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

Do you think gaming systems should Shut off after a few straight hours of being used

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/22/2015 Category: Games
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 681 times Debate No: 80010
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




Guys, this would reaaalllyyyy really bring a postive effect on us "lost track of time" gamers.


I accept.

**NOTE** S&G points should go to Con (me) since my opponent has spelled 'really' terribly.
Debate Round No. 1


I strongly beilieve that gaming systems should go off automatically after being played a few hours straight because most gamers lose track of time which can be very dangerous. Sitting for too long when playing hours at a time per day can really stop your circulation and eventually cause death. I mean, you would think that the older gamers would have better judgement.. or so i thought.
Besides, we need to focus on spending time on more important things like homework and physical activity that can actually be a benifit to us.
Also, thank you con for accepting my challenge.


The BoP is completely on Pro


Okay, so my opponent makes many assumptions in their argument which I need to go over before I start my arguments.

a) Most gamers lose track of time

b) You can die from playing a few hours of video games

c) Everyone has homework

Okay so this is sort of a rebuttal but there will be confusion with my argument if these are left unaddressed before I make them.

a) You cannot make that claim without any evidence, making this claim has no effect on this debate since it cannot be proven true.

b) A teenager died from playing 40 hours on a games console - that's a little different to what you are proposing which is a games console turning off after a few hours. (1)

c) There are many adult gamers - as my opponent admits (" the older gamers would have better judgement ")

Now that those are cleared up I will resume with the arguments...

There are many adult gamers who play consoles as part of their job. The Sidemen, for example, are a group of youtubers who play Fifa 15 / 16 and if you calculate the money that they make from youtube they make at least 1 million pounds yearly each (2)! These users often do live youtube streams that last for around 2 hours. If you suggest that we make their consoles turn off just because you believe that they are playing for too long then that would be probablamatic for them - especially since it's live.

It is also pointless, if their console is off and they are addicted enough to have been playing it for a few hours then they will most likely turn it back on again. This will make companies such as XBOX (Microsoft) and PlayStation (Sony) lose money for a pointless feature that really has very little purpose.

Another reason is that we shouldn't stop doing things because the minority choose to disobey the rules. It is highly illogical to stop selling knives just because an extremely small percentage of people choose to commit suicide using them. The same principle applies to this debate. If you stop people from playing their consoles for more than a few hours just because less than 1% of gamers die because of this.

To elaborate further on the concept of this being pointless and not causing death I would like to redirect you to this link: (3)

This person died after they broke their leg and was forced to stay at home for 22 days. After non stop gaming for 22 days (only to stop for a snack and to go to the toilet) he tragically died. After reading this I am sure that my opponent will revise their argument for the next round due to the fact that it is now clear that a gamer is allowed more than a few hours without having any terrible things happening to them (including death).


Rebuttals are done in the arguments section. Since my opponent only provided 2 arguments it was unncessary to dedicate a section to rebuttals only. Usually I would do rebuttals in a separate round but since there is no debate structure and my opponent has written such a short argument I found it appropriate to contain rebuttals in this round and in the arguments section.

Sources (1) (2) -- e.g (3)

Debate Round No. 2


So people game as a living, I know, cool that they make money doing what they love, but I am more concerned with their health. Go ahead, play the games, as do I, but we have to know when to put the controls down. Sitting for too long will eventually kill us.. ..none the less, make us more at risk for disease.

I'm not saying for everyone to stop playing for good, i;m just stating that maybe it is a good idea to put a timer on thing, you know, take a break and walk around.

Thank you for taking time to read this.


Okay, I would like to remind my opponent that I have not disagreed with you that sitting down for too long can kill us (as I have stated in the previous round). What I am against though is the resolution and your beliefs on the topic which are that, video games should turn off automatically after a few hours. The key words in this situation are: few hours. As I have demonstrated. Somebody survived playing constantly for 22 days. They ate whilst playing and only stopped for toilet breaks. A few hours isn't harmful and it can be extremely frustrating when you are playing a video game and it just turns off before you've saved your progress. This would decrease sales in that particular console and the major flaw in your argument is that the person could essentially just turn the console back on again. Once the console is off it has no power working and it would need to be using power in order to stop them from turning it back on again and then it would technically on. Anyway, you get the point that this would raise many technicality issues and would be extremely expensive to make. You have a good idea although it would need to be improved and realistic in terms of cost to even allow a games company to consider doing this and the idea you have now just isn't good enough as I have demonstrated throughout the rounds.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by LADYBUG36 2 years ago
Booooo :3
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 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 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Spelling and grammar go to Con. Pro makes several grammatical errors in Round 2 such as not capitalizing I or even forgetting comas to separate the dependent and independent clauses in a sentence causing run-on sentences. Arguments also go to Con. Pro brings up that lack of circulation can kill, but fails to realize the key point that after they would shut off the gamer, if the same dedication as they one who dies. Can simply just flip the game back on after it shuts off. This does not solve Pro's argument and it contradicts itself without Con having to say a single word. Con brings up an economic impact which holds more water from the lack of interest. For that I have to give arguments and the debate to Con.