Game stations limited time.
Debate Rounds (4)
1) The video game industry is a multi-billion dollar industry which has thousands of employees and large amounts of talent within it. Placing time limits on consoles will place a cap on this industry which is destructive to a large amount of careers and can ruin the lives of talented individuals....
2)....not to mention that games are a form of art. Art is something to be had. The developers would be emotionally devastated if their games could not be enjoyed to the fullest extent.
3) Children should have the freedom to pick the optimal amount of game time and work with their parents to produce a method for enjoying their games while still keeping up with school, family, friends, etc.
4) If consoles are capped, then there will be a large influx of players that transfer to the PC platform or the mobile platform. These are much harder to control because they are also required for practical purposes such and shopping, homework, and other tasks.
5) Games should have some mechanics that encourage the user to take a break after a while, but it should not be forced. A game should be able to allow the casual player to play one level and then leave but still allow a hardcore player to binge on the game for hours on end if they have the time and willingness to do so.
The pro side has conceded to my points and did not refute them. So far the pro side is struggling.
"kids are getting adicted"
This is an claim where the burden of proof is upon you. i.e [Citation Needed]
"parents take it away and as soon as they get it back they stay on it for hours."
Parents taking the console away is essentially a method of limiting the time is it not? You have conceded that it is not effective.
"It is not good for kids eyes."
Dry eye and eye strain is understandable, but it can ultimately be cured by blinking, not focusing on one aspect of the screen, and altering the brightness. The parents can teach the kid how to evade eye strain. Additionally, there are no long term effects made by the use of computers.
2) How many people who play games get tired to the point of major interference with their day to day lives?
3) Why would being tired flat out prevent education?
4) You are suggesting that from the very act of playing games, kids get tired and lose the capacity to learn. Then you go to predict a future where jobs cannot be controlled and our people devolve and allegedly everyone becomes uneducated. You have made several unsupported claims/assertions and cannot support the topic of placing time limits on game hardware.
2. When I was in school, 5 out of 6 where tired to do work from playing all night
3. Being tired would prevent you from getting good grades,then you don't get any degrees and then no jobs more than at a little restraunt.
4. If kids get addicted to games then they loose interest in work. Then later the kids still want to play games even though they are not graduating 2 years after they where suppose to. They go to college and maybe get some kind a=of gaming degree and go to the game buildings and play for a living.
2) How do you know this statistic is accurate?
3) Being tired is not guaranteed to mean bad grades, nor does it not guarantee not getting a degree or a job.
4) This is applicable to all addictions. Additionally, what is game addiction defined as?
In conclusion, the pro side has put forth weak and poorly stated arguments. The winner of this debate should be obvious. There are far to many errors in pro's case to have the result be any other way.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.