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

Games are too broad of a subject to be criticized as a whole.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/1/2015 Category: Games
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 562 times Debate No: 67583
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




Now this being my first argument/debate (I am also 13 so I am pretty inexperienced a debating but I will do my best.) I just want to point out that I picked a very broad subject and you will see the actual point of the debate

I wish the best of luck to my opponent and hope that not only I but we both can learn something from each other. lets begin!

- ok so video games/games in general are to broad of a subject to be criticized as a whole (like books), but there are genres of gaming(me being a gamer myself am not supporting this because of what I normally do but what I have heard throughout DDO)like FPS(first person shooter) RPG(roleplaying games) MMO(MASSIVELY multiplayer online games) puzzle, strategy, team based, class based, single player, survival and many more(as my point being its to broad of a subject).

I will bring up a few popular games among gamers
-wii games such as wii sports,wii play and mario series (family)
-hearthstone (online card and strategy game)
-starcraft (brood war) and starcraft 2 (RTS)
-WOW(world of warcraft) (RPG)
-diablo 3 (RPG-I believe I've never played it myself)
-my singing monsters (casual)
-clash of clans (strategy)
-destiny (mix of shooter and RPG :Again never played myself)
-call of duty(FPS)
-various mobile games

and so on
many of you gamers will recognize famous blizzard entertainment games listed up above

lets start with the subject at hand
games help us advance in technology, mental stability, social standings, healthy competitive relationships, social sharing and open discussions.(based on my experience I have made many online friends and enjoyable moments online.)

games also help in social sharing and open discussions letting someone converse with a person a half a world away and learn and get new ideas, and yes there is cyber bullying but kids and not just kids older people too, need to learn to brush it off (now not all "kids" can brush it off but parents need to take responsibility for their children):if its to much to handle you need to get off and hand the controller to someone who is more mature than you and go play a mario game.
also if its nothing that you can learn from the argument and your feelings are being hurt than just ignore it or report it you have the right to free speech and so do they(this actually depends on were you are but for now I assume that most games are in countries with free speech) and so they can scream words at you but if you want just brush it off.

They can"t hurt you they are cowards behind a screen and they are probably states if not countries away.

also I'm being vary unclear please excuse me for that. Lots of parents and people criticize gaming and bash it with no clear evidence research or good reason. that is what my debate is about.

that just bout raps up my first argument.


Games can be criticized as a whole. Yes it is a broad sweeping term but you simply need a broad sweeping argument. For example the an argument that games are a non-productive use of time that is time better spent for people to spend learning a skill or on education does have its merits.

Debate Round No. 1


yes games can be a non-productive use of time but what sport lets you be the commander of a intergalactic space army? what version of life lets you be the president and do whatever the heck you want with no consequences? yes you are right when you say that time on games can be spent on time for the education that you (I can not stress this enough) NEED. you can post that argument but there is no reason games should be bashed for instigating killings and other related stuff such as antisocial problems and the drop in educated people in certain countries and so on. they are not the cause for violence and just to give some evidence is-I have played games since I was 6 years old and probably before that too. from pokemon to call of duty. every violent game you can think of I've either watched and/or played. since I was six I have become extremely competitive and have become very aggressive, but not in the fighting or anti social way people bash games for making kids become. If I can be shown that video games can cause violence in the minds of children and people in general to the point of physical acts of violence let that evidence come forth. Until that time my opinion will stand and my evidence will stand as well.

I am done with the 2nd round


Well sports are also games. I remind my opponent that the debate was, video games/games in general are to broad of a subject to be criticized as a whole.” Not, “games should NOT be bashed for instigating killings and other related stuff such as antisocial problems and the drop in educated people in certain countries and so on.”

Yes games are too broad of a subject to be criticized such a limited scale. Uno is in no way a violent game. It is still a waste of time that could be spent doing something more productive. Making an argument based on the time games take is valid, or on one about how much money you spend on them. When added up over a life time it starts to add up.

If you play a game for 15 min day for 70 years that is over 266 days spent playing games.

If you sent $5 a week playing games for 70 years that is $18,200.

Debate Round No. 2


I know sports are also games such as esports but I meant it literally. also if you did not see it or you over looked it my debate IS about-"Lots of parents and people criticizing gaming and bash it with no clear evidence research or good reason. that is what my debate is about." and also you should have realized (and if you haven't then now you will) that I am talking about electronic games and video games. i clearly stated that at the bottom of my opening argument.

also games CAN be a productive source of time. I'm not talking about those stupid educational games but the time you spend online playing with friends or with other people can create some great experiences and learn from others as I have.

I also clear stated that games are like books having many genres but the point was that they were being criticized as one big group for lots of things having to do with violent stimulations in kids and people in general.

I am arguing that games aren't the cause for so many things to be criticized for these various misconceptions. NOT that they are a waste of time.

My opening argument was on topic just pulling up evidence and refuting the idea that online games can be bad for a kids social mentality.

Also my second argument was supposed to branch off into another area criticized by people and parents specifically to refute and deny that-kids and children harm others because of violent video games stimulating their vulnerable minds and fluctuating personalities.

You sir have misunderstood my argument. I am defending the reasons why games DONT cause problems and also am defending the idea that games shouldn't be criticized for violence, drop in how well one may do in school and ones anti-social problems. And will defend that till the day I die.

To continue to defend that I must point out that there was violence before games and there was problems with kids and people before games. Books have loads of violence *cough cough* game of thrones. I had to go through two hours of 5 grade daily in a catholic school learning about wars, beheadings, mass murders and even aztec blood rituals in a catholic school. kids waaaaaayyy back would sneak past adults in rome and get a peek at public beheadings. there were so many mass murders that i read about on a daily basis for school that I feel sorry for people long dead now that I DONT KNOW.
also movies and TV shows. family guy has death jokes all over the place. sons of anarchy is very violent.

I could go on but thats just another reason not to criticize games for violence in kids and ect.


I have shown to valid lines of thought on how one might criticize games. I have not tried to show they are correct or incorrect. Only that they not invalid based only on how broad of a topic games are. I have met my BoP.

Advice to my fellow debater: I seemed you wanted to have a debate about how some of the criticisms that games get. Make sure you really narrow down the topic you really wish to discuss in setting up a debate.

*Side note on history* In the past children did not sneak past adults to see public executions, or other violence. Adults made kids go and then up them on their shoulders for a better view. It was considered to be wholesome family entertainment. In several countries at 13 you would already be expected to be in the military. Good points to bring up when someone claims you game is too violent. Got my dad to drop is argument against DOOM. In part for paying more attention to history than he thought I would at 13.

Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by brutaldubstepa 2 years ago
Rwicks I accept your debate challenge
Posted by Rwicks 2 years ago
I'm a gamer myself, and would love to debate you on this! But, I'm apparently too old....

"You cannot accept this challenge because you do not match the Instigator's age and/or rank criteria."
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Welcome to the site.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
racism=thinking i am better then others
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Bwacit 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: I didn't agree with anyone..all of the arguments seemed either weak (Con) or irrelevant to the topic (Pro). Con did have better spelling and grammar, and was more polite, and there were no sources sited. Pro's arguments were the best in my opinion, however they did not agree with the topic directly. I did have to give this to Con, simply because it just was more organized and made more sense. *notes* Pro - you said you were 13 but your profile says 25 so... Also, if you had set the topic as games are good/bad I would have given the win to you but unfortunately in this debate you did not stick with the topic. Con - More in depth points would be good..