The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
8 Points

Competitive computer games should be the part of Olyimpics games.

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/28/2013 Category: Sports
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,427 times Debate No: 39568
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)




Initially, To prevent misunderstanding lets define the questionable part of the motion.
Competitive video gaming: Playing video games in the highest level (video games such as League of legends and StarCraft 2).
To propose this topic, I am going to come up with three contentions:
1. The purpose of Olympics games
2. From the view of individuals
3. From the view of Olimpics

Guarantee an event for sportsmen to match. Sport requires addiction, endurance,logic and team play, so does computer games. Therefore computer games completely can be matched with the values of Olympics.

Most of us have already realized the fact that, competitive video gaming has a good reputation in our days. Millions of people watch different kind of tournaments by day to day. According to the recent statistics the viewers of the League of legends World finals were higher than the basketball games that were played at the same time. I do believe that, these facts clearly show how many additional spectator would visit the forthcoming games if this policy would set up.

Obviously these viewers would be teenagers. I have known several youngsters, who do not really interested in Olympics games,since they cannot find a suitable sports for themselves. But video games would attract these children to attend Olympics games.

Lastly, from the view of individuals this policy has no drawbacks. Because of the fact that, it is not a must to watch or visit video games, those people who don't like computer games would turn off the telly, others would watch and what is more buy tickets for the games.

Lets move to the much more important part. From the view of Olympics. As I have already mentioned, games would attract more people, so Olympics could make more money from tickets, t-shirts etc.

This change would show that, Olympics can keep step with our world.

Computers, devices and gamers have wealthy sponsors ( Logitec, Allienware etc.) These companies would support Olympics games and it would mean more financial profit again.


Hi wannamakesome fun,

Interesting debate topic, I actually haven't given this much thought until you posted this. However, after giving it a bit of thought I think I should be up to the task of being a worthy adversary in this debate. :)

I myself am quite familiar with what is called E-Sports, I do not really have time for video games anymore but I participated in E-Sports for WoW coming out of High School several years ago and followed the League of Legends and StarCraft 2 scene. I state this to say that I am not ignorant of the amount of skill, coordination and teamwork necessary to succeed at the "professional" levels of E-Sports.

1. The Olympics of our modern day have an ancient origin in the Ancient Olympic Games which began in 776 BCE and continued until 394 CE. These games were a collection of athletic sporting events representing either different countries or portions of Greece. This tradition of including only athletic sporting events exists even today.

Here below is the list of current sporting events:

Beach Volleyball
Canoe Slalom
Canoe Sprint
Cycling BMX
Cycling Mountain Bike
Cycling Road
Cycling Track
Equestrian / Dressage
Equestrian / Eventing
Equestrian / Jumping
Gymnastics Artistic
Gymnastics Rhythmic
Modern Pentathlon
Synchronized Swimming
Table Tennis
Water Polo
Wrestling Freestyle
Wrestling Greco-Roman

Alpine Skiing
Cross Country Skiing
Figure skating
Freestyle Skiing
Ice Hockey
Nordic Combined
Short Track Speed Skating
Ski Jumping
Speed skating

All of these sports as you can see involve an athletic aspect. And just so that we have a clear understanding of how I am using "athletic" here is a definition.

Athletics is a term encompassing the human competitive sports and games requiring physical skill.

Therefore it would not be appropriate for E-Sports to be participating in a historically athletic competition.

2. E-Sports do not represent the most respectable communities. Anyone who has played League of Legends or StarCraft 2 has surely met some respectable players, but there is the ever common "troll" who is not only present in a casual online experience, but also at the upper levels of competition. Players such as Idra exhibit the kind of poor sportsmanship that is common in these communities which make it a hard sell to be held in the same regard as some of these ancient and highly regarded athletic sports.

3. E-Sports are not even recognized as sports in public schools. At your local high school you will find football, soccer, baseball, basketball, etc. etc. but what you will not find is the local League of Legends team (one that is officially sponsored by the school). There are many reasons for this, 1) Video games do not promote overall physical health like athletic games do, 2) Video games are often an associated as the enemy of education, distracting children from their studies, 3) Video Games have their own separate built in outlets for competition.

4. The Olympics should not simply add a game to their list because it is popular if it simply does not belong according to the athletic tradition of the games. Asking the question of what is profitable largely has little to do with the question of what is right.


E-Sports has it's own very successful market and global venue online, where it's online viewership has flourished. This particular niche is fitting and appropriate and can be catered to it's more youthful audience. No doubt the competitors in E-Sports sometimes showcase incredible skills, but these skills will largely only be relevant to those familiar with the game. MarineKing's Marine micro might seem a lot more incredible to me who totally pales in comparison when it comes to splitting my forces for a baneling attack... but to someone completely ignorant to the game it would just kind of look cool. This is another one of the primary reasons E-Sports should be confined comfortably to the relevant viewership they current enjoy, which are the players of that game not the general populace of the world which do not play that game or video games in general.

Looking forward to your additional remarks and rebuttals.

Kindest Regards,

Debate Round No. 1


Dear TrueScotsman,

Firstly, I would like to say thank you for your response, I really appreciate it.

Now, I am going to react on all of your arguments and bring up a new contention.

In your first argument, you wrote about physical requirements of all of the existing Olympics sports. It is not always true. Shooting, curling and even golf require agility rather than physical strength or skill. You labeled Olympics game as a historically athletic competition, it is completely untrue because plenty of sports have extremely short history for instance: Cycling BMX or mountain bike. Therefore, we cannot call Olympics games historical competition.

I truly feel the same as you in your second argument, but it cannot be considered to be a reason of opposing the motion. Every sports has its own trolls. That's why I only wanted to argue about competitive level of playing. In the highest level we just barely find sportsmen with negative attitude. Plus, I firmly believe that, the number of "trolls" is nearly equal in every sports. To make the conclusion, because we're only arguing about playing at the highest level, your second argument is not viable.

According to your third reason, we should reject competitive computer gaming just because it is not supported by schools. In my opinion, it is just about the financial situation of the schools. For example in Hungary we are really happy, if we have a football team in the secondary school. According to your logic, we should refuse other sports. You are right by saying schools usually treat games as an enemy but I think it is not relevant in this topic. ( it is another debate :D )

I feel , i have disproved your fourth contention by saying that, there are several "new sports" in Olympics games. In addition, competitive level of playing can be matched with the basic values of Olympics (endurance, passion and skill).

Reacting to your conclusion, it is not a must to watch computer games and I am sure that you agree with that computer games would attract more people than most of the sports in the Winter Olympics. You have written that the viewers of computer games mainly play games too, otherwise they are unable to understand the whole thing. It is just the same , If we examine less popular Olympics sports like Cycling track or road.

Additional argument:

- This policy would promote equality and go against discrimination

We all know that computer gamers are labeled as "geeks" and they are often the victim of cyber bullying. This change would show that they can be considered to be as equal sportsmen like football players. Good example is Paralympics Games which was created for hendicaped people and for those who are being discriminated from society.

Putting computer games into the Olympics may change the school's mind :)

I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible.

Best regards,


Hello again,

This continues to be an interesting debate, and I am intriguided to see where this ends up. :)

Objection #1

You raised the sports, shooting, curling, and golf as not applicable to the criteria I set forth in my argument. This I believe is incorrect, all three of these sports require physical skills and therefore fall under the label of athletic sports.

Shooting: This sport requires proficiency with the given fire-arm that involves a tremendous amount of physical accuracy and speed.

Curling: This sport also much like shooting requires a great deal of physical skill and control, even including a team aspect.
Golf: Golf involves physical strength and accuracy not uncommon to the existence of other sports invovlved in the Olympics.

Objection #2

You claim that my statemen regarding the Olympics being a historically athletic competition to be false. Your support for this objection is the short history of Cycling, BMX or Mountain biking.

This to me appears to be a misunderstanding of my argument, my contention is that the Modern Day Olympic Games are an adaptation of the Olympic Games of ancient Greece,[1] which involve a series of athletic sporting events. Modern sports can and should be added if approriate to the nature of the competition, this is not so for Video Games as it is demonstrably not a athletic sport.

Objection #3

You assert that the existence of trolls in every sport should not discount the inclusion of Video games from the Olympics. This still fails to realize the vast difference in levels of professionalism and sportsmanship between Olympic athletes, and E-Sport superstars. The players themselves are largely not to blame, but the overall volatile communities that foster avenues for online bullying due to the fact it is completely anoymous.

Objection #4

Clarified my argument to show your "disproving" my primary argument as invalid and a misrepresentation of my assertion.

Objection #5

Video games simply have no place in the summer or winter olympics, the viewership for all the events can be just about universally appreciated by the global audience, and this attempt to draw a comparision I believe fails in that I can enjoy the skill one evidently has in diving, without participating in that sport myself. Video games are a much more specific fan base and most importantly are NOT athletic sports and therefore should have their separate venues for competition where the struggling players actually make money.

All I have time for, for now.

Kindest Regards,
Debate Round No. 2



It is my strong belief that, your points were excellently summarized, what we were writing about so far. That's why I just want to rebut them.

First point.

At the beginning of this debate you defined the meaning of athletics and you alleged that every existing sport of the Olympics games are athletics, therefore suitable for your criteria. You have stated that in the previous round:
- Shooting requires: proficiency, physical accuracy and speed. ---> So does computer gaming, you need accuracy and speed with your right hand ( just think about Call of duty).
- Curling demands: physical skill and control, plus teamwork.---> Just like gaming, especially strategy ones.

In nutshell, I agree with the fact that, all of the sport in the Olympics Games can be considered athletics activity. But, I also feel plenty of them require more agility,logic or even teamwork than physical aspects.

Second point.

As for me, recently added sports cannot be compared with the original sports in ancient Greece. Original Olympics Games put emphasize on the importance of human body and strength. Nevertheless, modern games mainly tries to delight and entertain our society. Adding video games would totally fit into this progress.

Third point.

Have you ever visited such a pages like Troll Football? Countless amount of pages work with the goal of making fun from great players. The situation is exactly the same in the field of other Olympics games. Your logic is so unfair and senseless for me. So just because of the unintelligent community, Should we punish or even discriminate the sport itself.


As concerns as viewership. i agree with you in the sense of that E-sports has much more specific fan base than most of the sports. But this specific fanbase is actually becoming higher and higher by day to day. So I do believe that the number of viewers and spectators would not fall behind from an average sports of the Olympics Games.

Ending phrase,
I really liked your attitude and thoughts in this debate. I can totally understand your standpoint and partly agree with that.
Apart from debate, I am on the negative side either but it was interesting to oppose this motion.

Best Wishes,



Appreciate your kind remarks, particularly in this last round. I must say that is a wonderful outlet for people who actually want to respectfully debate real issues... and sometimes fun one's such as this. :)

First Rebuttal:

You attempted to show that Video games are at least on the fringe of being qualified as an athletic sport, by drawing a comparison between it and sports such as golfing, shooting and curling. One fundamental differences between them, and the most obvious is that one of these sports takes place in reality, and the other does not.

This poses several problems, 1) the laws of physics do not necessarily apply in the realm of the video game and thus in a sense are taking place in a totally different realm, 2) these games are subject to balance issues and thus do not qualify for the rigorous standards met by the Olympic sports, and 3) while the player has to use their hands, they are controlling a virtual player or virtual army that doesn't actually exist.

This last point would allow a person who only drinks mountain dew and eats pizza to be regarded as Olympic athlete. This would be an absolute mockery of the proud tradition of Olympic athletes who are world renowned for their discipline and physical fitness.

Second Rebuttal:

Actually, your poing about the kind of sports they are now adding is not true. In fact in 2008 Baseball and Softball were removed and in 2016 Rubgy and Gofl will be added.[1] The selection process carried out by the IOC is extremely rigorous and from a pracitical standpoint, it would be impossible to see Video Games ever added.[2]

Third Rebuttal:

Cites such as "Troll Football"are run by the fans, not the athlete's themselves. The issue with gamers is the common immaturity and lack of sportsmanship, evidenced consistently such as the video of Dyrus and Reginald fighting like children.[3] This kind of behavior is not respectable enough and is rampant enough in nationally and internationally known players to warrant it non just condemnable based on it's overall community, but also because of it's "professional" players.

There will be of course exceptions, and it may be that the rude ones are the exception at the higher levels. However, what matters is public opinion, and I also having been apart of the E-Sports community being in the guild with players who won the Blizzcon WoW tournament, I have first hand experience with the immaturity of the upper echelon of players.

Fourth Rebuttal:

The increase in viewership does not necessarily lend to the idea that people outside of those who play the game are beginning to watch, it still remains a fraction of the actual players of the game who follow the E-Sports community. Therefore, this still is a viewership not just constrained to the individual game at least, but at the most to simply gamers in general.

Concluding Remarks:

This was a great debate, really something different to think about and apply my mind to. I think perhaps in teh future if technologies concerning virtual realities became more advanced and used the person's entire body it could be considered for the Olympic Games, however I think it's addition to the Olympic Games would happen many years after the introduction of the technology. For instance, Rubgy first became a sport in 1857[4] and is being added to the Olympic Games in 2016.

At any rate, I very much so enjoyed myself and look forward to another debate in the future. :)

Kindest Regards,

[1];[2];[3] ;[4]

Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by TrueScotsman 3 years ago
Hi Ameliamk1,

Have to say I am rather surprised by some of the things you said.

His remarks about Shooting, Golfing and Curling were addressed and refuted by the first rebuttal in my closing argument. To say it went unanswered is incorrect.

Secondly, I argued that it would break the proud tradition of the Olympics for a number of reasons most of all being my primary argument which is that Video Games are not an athletic sport and are in almost every degree profoundly different from the sports contained therein.

You also mentioned how I failed to give a decent rebuttal to the claim that trolls would not be present at high-levels, when I in fact provided a link to a video which documents the unsportsmanlike conduct of a professional E-Sport player and even drew on my own experience among the top "professionals" of E-Sports. When my opponent did not document any kind of source to demonstrate that the contrary was indeed true.

So while I appreciate your detailed RFD, I have to say that many of your points are from my perspective groundless as I have just demonstrated.

Again, thank you for your participation.

Kind Regards,
Posted by Ameliamk1 3 years ago
An interesting topic, but well-argued by both.

Now lets break it down:

S&G: Little to say, excellent job by both.

Conduct: Polite and sincere. Well done again.


Pro argues that e-games represent all the values of the Olympics. Con successfully rebuts that athleticism and physical prowess is require in the Olympics. Pro responds that curling and golf are counter-examples, to which Con points out that in fact they are not. (Thank you, Con). This point came down to the wire, but was eventually decided with Pro's reasonable example of shooting, which went un-answered by Con.

Pro argues that e-games are popular and would boost Olympic revenue. Con points out that these additional sales would be rather unimportant if these new games broke the Olympic's proud tradition, which he failed to prove would do so.

Con argues that virtual gaming had a far less respectable community than sports. Pro responds that at high-levels, "trolls" would not be found. Con does not give a decent rebuttal.

Con argues that e-games should not join the Olympic's gaming entourage because virtual realities distract from school and promote unhealthy habits. Pro's response should have been to point out that sports can detract similarly, but Pro fails to do so. Well done by Con, but ultimately not adequate to win him arguments.

Sources: No sources from Pro, despite reference to studies and statistics. Con in-text referenced and displayed his sources. Points Con.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by MysticEgg 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Really interesting debate to think about, guys. I must admit, I was entertaining the plausibility of Pro's motion before, but Con has helped me see the light! First, conduct was good, fun, and sincere on both sides. Well done! I feel I must award spelling and grammar to Con, because Pro had many minor issues, especially in the first round. Arguments to Con, too, because his gave good reasons and appropriate amounts of evidence, whereas Pro made a few strawmen and also made too many minor similarities and called them major enough to be instituted to the Olympics. Sources also go to Con, as he gave 8 reliable ones, but Pro gave 0. Nice debate, both of you!
Vote Placed by Ameliamk1 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments