1]. Nobody would recall a smart game.

A2: "...you have said that the two games can teach the same things," I never pointed out any other similarities, which means that I never said they were the same. SSBB is completely different from Flappy Bird because it has multiple characters, variety, and it has originality mixed in. And of course, it is more fun. The same logic is applicable to SMG2, Mario Party 9, and Sonic Colors.

A3: You claim that getting 1000 in Flappy Bird requires the same skill as needed to completely complete SSBB. This however, only proves that the amount of skill required is irrelevant to this debate.

A4: Yes, monotony makes the game absurd. As I stated in round one, by "absurd," I meant "stupid." You appear to have disregarded the definitions I gave in round 1 completely. Flappy Bird is irritating to its addicts, and therefore absurd. As pointed out by Disoungh in the comments section, you "basically conceded because of your last argument," where you admitted that Flappy Bird is a monotonous game.

Sources:

[1]- http://www.complex.com...
Dan2199

Con

Dan2199 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Loveshismom

Pro

A1: Because there is no variety in Flappy Bird, it does not fulfil a player's need for autonomy, where as SSBB does. The player has various characters to fight as and feels like they (and frankly do) have a choice beyond which level to pick, plus they can collect stickers to better equip the characters, further increasing the sense of autonomy.

A2: Flappy Bird makes you feel incompetent after breaking an addiction because it makes you realize how absurd it really is. Achievements feel like nothing if it is in an absurd game. SSBB is not absurd.

A3: Flappy Bird hardly makes the player feel related at all because they are only making a "bird" that looks more like a fish, or perhaps a cheep-cheep from Super Mario Bros. SSBB, however has Wi-Fi so you can brawl with people around the world in real time instead of taking turns constantly like in Flappy Bird, plus it has a mission with a storyline so you feel like you have to complete the mission. Flappy Bird has no storyline. It gives you no motivation beyond getting the high score, and as I demonstrated in round 1, placing the high score so high requires a lack of sufficient intelligence and/or self-discipline. You need less self-discipline than this to completely complete SSBB.

Conclusion: Flappy Bird is absurd does not successfully fulfill the needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness.
Dan2199

Con

Dan2199 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Dan2199

Con

Dan2199 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Loveshismom 2 years ago
Loveshismom
How's that funny?
Posted by birdlandmemories 2 years ago
birdlandmemories
Funny how there is a flappy bird ad over this debate.
Posted by Loveshismom 2 years ago
Loveshismom
This debate needs MOAR! Votes.
Posted by Loveshismom 2 years ago
Loveshismom
@ Disoungh, you're right. Btw were you quoting MatPat?
Posted by Loveshismom 2 years ago
Loveshismom
Thx Disoungh for quoting my argument in a positive connotation.
Posted by softball_32 2 years ago
softball_32
flappy bird is REALLY fun, but some people over react about the game when they die. One of my " friends" always yells out loud saying, " thnx a lot u made me die" to different BOYS in the room she is a slut but other than that the game is fun!!
Posted by Dishoungh 2 years ago
Dishoungh
I'm going to start a debate called, "Gamers don't know what they want."
Posted by Dishoungh 2 years ago
Dishoungh
Ha, Con forfeited. I will vote Pro anyway because Con conceded to his arguments. Plus, I agree with Pro. Flappy Bird is an, all around, stupid game that does nothing but frustrate its players. There are other games that teach the skill that Flappy Bird teaches except they teach it more efficiently while teaching may more skills than those 2 and not being frustrating. The frustration from the game completely throws what it's teaching out the window. As a matter of fact, Flappy Bird doesn't really teach any substantial value whatsoever. The only thing it teaches us is that GAMERS DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY WANT. Flappy Bird has proven that theory. Gamers say they want innovation, they want good graphics, they want blah blah blah. No, they don't. Because, think about it, if "GAMERS" want "innovation," then why are non-innovative things selling. Call of Duty hasn't innovated anything ever since MW2. Yeah sure, they change this and that every year. I'm talking about real changes. Graphics, engine, A.I, servers, everything.
Posted by Loveshismom 2 years ago
Loveshismom
Your welcome
Posted by Dishoungh 2 years ago
Dishoungh
Thank you for using my comment as a source in your argument.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Gaming_Debater 2 years ago
Gaming_Debater
LoveshismomDan2199Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: FF, Pro had better arguments.
Vote Placed by Rhodesia79 2 years ago
Rhodesia79
LoveshismomDan2199Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited.
Vote Placed by Ajab 2 years ago
Ajab
LoveshismomDan2199Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Geogeer 2 years ago
Geogeer
LoveshismomDan2199Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Victory by forfeit.
Vote Placed by SPENCERJOYAGE14 2 years ago
SPENCERJOYAGE14
LoveshismomDan2199Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gets a 7 point win due to lack of presentation by con.