The Instigator
ejoseph061901
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Unknown_player
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Kids should do their own laundry.

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 3 votes the winner is...
Unknown_player
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/26/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 959 times Debate No: 55456
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

ejoseph061901

Pro

I think kids should do their own laundry, because it get's kids away from video games that they are playing, and M-rated video games such as Call of Duty: Black Ops and Call of Duty: Black Ops II have been proven to be a bad influence on children and teens. Also children should do their own laundry, because it teaches them how to be a parent, because parents have to wash their younger children's clothing, and if they do not even know how to use a washer and dryer how are they going to be able to wash the clothes of their young children whom are too young to even learn how to use a washer and dryer.
Unknown_player

Con

I accept this intriguing debate.

I guess I'll present some arguments:

First of all: The first statement assumes that said children are spending a significant amount of time on these video games instead of many other popular hobbies such as sports, cooking, eating, drawing, playing music, or even playing other video games such as FIFA.

This also assumes that the parents have no restrictions on how long the children are playing the M rated games. Some kids have a limited amount of video game time and some others aren't allowed to play them at all.

Second of all: My opponent hasn't provided any evidence that says that M rated video games are bad influences.

Third of all: Let me get this straight. You want make them to do their own laundry so they can learn to be a parent, and a parent's job is to do the laundry. Who's job is it? Pro never specified how old a child is or how old it is that someone is capable of doing laundry, so this point is pretty confusing and difficult to support.
Debate Round No. 1
ejoseph061901

Pro

1. Children are the primary market for video games.
The game industry caters to adult tastes. Meanwhile, a sizable number of parents ignore game ratings because they assume that games are for kids. One quarter of children ages 11 to 16 identify an M-Rated (Mature Content) game as among their favorites. Clearly, more should be done to restrict advertising and marketing that targets young consumers with mature content, and to educate parents about the media choices they are facing. But parents need to share some of the responsibility for making decisions about what is appropriate for their children.
2.
6. Video games are not a meaningful form of expression.

On April 19, 2002, U.S. District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh Sr. ruled that video games do not convey ideas and thus enjoy no constitutional protection. As evidence, Saint Louis County presented the judge with videotaped excerpts from four games, all within a narrow range of genres, and all the subject of previous controversy. Overturning a similar decision in Indianapolis, Federal Court of Appeals Judge Richard Posner noted: "Violence has always been and remains a central interest of humankind and a recurrent, even obsessive theme of culture both high and low. It engages the interest of children from an early age, as anyone familiar with the classic fairy tales collected by Grimm, Andersen, and Perrault are aware." Posner adds, "To shield children right up to the age of 18 from exposure to violent descriptions and images would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it." Many early games were little more than shooting galleries where players were encouraged to blast everything that moved. Many current games are designed to be ethical testing grounds. They allow players to navigate an expansive and open-ended world, make their own choices and witness their consequences. The Sims designer Will Wright argues that games are perhaps the only medium that allows us to experience guilt over the actions of fictional characters. In a movie, one can always pull back and condemn the character or the artist when they cross certain social boundaries. But in playing a game, we choose what happens to the characters. In the right circumstances, we can be encouraged to examine our own values by seeing how we behave within virtual space.
Unknown_player

Con

There are a multitude of things I find wrong in this argument.

First and formost: Apparently, my opponent is focusing the whole entire argument over getting their children away from video games. There are many reasons why this is a weak basis for this debate. As for his first point:

1) The resolution is "Kids should do their own laundry." The resolution is not "Kids should get away from M-rated video games." I'm not sure if my opponent knows that laundry wouldn't get kids away from M-rated video games. Just because you give a child a chore to do, that doesn't mean that they will forever not be influenced by these video games. In fact, most kids would have more motivation to do their chore faster so that they can get back in the video games they were playing. One simple chore would have little to no help in the cause my opponent is stressing.

2) If it is the parents who are ignorant and buying the M-rated video games for children who should not being playing them, then the answer to this problem does not in any way by logic connect to making the kids do laundry. You could make the kids mow the lawn, do the dishes, vacuum the house, dust the house, clean the windows, and anything else you could imagine as a chore. I don't see why it comes specifically to kids doing laundry. If that's their only chore, they would still have plenty of time in the day to play video games. From experience, I know that laundry does NOT take a long time. You out the clothes in, press some buttons, wait a while, switch to the dryer, press some more buttons, and wait longer. Later on, you fold the laundry for 30 minutes tops and then you're done. I'm not seeing how this gets you away from video games. Something actually effective would be buying games that aren't M-rated.

3) M-rated video games aren't the only games in existence. As my opponent said, three quarters of children have their favorite games that aren't M-rated. That is a significant amount. Also, my opponent never specified what children he was referring to in the first place. One quarter of what children identify M-rated games among their favorites? Children around the world? Children who own video games in general? Children that have access to video games? It would be important to specify here.

Now moving to his second point:

1) My opponent seems to have conveniently given evidence that supports that some video games are helpful and do good. The second point was something I was going to bring it up myself. By exposing the children to the world we live in, we're preparing them for the world. By preparing them for the world, we're preparing them to be parents. If a simple video game can badly influence the ethics of a child, that is some bad parenting. If I were a parent trying to prepare my children to become parents, making them do the laundry would not be a top priority. Making sure that playing a video game does effect their ethics or social boundaries. As it has been stated though, these video games allow you to "navigate an expansive and open-ended world." In other words, it allows you to be creative. Creativity in no way is something that is wrong. Just because you cross social boundaries in a game possibly by experimenting or being creative, it definitely doesn't translate to real life where the player of the game automatically believes that these things are okay. Again, part of the parents job.

2) I have not seen any evidence that suggests that even a small amount of children who play M-rated games follow the examples set in them.

3) Examining your own values is very beneficial and not in any way bad. You should try it sometime. It's called introspection. If anything, it would help you not be badly influenced by the video games. Somehow, I don't see how ethics and social boundaries have anything to do with kids doing their own laundry.

Lastly, my opponent has not provided any evidence to show how many kids are spending a majority of their time on these video games rather than other activities. There has also been no specification of how old a child should be to be able to learn how to use a washer and dryer. Also, I'm pretty sure that if you're an adult with children, you could at least get on YouTube, or read the instructions to learn how use them. It's not as if it's a complicated series of buttons without labels such as "small load," heavy duty," "normal," etc. There's also a beautiful thing called Google.

The argument of video games is zed herring logical fallacy. In other words, it's irrelevant. I applaud my opponent for attempting to prove that video games are bad, but that is a whole other debate.
Debate Round No. 2
ejoseph061901

Pro

ejoseph061901 forfeited this round.
Unknown_player

Con

Extend arguments
Debate Round No. 3
ejoseph061901

Pro

ejoseph061901 forfeited this round.
Unknown_player

Con

Arguments extend once again
Debate Round No. 4
ejoseph061901

Pro

ejoseph061901 forfeited this round.
Unknown_player

Con

Extend arguments. Well that was fun... My opponent has failed to negate any of my arguments. My arguments stand. Thank you very much.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Unknown_player 3 years ago
Unknown_player
So round 2 last paragraph first sentence, it's supposed to be "red herring" not "zed"
Posted by Unknown_player 3 years ago
Unknown_player
You never know what you'll run into while looking for one of your first debates.
Posted by ElCoyote 3 years ago
ElCoyote
haha wow i like this debate didn't think doing laundry would become a debate
Posted by Saska 3 years ago
Saska
Sorry Unknown_player, if I infringed on your arguments. When I started typing my comment, no one had accepted yet and I was trying to help out a new member.
Posted by Jonbonbon 3 years ago
Jonbonbon
Dat opening argument doe.
Posted by Saska 3 years ago
Saska
Do you mean all kids? What age range do you mean when you say 'kids'? A kid can be anything from infant-18 years old. If you are arguing a certain age range, you should be more specific, or else someone will beat you by arguing that not all kids should do their own laundry because some kids are too young and incapable of operating the machinery. People could also argue that 'kids' with mental or physical disabilities should not do their own laundry, as they might not be capable either.

It is important to establish what you mean when you start a debate like this. If you want to argue that children over the age of 12, who are physically and mentally able, should do their own laundry, then you should specify that in your opening statement.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
ejoseph061901Unknown_playerTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by mishapqueen 3 years ago
mishapqueen
ejoseph061901Unknown_playerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con brought up sound argumentation and effectively tore down the flawed logic of Pro. Pro also forfeited three times, showing that he had no response. Since neither had any sources, I am giving the sources point to Con, who used better logic for sources.
Vote Placed by ElCoyote 3 years ago
ElCoyote
ejoseph061901Unknown_playerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited rounds and his argument was extremely flawed and confusing