Life is like the game of Flappy Bird.
Debate Rounds (3)
The points I shall be addressing in these three rounds of argument are: one, that Flappy Bird is all alone in his journey; two, that the obstacles in Flappy Bird do not correlate with the obstacles in real life; three, that failing to overcome an obstacle results in the death of Flappy Bird; four, that Flappy Bird has a goal; and five, that Flappy Bird can be resurrected.
Before I address my first point, I would like to define some of the key terms in the resolution. Life is: the existence of a human. Flappy Bird is a 2013 mobile game, developed by Vietnam-based developer Dong Nguyen.
Flappy Bird is all alone on his journey. No matter how many obstacles Flappy Bird overcomes, he must do it all alone. He has no peers, no enemies, no mentor to either hinder or help him. Nothing to influence his mind, no one to help him make decisions. He is all alone in the world, and nothing could be further from the life we lead. In our lives, we have friends and family to help us along our way, and enemies to hinder it. We are unlike Flappy Bird who is completely alone. No matter who or where we are, we are never completely alone like Flappy Bird. There are always the people around us.
The obstacles in Flappy Bird do not correlate with the obstacles in real life. In the game of Flappy Bird, obstacles materialize as green pipes with a gap that Flappy Bird must jump through. Flappy Bird can see these obstacles in the distance and so prepare for them. We as humans cannot see the obstacles looming in front of us, nor what form it takes. In Flappy Bird, the obstacles are almost all identical, with the exception of the gap or "solution" in different places. But these gaps are always the only way Flappy Bird can overcome these obstacles. In real life, there is often more than one solution to an obstacle, and the solutions are not always the same, just like the obstacles are not identical.
In this round of debate, I have addressed my first two points. I shall further develop my case in the next two rounds by addressing my four other points and by rebutting the arguments put forward by the opposition.
First off I would like to point out three errors from the opposition side. Feeling alone depends on the person. It does not necessarily mean that if one is surrounded by many people, he/she does not feel lonely or does not feel like he/she has to do it alone. The second one is that in real life, people do have goals, be it in the long future or the near one. For example, a person's goal can be to ace the upcoming test or complete their New Year's resolution. It doesnt have to be ambitions and big challenges all the time. The third one is that flappy bird cannot be resurrected (unless one applies cheat or codes) just like we humans. And even if the magikarp bird could be resurrected we'd never know if it applies to humans becuse no one has come back from the place they resurrected in (be it heaven or hell) to prove it.
For my argument, this game is similar to the ways of life. First is that, it is all about balance. Life is all about balance. If there is the rich then there must be the poor. If there are introverts then there are extroverts. If the balance is broken, just like the game then the world falls. Literally. My second point is that Flappy Bird teaches us to expect the unexpected. Even if it seems like the bird wont touch the infuriating green pipe, somehow it does. Life is about expecting failures when it seems like you'll succeed. My last point is that life is all about starting over again. Each failure, we go back to square one and improve ourselves to try not making the same mistakes of not hitting the relentless green pipes. Each day is a new day to start over and life is all about making the most before you die. Just like Flappy Bird.
First of all, though feeling alone does depend upon the person, the individual will still come in contact with people. However, Flappy Bird will never come in contact with anyone. This is not an accurate portrayal of life, as some people do not feel alone. How are these people portrayed in Flappy Bird? In addition to this, the opposition has stated that people do have goals. While people do have goals, Flappy Bird has had one goal since his "birth" to the end of his time. No person on birth is born knowing what their goal is. Yet Flappy Bird is "spawned" with a goal. As for my opposition's third rebuttal, I shall be addressing that in the later round with my last point.
Furthermore, the opposition has also said that life is about balance. However, I fail to see how life's balance relates to Flappy Bird. His second point is that Flappy Bird teaches us to expect the unexpected. But Flappy Bird is entirely predictable. There are the same obstacles, the same background, same everything. Moreover, though life is about starting over again, we do not die every time we fail, which is what Flappy Bird does.
Now, the first point I will be addressing is that failing to overcome an obstacle results in the death of Flappy Bird. Whenever Flappy Bird comes across an obstacle, or green pipe, he has one solution to it: go through the gap. But what happens if he doesn't make it? Flappy Bird could accidentally take a dive to the ground, or hit one of the pipes instead of the gap. And what does this result in? It results in Flappy Bird's death. But in real life, every time we fail to overcome an obstacle, we do not die. Could you imagine if we did?
The last point I shall be making this round is that Flappy Bird has a goal for the entire of his life. As I have said before, humans are not born with goals. Along their way, they must discover their interests and form their goals. Flappy Bird has a goal for the entire of his brief existence, which is an inaccurate portrayal of goals in real life. In addition to this, the goals of humans often change, whereas Flappy Bird's goal never changes.
The con side seems to present a very literal way of comparing this game to real life. Therefore, as the pro side to the argument, I will refute and present both the literal and figurative sense.
If the con side wishes to argue the literal way, all living things do have an aforementioned goal from the moment we are born. This is to live until we die, to try our best before we succumb to our death. Such is the case of Flappy Bird, which is to live until it dies. The con side also mentions how it was created by a man named Dong Nguyen, which shows that we were all developed by a creator and in our case, our parents. (Unless the con side believes in the existence of God, then our creator would be God.)
Regarding the con's rebuttal of how life is not about balance, the proponent of this argument fails to see how life is not about balance or cannot be about balance. First of all, we wouldn't have even existed and would have burst to death if our inner pressure was not in balance with the outer one from the moment we were born. The whole world is in balance through gravity and thus we are balancing ourselves on this very ground. Everything depends on balance and without balance in the game of keeping it steady, it will result to hitting the pipe.
I would like to point out that this side sees the goal in Flappy Bird as how humans try to achieve a single goal in real life. Thus, I shall now present my figurative case. Flappy Bird shows that death is inevitable as it is inexorable. Every time we fail, all our hard work and efforts 'dies' meaning, seems to fall apart. Because of that we need to build ourselves and rise again. In the case of Flappy Bird, this is to click restart.
The con side alludes that the "unexpected" the pro side has mentioned signifies the redundant background, pipes, scene, etc. However, I would like to point out the correction that the "unexpected" the pro side mentions means its death. The death or failure always seems to happen so gratuitously no matter how careful one handles the bird. This is what the pro side has been comparing to real life. Failure can be uncalled for and unjustified but it is how we react to it that matters. Every time the bird dies, our reaction of whether throwing the phone at the wall or deciding to try again is what matters as a player.
I now end my argument as I have presented both the literal and figurative aspects to the game and real life whereas the con side has yet to contrast the figurative side of the game to real life.
Moonwater forfeited this round.
DAVcactus has forfeited this round as well. May the voters judge from the arguments above.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for the forfeit, which also meant that Con gave up the chance to respond to Pro's arguments. Since they weren't responded to, they stand. Arguments to Pro. Everything else seemed equal enough. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
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.