The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
10 Points

Consoles are better for actually gaming than PC and yes this is a call out to all you PC master race

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: 12/30/2014 Category: Games
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 659 times Debate No: 67665
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)




The argument is not one of which is the more advanced in terms of visual effects o an argument over which has more games to play .This is an argument over which is better for gaming as a whole if a choice was to be made one or the other for all time which would be better for gaming as a whole and for the fan base. I am on the side of console gaming being the better of two good choices because the social implications of sitting next to a friend on the couch and gaming with him is a much better feeling than having a lobby with 4 online friends which consoles can also do. I mean I can think of no better memories gaming growing up than playing Mario smash bothers and having all four of us playing in the same house was so much fun and unforgettable experience. The online mmorpgs that are computer gamings trademark even if u hate that it is, cannot even compare to the sheer enjoyment that console gaming brings


I will take on the contender's argument.

Contender states that Console gaming is better because of the social implications of being with someone when playing. However, this is not necessarily true.

As you can play with people on a console in person, you can have LAN parties and play together on laptops while retaining the social element of console gaming that the contender has mentioned. In fact, LAN parties may allow for MORE social engagement, as LAN parties can hold much more than four people playing the same game[1].

The contender mentions how online MMORPGs "cannot even compare to the sheer enjoyment that console gaming brings", which possibly refers to playing with friends (the contender's argument is primarily opinionated, unclear and has no facts to back it up), MMORPGs can also be played in a LAN party.

And though MMORPGs lack physical interaction, the interaction within the community is immense. For example, dedicated World of Warcraft players spend an average of around 21 to 22 hours a week. MMORPGs are also known for their extremely empathetic and supportive community, even known for funerals for players who have died in real life[4] and vigils for players who may die[3].

As such, it does not require one to actually be with another to build social ties. In that sense, wouldn't PC games be much more powerful than console games? What else can you think of that can bring people that have never known each other in real life together?

I await an argument from the contender.

[1];(LAN Parties)
[3];(FFIX dying player)
[4];(Wow Funeral)
Debate Round No. 1


The contender has stated lan parties as his prime and only real argument outside of the dedication to communities and yes this is opinion because there is no true facts to determine how much console gaming brings people together. The idea of Lan parties for average people is ridiculous on two levels one having a console for each person is often and I mean very often to expensive to accomplish and the hassle of tying to set up a lan party with full size computers because most of the computer gaming community uses desktops is another chore in its own and saying it can be bigger and even more social to have huge lan parties than just 4 people to a console is legitimate if your not considering that most of the casual gaming community has never even heard of a lan party especially the younger generation. I know in the perfect situations from an outside perspective computer gaming can be made to be just as social as consoles but you have to take into account reality and in reality people don't invite each other over to lan parties and hell console video games are often broken out in non video game centered parties by groups of people not even considered gamers. I know it is hard to look at a different perspective here but just try for a second looking as a casual gamer who uses it as just a side activity and not the main event and then you realise the true strength of console gaming in its ability to be there as something to do when your drunk with your friends or if much younger something to do on a sleep over or at a birthday party. You cant compare the small community of people willing to have a lan party to the rest of the casual industry that is just fighting a losing battle


Note: In the last round, every time I stated contender, I meant instigator. I apologize for this error.

Though I found your prominent use of the Ad Hominem fallacy amusing, I will continue on.

LAN parties don't have to be complex, and that's something your missing. It's easy as bringing a decent laptop (which most households have anyway[1]) which is only like $300 max if you know where to look, in comparison to a console (PS4[3]/XB1[4]) $400 without any games with it, while PC games have plenty of free games that you can play with friends casually. And a LAN party can be as easy as going to a friends house, connecting to their internet and playing some in-browser games with them. To say that a small amount of people would be willing to have a LAN party or just go to their friend's house with laptops is absurd. Not every household in the United States has a console but almost all of them have internet connection. It's not the name that matters, it's the actual thing that happens. If playing Super Smash Bros. locally with four players had a proper term, I'm pretty sure even most Smash players wouldn't use the term.
And yes, video games can be used at parties with people that don't typically play video games. But is the reason that they're there because of the video games or the social aspect of the party itself? That's like saying you can have a cake at a party even if the people who baked it aren't remotely interested in cake baking at all. Of course. It's there, but do they have to be interested in it? No. It's something to do, but not something that ties people together.

Now that PC gaming and console gaming is on equal footing in terms of social setting, a few things to keep in mind about PC gaming over console gaming:

- PC games are A LOT cheaper. In fact, most of them are free. Just go to Steam's front page and look at the prices. [5]
- Many console games get ported to PC, so you can play most games for console on PC. [6]
- PC's have a longer life than a console; the last generation of consoles lasted seven years, while PC gaming has been staying strong for over fourteen years. [7]
- High end PCs have better specs than consoles [8]

Now this comes from a gamer who plays both PC gaming and consoles, but I like both equally and have no preference for another. However, if it had to come down to what I'd pick if I could only have one, I'd have my PC.

[1];(Computer data)
[2];(Laptop price)
[3] Price)
[4];(XB1 Price)
[5];(Steam Prices)
[6];(Console games)
[7];(console life)
Debate Round No. 2
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Toxifrost 2 years ago
Well you tried pro lol. #PCMR
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by gordonjames 2 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro used a broad definition for the debate title / topic, but then tried to narrow the debate to a very small section of PC gaming. Then when CON responded within that very narrow framework, PRO says "The contender has stated lan parties as his prime and only real argument outside of the dedication to communities." PRO also claims that CON ignores facts, when CON was the only one to use references.
Vote Placed by SonicGhost 2 years ago
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con just presented his argument in a better, and more formal format. With this, he brought also better grammar and proper sources.