Do video games effects your personality?
Debate Rounds (4)
Thank you for posting such a wonderful debate topic.
BOP is shared.
Since it is round 1, I will set up the guidelines and definitions for the debate that MAY NOT BE ARGUED AGAINST OR CHANGED.
You did not assume what the magnitude of "affecting personality" is. Therefore, the BOP you must prove is that video games do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to change your personality in any case. Good nor bad. The BOP I must meet is that video games can affect personality, even in the smallest way possible.
You also failed to put a layout of the rounds, so I will assume we go by this form:
Round 1: Display of arguments only
Round 2: Display of rebuttals and furthermore arguments
Round 3: Display of further rebuttals only
Round 4: Display of conclusion. NO rebuttals nor any arguments allowed.
: the set of emotional qualities, ways of behaving, etc., that makes a person different from other people
: attractive qualities (such as energy, friendliness, and humor) that make a person interesting or pleasant to be with
Since it is the first round, I am unable to refute your arguments. I will in round 2.
--Case I: Unique Humans--
My first case is that many people with unique characteristics such as diseases or being really athletic can easily be changed.
My first point to be proven is how video gaming affects characteristics such as physical and visual traits, such as body size and body type.
As we all know, video games are addictive and take time. The time spent playing video games could very easily be spent toward an active activity. In fact, studies have shown that video games have been proven to cause obesity in children (2). In the graph further down the page, the results are pretty much indisputable evidence.
Less than 30 hours playing video games: 9% obesity rate.
Between 30 to 40 hours: 22% (Which is a +13% rise)
Between 40-50 hours: 37% (Which is a +15% rise)
Over 50 hours: 54% (Which is a 17% rise)
This simply can not be coincidence. This is a scientific fact. The time spent playing video games increases the obesity rate of children literally per hour. This shows that my part of the BOP is logical and has affected at least one human being in the world through physical traits and visible traits.
Many studies have been done on teens and violent video games, and most show that violent video games affect teens even in the smallest way possible. One man who ran an experiment had this to say:
“Violent video games are like peanut butter,” said Ferguson. “They are harmless for the majority of kids but are harmful to a small minority with pre-existing personality or mental health problems. (3)”
This is just a quote by one man who conducted an experiment, and got mild results. Please note that he even went as far as to say harmful, which is a much bigger personality change than we are debating about.
Violent video games change your personality the bad way. But much more down-to-earth video games can change your personality in a positive way.
Some video games, such as Tetris (4) can help children solve puzzles (5). That changes the personality of a person for the better. Tetris, a video game, helps one become enthusiastic about puzzle solving, and thus giving them different interests. And that changes their personality.
--Case II: Addiction Rates--
If one is addicted to something, they will likely say no to doing something else than that because they are so addicted to it (6), and say things related to that video game (also 6). Video games also have the highest addiction rate of any game (7). 1 in 10 gamers that is classified as a child is addicted to the game (8).
Addiction can change personality, such as a decrease in wanting to do other things than play the video game, thus leading to bad habits, such as swearing and making rude comments to others (9).
Addiction can cause further and more serious problems, such as:
Poor performance. (10)
My final sub-argument will be that video games and addiction can and will lead to a deduction of performance in school.
Since most video games have a fast pace, children will likely become not so enjoyed by the slower things that they need, such as math or reading (11). This can deduct their grades and performance in science, math, and language arts, which are three of the most important subjects.
Another way that video games decrease academic performance is that children do not like to study or do their homework. As I showed in my earlier argument, some children spend over 50 hours a week on video games, which is about eight hours a day. A normal school day will last about eight hours (12). Then, you come home and play video games for eight hours, meaning that you have not done your homework, and you have eight hours left until the next school day. And you need those eight hours to sleep. You can't do your homework nor study for a test, and you fail in school.
In conclusion, I used two main arguments to prove my BOP that someone's personality has been changed by video games. I stated personality can mean any of the three following:
I proved that at least one person has been affected by video games. If con disagrees I did not successfully meet my full BOP, he must say so and why. Otherwise, we both agree that I met my full share of the BOP.
Sorry for the short argument. It's winter break and I want to get some rest. On to you!
Thank you for reading.
I play video games for more than 40 hours a week. But that is only during the weekend. Where I relax and unwind with my friends. During the week I am,
Learning German, learning guitar, school, home work, going to activities, hanging out with friends, hanging out with parents, taking care of my fish and dog. Based on you data you presented, chances are, I should be playing games right now instead of answering you. Playing video games on the weekend doesn't mean I don't have a life. In fact, video games promotes confidence and social skills. Let's just say you beat a really hard mission, your friends who are playing with you are praising you. Thus it builds up your confidence. Your social skills improve in many ways. Like you deal with a creatin online. Boom! You learned clever retorts on how to deal with jerks in real life. What I always say, kill them with cleverness. You were also saying on how video games effect obesity. Well, I go to tae Kwon do, play tennis, play football, and a 2 pack, but from your data, you say I should be obese. Also, you say mental kids should not play games. How about learning games that everyone should play to make their mind sharper. Also, do you really think kids with a mental disorder understand anything about call of duty? No! They don't know about guns, the military violence, or any of that. Your data also said that a 1 out of every 10 child gamers get obcessed. That's because 1 out of every 10 children don't have friends and need something to get them through the day. I already know what you are going to say. Read a book. But honestly how would you feel if every constant waking moment that isn't spent on the bathroom or food, was being spent on a book. Your last statement got under my skin. That if children are playing video games, their grades will suffer. This is actually the opposite. The parent can do this. "Jimmy if you don't make an A on that math test tomorrow, you can't play for the rest of the week! This makes the child work harder than before to keep a privalidge that his parents gave him. This actually results in better grades. This totally negates the pro's statement. If the pro wants to try to prove me wrong, he may do so this round.
Thank you for the compliment. I would like to point out the great round you had also. I would also like to state that neither of us should be penalized by the voters for not including enough links in the rebuttals section. Only the arguments section. If my opponent agrees on this, then it will become a new rule of the debate. If not, I will drop it.
Before I refute con's arguments, I would like to point out the dropped arguments:
My opponent failed to refute the addiction rates that I posted, but rather provided an option for parents.
My opponent failed to refute the fact that video games can change personality to the better also.
My opponent failed to refute the fact that teens have been affected by video games in the past.
Since my opponents' arguments are not very well organized, I will refer to the rebuttals as different points he makes.
My opponent's first argument consists of personal statistics. Must I remind the instigator and all of the voters that we are not solely debating on if it affects his personality, but rather at least one person worldwide.
Without knowing it, my opponent has conceded to one of my points. He said "promotes confidence and social skills." Isn't sociability a trait (1)? Isn't confidence a trait? As my opponent said, video games do help promote these things, as I stated in the first round. And promoting these things changes your personality for the better.
My opponent goes on to say that he does in fact have a life even though he plays forty hours of video games a week. This is true for him, but not true for other people. My opponent is one of the people who is not addicted to video games. Others are.
The last thing that I would like to point out is the "your friends praising you" statement. If video games were not played, your friends would not be praising you, thus changing their personality and yours! By praising someone, you show that you like them. The person who is being praised sucks up the juice and becomes a big hotshot sometimes. Not in your case though, but in others.
On to the next section of my opponent's arguments. This next section of arguments consists of learning how to deal with a jerk, more personal stuff, arguing about the mentally-diseased, and refuting one of my proven statistics.
First, you pointed out that by video games, you can learn how to deal with jerks and bullies. This is actually another concession about personality. If you learn how to deal with a jerk or a bully, you change from a soft-spoken bullied kid to a louder kid who isn't bullied, which changes your personality.
The next argument you made consisted of personal stuff, such as going to Tae Kwon Do. Again, this is personal, and is not the case for a few kids. Personal stats fail to help your BOP in this debate.
In the next argument (rebuttal, I guess) you state that the mentally-impaired people would not understand call of duty. However, a mental disorder could be ADHD, which does not do much to impair one's ability to play Call of Duty. Plus, call of duty is just one game. To prove your point, you must include a wider variety of games.
The last argument in this section is attempting to refute some of my statistics from my graphs and such. You say that 1 in 10 people do not have a life and have to go to video games instead. You predicted I would say that they should read a book. Yes, they should. But if they don't want to read, they can play outside with a ball, sleep, study, and do numerous other things. Also, 1 in ten people are addicted to video games does not mean that each and every one of them are friendless. A person who is not addicted to video games could have no friends and one who is addicted to video games may have friends.
Plus, you shouldn't be obese. Only 27% of people who play video games 40 hours a week are obese. You are the 73%. This argument is not well thought through.
On to the last section of my opponent's arguments. He stated that grades will not suffer (that's it.)
The problem with this is that he stated a rather smart way that parents can reward their child without realizing that not many parents are actually smart enough to do so. We both stated opposite scenarios that both could be true. You did not successfully disprove this argument, but rather show an opposite counterpart to it.
Plus, this further results my BOP. Video games can change one's ability to do things, such as math, to the better or for the worse. Thank you for proving another one of my points.
I would like to point out that con never said that I did not successfully meet my BOP, meaning that I did. He has also conceded to many things, as I have already pointed out. Onto your first round of arguments (like in the first round.)
This section will contain of the opening section of this debate. This will include personal stats, a study from Harvard, and what should happen.
More personal stats. I will say one more time, it matters if one person is affected by this, not if you are not.
As for the study of Harvard, you did not show the statistics nor a link where I can see the study. Until you provide something that proves that point, this assumption is not based on anything. If a link is provided, I will argue against it.
The last rebuttal I will post today is the 'what should happen' statement you made. You said that there should be more gangs and guns out there and millions of people blowing eachother up. This is not the case. You provided a very extreme example of what should happen, while we are debating on a milder change of personality. I am debating on children becoming more stubborn and having changed personality, not them blowing up a 7/11 (even though that would be kinda cool :P)
I would like to thank con for his time to debate me. Thank you for reading.
On to you!
"My opponent failed to refute the addiction rates that I posted, but rather provided an option for parents."
Addiction can occur, but it can easily be broken. Addiction is an illusion of the mind. A human may feel like doing one thing now, but a whole different thing later.
As shown in this link, it explained the fickleness of the human mind. Basically stating that we chase one thing now and another thing later. Now how can we be addicted to anything we choose when later, we go chase something else.
"My opponent failed to refute the fact that video games can change personality to the better also."
My opponent did not take into account real world experiences which might lead one individual to take action or be violent.
As shown in this official HARVARD Newsletter, they have found that violence has actually decreased from the 90's! If video games had an effect on the mind, wouldn't there be an increase in violence? Also, speech is not a trait, it's a reaction. Kind of like a memory. Let's just say you get into a fight, and you remember a tactic that worked before, wouldn't you do that again? Speech is not a trait, but a reaction!
"My opponent failed to refute the fact that teens have been affected by video games in the past."
The Harvard newsletter also tackled this subject, and said that violence actually decrease since the 90's
I have proven the cases the pro wanted me to prove. Now, for my rebuttal
Studies have shown that kids who play violent video games sitting down actually burn anywhere from 40-80 calories an hour from increased heart rate and blood pressure.
As you can see from the link, this proves the pro's previous statement false. You actually burn calories which means you lose weight!
This is what my opponent previously stated!
"Without knowing it, my opponent has conceded to one of my points. He said "promotes confidence and social skills." Isn't sociability a trait (1)? Isn't confidence a trait? As my opponent said, video games do help promote these things, as I stated in the first round. And promoting these things changes your personality for the better."
End of quote.
Actually, both are reactions to the moment and memory. With sociability, it all depends on the moment and what worked before. That is how we base how we talk to everyone. Imagine this, you are asking someone out, do you try something totally new that might freak her out? Or, do you stick to what you know she likes and what worked before? Same with confidence! As my previous link about the fickleness of the brain, you want something now, and want something different later. Just like confidence. One moment, you might be willing to ask the girl of your dreams out, now, not so much. But then you REMEMBER about how your friends encouraged you on your game and called you great, and it gives you some confidence. Notice, it was not the game. The game was just used as a tool for his friend to say he was awesome. The game wasn't saying he was awesome, it was his FRIENDS!
As my opponent previously stated,
"In the next argument (rebuttal, I guess) you state that the mentally-impaired people would not understand call of duty. However, a mental disorder could be ADHD, which does not do much to impair one's ability to play Call of Duty. Plus, call of duty is just one game. To prove your point, you must include a wider variety of games."
End of quote
ADHD. (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) does not effect much of the mind. Just your ability to stay focused and it makes you super hyper. It DOES NOT make you Unable to think and or act. Here is the meaning of ADHD
The last relevant thing I want To add is what my opponent previously stated.
"Another way that video games decrease academic performance is that children do not like to study or do their homework. As I showed in my earlier argument, some children spend over 50 hours a week on video games, which is about eight hours a day. A normal school day will last about eight hours (12). Then, you come home and play video games for eight hours, meaning that you have not done your homework, and you have eight hours left until the next school day. And you need those eight hours to sleep. You can't do your homework nor study for a test, and you fail in school."
End of quote.
I failed to address this correctly last round and I apologize. My opponent failed to address that there can be various playing times a person plays. For example, one kid might play 2 hours on Tuesday, but 15 hours on Saturday. That was the one thing that the statistics fail to acknowledge. Kids bed times, how long they sleep, and various playing times. This is why I declare that statement irrelevant.
That is why many of my opponents statements are false and/or erelevant. Thank you
I thank my opponent for such a quick response. And a good one, at that. This should be fun. We are in full debating mode now.
Also, I am sorry if I insulted you in any way. I was just pointing out your logical fallacies, which I do in any debate. Anyway, on to the debate.
This will be the last set of rebuttals, as the format states that the opposition nor I can debate in the last round. Let's get this underway.
I see in this section, my opposition went into the stats of the human mind and fulfilled his point about Harvard. Let's see what I got.
The mind argument does nothing to help your BOP here. Even if addiction is just a state of mind, it is still a thing. My opponent states that addiction can easily be broken. This is not the case. Since he did not state what kind of addiction, that means that I can use any type of addiction as my point. Instead of video games, I will turn to alcohol. 235 billion dollars are being spent on something that, as you say, can be extinguished any time that they want (1). This is also the case for video games.
I see you have made your point on Harvard fulfilled. Yet this actually helps me. Since my BOP is that I only have to prove that one person is currently affected by this, I can use Harvard, which says that 38% of parents say that their child has a video game problem while 62% do not (2). You also state that violence has dropped from the 90's. One way or another, this works for me. If video games actually are the cause for the dropping in violence rates, as you and Harvard state, then video games do change personality for the BETTER, which is a point that helps my resolution.
The last thing you say is that speech is not a trait, but a reaction. While my wording was wrong, it is not a trait, speech is still something that determines your personality. And if I am not mistaken, the title says PERSONALITY. Trait is just an example I use to prove my personality statements. Works either way again.
This rebuttal will be dedicated to my opponent's rebuttals. He tried to disprove my points. But I will show you how he didn't.
You said that some studies have been done that kids who play violent games can actually lose weight. You also stated it leads to an increase in blood pressure, which can be bad, as this study on video games and blood pressure shows (3). After this study was done, the subjects reported wanting high-fat foods, which can easily restore the calories. Also, you did not fully disprove my point. I still have indisputable statistics from a reliable source that proves my argument. If anything, you show an easily disproven counterpart.
The whole next rebuttal was about how social isn't a trait. And my link says that it is. Also, you described a personality change from outgoing (about to ask her out) to shy (not wanting to ask her out.) We are not debating fully on traits, just personality. As I said before, traits are merely just points I use to further prove my points.
The next thing was on ADHD, which is a mental disorder. Look at that, your link also says it is a mental disorder...
You are correct, I did fail to point out playing times on different days. However, this does not make my point any less relevant. Many schools have homework on the weekends, also! So even if they play only on the weekends, that still had the ability to mess with homework and projects.
In the fourth round, no arguments are allowed. This will be the last round of arguments, next round is only for polishing up. Thank you for reading.
May I Also Remind The Audience that the debate topic is only about personality, not the body.
Ladies and gentleman,
I have proved through all of my previous statements, that:
Video games do not effect the mind.
That video game addiction is an illusion of the mind and very fickle because the addiction is not in the bloodstream.
It actually helps kids lose weight by sweating by them having a heart rate and blood pressure just like when exercising.
Social skills and confidence are not a personality trait, but a reaction and memory.
Recent studies including a Harvard study concluded video games do not effect the mind.
That outside experience are people make decisions. Not video games.
Thank you ladies and gentleman, and I hope you vote fairly and unbyast. (I know you will!) :)
I would like to thank my opponent for a wonderful debate.
I would also like to say that I have given successful counterparts to all of pro's points. It is unbelievable to say that he actually achieved any of those points. But I'll let you, the voter, judge.
Anyway, I will now count the points that pro did not achieve.
The instigator did not, at any point, argue with the definitions that I gave. Therefore, I have reached my BOP by saying that at least one person has been affected by video games.
Dropped Argument: My opponent did not respond, at any point, to the better personality changes.
Dropped Argument: My opponent did not respond, at any point, to the fact that some parents are not smart enough to do his scenarios.
Dropped Argument: My opponent did not respond, at any point, to the fact that when video games games help you deal with bad people, it changes your personality.
Dropped Argument: My opponent did not respond, at any point, to the fact that he posted rather extreme examples.
Dropped Argument: My opponent did not respond, at any point, to the fact that addiction rates play a major role in personality.
My BOP was that I had to prove that someone in the history of the world or the present has been affected by video games in a negative or positive way. Pro did not ever say that I did not successfully reach my BOP, even though I specifically asked him in the first round to if he disagreed.
His BOP was that he had to prove that no one in the history of the world or the present has been affected by video games in a negative or positive way. He did not do that.
Thank you for reading.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by birdlandmemories 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: Interesting debate. Good luck to both of you in the future. Conduct was a tie, I didn't see any spelling or grammar mistakes, but I will award sources to pro, as he used more, and had some in each of his rounds, backing up his argument. Pro had more organized arguments, and controlled the flow of the debate from round one. Once more, good job to both debaters, and good luck in the future.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.