The Instigator
Torvald
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
emospongebob527
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

It is alright for parents to allow children below the age of ten to play video games.

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...
Torvald
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/17/2012 Category: Health
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,792 times Debate No: 27323
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (30)
Votes (2)

 

Torvald

Con

First round, I think, shall be exclusive to acceptance. If you have any questions about it, the comment section is open for business.
emospongebob527

Pro

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Torvald

Con

Since I prefer to operate as a rebuttal debater, I will make a brief opening case.

Developing Minds
Studies indicate that the brain does not finish developing until around age 25 [1]. This means that for the first twenty-five years of life, the brain can form new neural nets. After that point, all information must be processed with existing neural nets. I would posit that during this time, individuals should be made to study as many subjects as possible, so as to build as many neural nets as possible, for the positive mental evolution of the species. Video games, while potentially informative, are a distraction from this education, and influence the way one sees the world. Children, if presented the choice between the opportunity to play Angry Birds or study trigonometry, are likely to choose Angry Birds, though it does not practice any pragmatic skill. This is an unfortunate testimony to the human tendency to best pick the thing that will not do them any good. Humans are likely to choose instant gratification over long term benefit. It is therefore the responsibility of parents to ensure that their children do what is best for them, even if it does not feel that way. With teen parenting (or lack thereof) on the rise (a testament itself to the human preference for instant gratification), more and more children are wasting their childhoods on more and more elaborate renditions of solitaire, largely because their parents are still young enough that they make the same choice to waste their time. It is not surprising, therefore, that such things as elementary language skills are becoming rarer, and that once commonplace skills and abilities are now shunned or considered exceptional (such as reading). In some first world countries, literacy is on a deplorable downward spiral, with some cities, like Detroit, Michigan, in which 47% of the population is functionally illiterate. This is partly due to the economy, but also due to cultural mindset. Part of the species is devolving back into primitive and helpless animals, shepherded by the exceptional minority. Hypothetically speaking, a few hundred thousand years of this development and there could be divergent paths of evolution in the species. That little tangent aside, it is important that, as the general culture of the species progress, we tailor our evolution to a positive direction, to build the best future we may. In order to do this, we must strive to reach our full intellectual potential, a process that starts in our children. In order for our children to grow up as a generation that can carry on and lift our accelerating standards of progress, they need the best education possible. Video games are a sore distraction to this objective, as they are the instant gratification that the children want, but not the long term training for success that they need, and that we all need them to receive.

Over to the Pro.

Sources
[1] http://www.hhs.gov...
emospongebob527

Pro

emospongebob527 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Torvald

Con

To be fair to my opponent, I will make no argument this round, and only pose a slight expansion on my initial one.

The reason that children younger than ten should not be allowed by their parents to play video games is already listed. It should be unnecessary for parents to restrict such things for children over ten, because ideally, by that point in development, a child should properly raised should be endowed with the discernment and self discipline to choose long term benefit over instant gratification on their own merit.

I am his highness' dog at Kew,
Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
emospongebob527

Pro

emospongebob527 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Torvald

Con

Oh, fantastic. What's with you, Perce? You've suddenly started accepting debate challenges, then going through the whole debate having said nothing but "I accept"!

Wille-ik kiþe myn dern, yef ȝe wilt kiþe þyn dernen!
emospongebob527

Pro

The Quantum Cosmological Differentiation summarizes how the supposed conflict between early neolithic polytheist religious beliefs combined with the eventual evolution to a monotheistic one at a time preceding the scientific advances of the Morphological age of humanity could potentially cause confliction in the argument that there is a clear and single path to the conclusion that there is a resolution to the creator-endeavor paradox (A). The third law of Dynamic Responsiveness on the other hand argues that due to the existence of large objects with a mass greater than or equal to the mass of the star Sirius despite the existence of a black hole within the immediate orbit of the sun, then a force exists that would explain this science defying what would normally happen (B) within the orbital path of Sirius and the black whole. The third law of Dynamic Responsiveness is often used to explain why the Quantum Cosmological Differentiation paradox exists, however it does not explain why the laws (C) of one solve the paradox presented in the other since the given laws of both equations are completely contradicting and self defeating (D)....

To explain why these two can go together there is only one argument that can explain how these two theories (E) could co-exist in the same argument despite having contradictory laws. The thesis describing how Contradictory Laws and their co-existence is possible due to the existing explanations regarding other real world paradoxes (F) within the solar system that can be resolved down to a few basic principles and then reapplied to other paradoxes to explain their functionality. In the paradox described above the best, but not only, paradox that can be easily related (G) to the paradox posed in the quantum mystery that exists within the geographical coordination system in the north eastern hemisphere of Earth known officially as Area 7684, or as civilians refer to it, the Bermuda Triangle. This paradox isnt really a paradox according to common definition, however the logic and phenomena that is known about it can be used and applied to other paradoxes that the Pro has asked to be answered. What is known about the Paradox behind area 7684 revolves around sporadic magnetic field change, randomization of weather systems contrary to the long term climate that is in place within the region, the unusual manipulation and disruption of data transferred between satellites in geo-synchronized orbit and systematic reception stations on the ground. All of these phenomena deal with a force not yet understood but is also observed elsewhere in other common paradoxes that have been identified by the astrological community which have been found in the depths of the universe. This force can be used to answer the question posed by the Pro in round 1 along with a few other paradoxes that also exist. This force can be related back to the Quantum Cosmological Differentiation concept because these unusual forces can help explain the scientific paradox posed between the evolution of monotheistic ideologies and its confliction prior to the morphological advancement of science, and the original explanations for the natural conception of all things around us that could not be explained by early religious beliefs provided by clergy members of religious systems of the ground gods and sky gods. See the early beliefs about the origin of all matter were crude at first, and as time evolve so did the explanations for why things occurred even as scientific knowledge of how everything works slowly trickled into realization that became accepted by humanity. However in the period prior to the morphological age of science, religious belief held superiority over scientific explanation since scientific explanation was in its most basic form for an extended period of time. However when the morphological age arrived science began to quickly outpace what was commonly held belief and accepted knowledge of the origins of the world. These conflictions between deeply held belief and scientific explanation continued for years as science began to become more and more advanced and explanation and explanation held by religious clergy of a multitude of both monotheistic and polytheistic religious systems were debunked or proven contradictory to evidence (H). Now if you take this process and combine it with the existing paradoxes seen in multiple forms, and the explanation of the forces behind both of these that are not completely understood or remotely explainable at the atomic or chemical level, and you can now use those forces to answer the first part of the question given by the con in round one.

However this only PARTIALLY answers the question given by the Pro, for all my arguments up to this point have only been regarding the physical antidotes to the issues his question addresses. To answer the faith based confusion often brought on by the possibility of using the rules of a paradox to defeat a paradox in itself naturally raises questions that conflict with ones own personal beliefs. The faith based questions that may have arisen yourself can be answered by the idea that all that does exist at one time existed before but does not exist anymore, and what exists today is only a different version of what existed before. So to clarify any natural conflictions currently colliding between ones own faith and the scientific explanations can be solved by the fact that what once was, is no more, and that what is now, is based off of something that once was. This paradox can be summarized under the 14 principles of the Thadaeu Thompson Equation which states that 1- there is what exists, 2 - what exists around us is seen by us, 3 - what is seen by us is believed by us, 4 - what is believed by us must be understood by us for us to have peace with it, 5 - for something to be understood it must be theoretically be proven true, 6 - for something to be proven true its basics must be understood, 7 - if the basics cannot be understood but can be explained, it can be believed, 8 - if something is believed but then be proven otherwise, confusion can be inflicted, 9 - with confusion comes conflict, 10 - such conflict cannot be easily remedied, 11 - the natural laws of unexplained and complex logic behind paradoxes exist, 12 - these laws in their basic form can solve other paradoxes, 13 - these paradoxes that can be explained can solve previous conflicts, 14 - therefore these logical truths can solve conflicts between beliefs and contrary sciences. Therefore the question given by the Pro can actually be solved fairly quickly if you take several known sets of laws, theories, and concepts, use them to define some of the basic functions that exist within paradoxes, use what can be obtained from these basic functions and apply them to other naturally occurring paradoxes, and thus use these basic truths and basic functions to answer questions similar to the one that the pro has created this resolution to debate over.

So summarizing all my arguments to this point, I placed letters at strategic points in this argument where letters represent all the arguments I have brought up. Using the syllogism below I will condense my arguments down to the bare facts to illustrate the point I am making;

If A then B
If B then C
If C then not D
If Not D then maybe F
If E the G
If G and A then D
Since D is real then so is H
H is real, therefore F is actually real despite D existing at the same time C does
Debate Round No. 4
Torvald

Con

Pro, meaning no offense, but your argument has nothing to do with this debate, that I can see, and if it does, it is not clear. True, some of the arguments I've posted haven't anything to do with the debate, but I posted them to allow you to catch up after forfeiting.

I can't really say that it has been a pleasure debating you, though I'd like to, except that we haven't actually had a debate. The only relevant argument you've made this entire debate is "I accept," and I can't really say that that was a pleasure. So I dolefully bid you adieu, and invite you to a rematch, though not now, because, due to an increase in business of my schedule, I shall be unable to do much on this site, as it is not a priority. Good afternoon!
Debate Round No. 5
30 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by emospongebob527 4 years ago
emospongebob527
Screw it, I'll take it.
Posted by Torvald 4 years ago
Torvald
If you would like to accept the debate, accept it.
Posted by Luggs 4 years ago
Luggs
I would like to accept this debate.
Posted by TheElderScroll 4 years ago
TheElderScroll
@Torvald
That is all right. Do not worry about it.
Posted by Torvald 4 years ago
Torvald
Sorry ElderScroll, I've got the criteria set exactly where I want it. As for what I mean by 'video games,' any video games.
Posted by TheElderScroll 4 years ago
TheElderScroll
If you can be more specific about the games in question (violent games for example), and lower your criteria, I will be more than happy to accept the challenge.
Posted by Torvald 4 years ago
Torvald
Just any kind of video games.
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
could you specify exactly what kind of video games exactly? The violent, entertaining, innocent, or other?
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
I think we've been thru this before. If you want to make your whining official, then tattle, if you wanna leave it up in the air, pay attention to big kids stuff its good stuff :)

There is no crying in baseball. I know you know that. Walk It Off :)

Now back to big kids stuff :)

CHECKMATE 7:2--Since when should christian beliefs, mor(m)on, or any other religious lunacy, influence in any shape, form or fashion with Federal Law for the rights afforded to all citizens? Never, is when, its called seperation of church and state for a reason. Those who disagree need to get over your seperation anxiety and go night night suckling nutrition from your holy binky while the big kids handle things :)

Soldiers 10:4--Don"t make mistakes. It is a battle. Religious leaders from all religions realize that the more you know, the more educated you are, the more you understand this world we live in - the chances you will become non-religious are greatly increasing. This is not just a statement. It is backed up by various studies, that show the correlation between the level of education and religious disbelief. Therefore these leaders want you to live in the dark. They don"t want you to understand science, they don"t want you to study and research the yet unknown phenomena of this world. They are afraid that they will lose their grip on you, so they scare you with fables about damnation :)

FourHorsemen 3:15--Science we are told should NOT tread on the toes of theology. But why should scientists tiptoe respectfully away? Its time for people of reason to stand up, and say enough is enough. Religious FAITH discourages independant thought, its divisive and its dangerous--Richard Dawkins :)
Posted by Torvald 4 years ago
Torvald
Please read through the forum, and the help articles and FAQs. You're misusing the site. The "Big kid stuff" does not belong in the comment section of an unrelated debate. You are spamming my comment section.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
Torvaldemospongebob527Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF and unrelated arguments.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Torvaldemospongebob527Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con because Pro forfeited, but I'll tie arguments because of the QCD, which clearly proved Pro's position and was never refuted.