The Instigator
Peachykehn
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Double_R
Con (against)
Winning
31 Points

Life is just a game

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/15/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,413 times Debate No: 17522
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (6)

 

Peachykehn

Pro

In this debate I will prove that life is like an arcade-style game.

1. The goal is to score as many points as possible and/or to reach the highest level.

This has different meaning from person to person, but the idea is the same--the more points, the better. Depending on the desires of the "player", these points are usually quantified as:
-number of years lived
-amount of money earned
-number of friends made
-number of calories taken in
-Et cetera

2. There are bosses that need to be defeated.

These "bosses" are challenging in nature, and require all of the player's endurance and willpower. In life, these bosses can be:
-getting through divorce
-getting a job/new job
-cooking for an office party of 20 people
-not getting caught by the cops while speeding (late for work)
-not getting fired when you arrive to work late (the cop slowed you down)
-et cetera

3. Life has glitches

Just like programmers of arcade games miss a glitch here and there while editing, the "programmer" of life has apparently missed a few glitches. Such examples are:
-the platypus
-Mystery Spots (look it up--it is difficult to explain) http://www.mysteryspot.com...
-the sinful nature of humans (read "Genesis" for more information--first book in Bible)
-hiccups (they serve no bodily purpose)
-homosexuality
-my dog's desire to eat candles
-et cetera

With these three arguments, I have proved that life is like an arcade-style game. To win the debate, my opponent must prove that the majority of the above reasoning is false.

Good luck!
Double_R

Con

I’d like to thank Pro for an interesting resolution. My responsibility is to show that life is not like an arcade style game, I will use his three contentions to demonstrate the difference.


1. The goal is to score as many points as possible and/or to reach the highest level.


Pros analogy suggests that the result of a person achieving their desires is the equivalent to points in a video game. I will accept this concept, but the major difference between life and a video game is that video games start off with a pre-determined point system and can not be changed because the gamer changes their mind.


Pro lists “number of years lived” for example. Some may want to live to be 100, but by the time they reach 80 they no longer desire to live. In this case living longer would gain no additional “points” because it no longer aids in achieving that persons desires. You can not change the point system in a video game just because you decide miw-way through that you don’t like the games direction.


2. There are bosses that need to be defeated.


Similar concept to point 1. “Bosses” are defined in real life by those who stand in the way of achieving our desires. However this situation changes frequently. Bosses become our friends, and friends become our bosses. There is no rule to follow.


3. Life has glitches


A glitch is defined as a minor malfunction(1). How does Pro suggest that any of his examples are malfunctions? For it to be a malfunction it must go against the intention of the person or entity who created the situation. Who is to say that Pros dog was not intended to eat candles? Pro can certainly say it is not natural, but he can not use nature’s intentions as an argument unless he plans on proving what natures thought process was.


(1) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Debate Round No. 1
Peachykehn

Pro

Peachykehn forfeited this round.
Double_R

Con

Argument extended.
Debate Round No. 2
Peachykehn

Pro

Peachykehn forfeited this round.
Double_R

Con

Peachykehn has left the building.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Peachykehn 5 years ago
Peachykehn
Yes-thank you for the brief explanation^
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
"Mystery spots" appear in many places, near tourist attraction. The depend upon optical illusions, some natural and some constructed for the purpose. there are many optical illusions that persist even when explained. For example, the full moon is not larger near the horizon than it is up in the sky. It is measured and proved o be the same. However, the brain is programmed to estimate the size of objects based upon angular position. One mystery spot illusion depends upon the local trees not being aligned with gravity, due to an earthquake or landslide.

Anyway, on with the debate ...
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
PeachykehnDouble_RTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 5 years ago
Chrysippus
PeachykehnDouble_RTied
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: Forfeit.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 5 years ago
Maikuru
PeachykehnDouble_RTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Multiple forfeits = default to opponent.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
PeachykehnDouble_RTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had a great argument which was interesting and philosophical. But forfeiting is inexcusable so he wont get any points for arguments. Con did a good job pointing out the flaws. Wish this debate had gone on to completion.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
PeachykehnDouble_RTied
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 made an impressive rebuttal: he accurately noted the different natures of a game and life, which invalidate Pro's attempt to characterize our everyday experiences as some sort of game. Con gains points for sources, since Pro only had a link to a website about 'Mystery Spot', which is rather irrelevant to the debate. Con gains points for conduct since Pro forfeited twice in the debate. However, even with Pro's single argument, both sides appear to have good spelling and grammar.
Vote Placed by ApostateAbe 5 years ago
ApostateAbe
PeachykehnDouble_RTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: forfeit