Playing Video Games are greater in benefits than reading Fiction Books.
First round will be acceptance.
Second will be our first arguments.
Third will be our rebuttals and fourth will be the basic conclusion of the entire debate.
Video Games: an electronic game in which players control images on a television or computer screen
Benifits: a good or helpful result or effect
Fiction Books: written stories about people and events that are not real : literature that tells stories which are imagined by the writer
Video Games Train the Brain for Quicker Learning and Decision Making. Reading Fiction Books Do Not.
When you play action packed video games with lots of quick time movement, your learning speed increases as the action packed games are usually quick paced. For example, in a game such as Halo, you are required to see multiple activities happening at once, if you fail to see one, it can result in the death of your character. If you are still wondering how your learning speed increases, it is quite simple, fast paced video games require people to think fast and learn quickly from their mistakes. Meaning, you cant just pick up a controller and go into a Halo game thinking you will do well, it takes skill, skills such as quick thinking and learning quickly. It is required in-order to do well. Now if you cant correlate how this can help you out side the gaming world, here is how it will help. Quick decision-making/learning can be used in many ways in the real world, in school it can give you an edge when it comes to learning, on the road you wont take as long in making a decision, and in the workplace being able to prove to your boss that you are a quick thinker can definitely impact your career (depends on the job). Fiction books do not provide a benefit such as this.
Video Games Enhance Fine Motor Skills.
When you first start playing video games, you probably looked at the controller repeatedly so you could play the game properly, after time you abandoned this habit, for your fine hand motor skills have vastly improved. Fine hand motor skills or motor skills in general allow people make precise actions. An example of this is when you are parking a vehicle, if you go back n forth trying to park, you probably have poor motor skills. If you park in one swoop, you motor skills are probably on the higher end. So in the basics playing video games can increase your motor skills substantially. Fiction books do not provide any motor skill other than turning a page.
In general, playing video games can improve the brain in multiple degrees. From hand-eye coordination to problem solving skills, it has numerous benefits that can be applied to real life. While fiction books on the hand only provide entertainment and I guess if you read enough, a better vocabulary/reading speed. It is quite apparent that video games provide a plethora of benefits compared to reading the dusty, old, book (fiction).
1. The hardware is standard.
But if my mom buys a book for me for Christmas, she doesn't have to worry about whether I have an Xbox or a PS3 or the right graphics card or enough RAM. As long as I have a functioning set of eyes and can read at a 6th grade level, I'm good to go with 90% of the books out there.
(Did you catch that back-handed slap at the publishing industry? Ok, good.)
2. Books are always backwards-compatible.
Super fun until I got a PS3. One of the newer, gimped PS3's that wouldn't play Burnout 3.
That's cool, I'll just buy Burnout Paradise. What's sixty bucks, right? Oh, except Burnout Paradise took everything that was fun about the franchise, neutered it, and overstuffed the game in favor of an "open" world with a lot of wrong turns and terrible timed events. Compared to Burnout 3, Burnout Paradise sucks.
You know what's great? When I pick up my dog-eared copy of Breakfast of Champions - the one I bought in 1989, it's still just as fun and interesting to read as it was back then.
3. Better hardware specs.
Put another way, the graphics in video games are limited by memory, available processing power, and resolution of the target display.
In a book, the chicks are literally as hot as you can imagine.
4. No tutorials.
"Welcome to Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. This book is formatted for Western English readers. Begin reading at the upper left of the page and continue scanning your eyes to the right until you come to the end of a line. Look down one row of type, andresume reading across to end of the row. Let's try it:
Mr. and Mrs. Dursley, of number four, Privet Drive, were proud to say that they were normal, thank you very much. They were the last people you'd expect to be involved in anything strange or mysterious, because they just didn't hold with such nonsense.
"Did you successfully read the two sentences? Good! You're almost ready to begin enjoying this book. One last step: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is divided intopages.
Pages are denoted by a sudden stoppage of paper. When you reach the end of a page, continue reading by grasping the right-hand page with your right thumb and forefingerand manually flipping it the left. This move is called a turn and once you master it, the sentence from the previous page will continue seamlessly."
Seems ridiculous, right?
But I can't tell you how many games I've played where I have to spend 10 minutes learning how to pick up a box or read a piece of paper.
5. No load screens.
Eyes + book = READING!
PS3 + game disc = BATHROOM BREAK!
6. No save points or timed missions.
Note to video game developers: In a book, every page is a save point. Take a lesson and quit padding out your expected play time.
7. Video games are at the bottom of the entertainment food chain.
And, unlike a video game, if you buy an RPG book, you can actually ROLE-PLAY. Like, have an interesting, nuanced conversation with that orc mercenary before you get out your +3 Axe of Mighty Cleaving and whack him into finely-minced chunks. Believe it or not, there's more to role-playing than just Circle, Skip, Attack.
And if you miss your beautiful, perplexing Japanese video games, the fine people who invented books have this thing called manga and not only is it just as incomprehensible, but it's dirtier than you'd expect. Just remember to start in the back.
(If you just mumbled "That's what she said" please click away from my blog now and go back to your Halo: Reach Team Deathmatch. You are fired.)
If you complain that the time/value proposition of a video game is way higher because you can get more total hours of play from a video game than the time it takes to read ten books, I suggest you need to graduate to a better class of book, check out this thing called a LIBRARY, and stop playing so many games with scarce save points and narrowly-timed missions.
A study was released this week that demonstrates that prolonged video game-play affects the brain.
Professor Akio Mori, of Nihon University's College of Humanities and Sciences in Japan, measured the brain activity 240 subjects aged between 6 and 29. Mori measured beta waves, which indicate activity in the prefrontal lobe, and alpha waves, which often appear when the brain is resting. The prefrontal lobe is thought to be the center of emotion and creativity in the brain. Mori divided the brain activity of participants into four categories: normal, visual, half-videogame, and videogame.
Normal subjects, who rarely played video games, were found to have much stronger beta waves than alpha waves. Little change was seen while these subjects did play video games.
The half-video game group, which played video games for 1-3 hours 3-4 days a week, had roughly equal strength beta and alpha waves when not playing video games; but when they did play video games their beta waves fell below their alpha waves.
The video game group, which played video games for 2-7 hours daily, showed nearly zero beta activity all the time, even when they were not playing video games. This means there was little to no activity in their prefrontal lobes. These subjects reported being easily angered, having difficulty concentrating, and having trouble socializing.
The visual group, comprised of people who largely engage in visual stimulation such as television, was found to easily develop symptoms similar to the video game group.
Mori says that the only active areas in the brain during video game play are the sight and motion areas. He notes that the video games he observed “stir up tension and a feeling of fear,” and that “this could have an effect on the autonomic nerves.” Mori's advice is: “During childhood, playing outside with friends, not videogames, is the best option.” The study will be presented here in the U.S. in the fall at a meeting of the Society for Neuroscience.
First thing is first, the reason I made the statement, as mentioned above, is to prevent people making arguments on how video games are bad for you (hence the phrase "which is more beneficial" and/or making 'duh' arguments. For example "Fiction books are better because you can "load" a book faster than you can load a game" arguments such as these have and should of been prevented if Con read my paragraph in round one.
Starting with Cons first argument, he basically explains how (fiction) books are easier to access, this has nothing to do with the psychological benefits of either the book or the video game. Argument 2 Con, he describes books having better backwards compatibility, this obviously has nothing to do with the brain. Cons 3A, he, in summary, states how a brains processing power is way better than a machine's, this is true. But he fails to explain how this correlates to the brain benefiting from reading a book or how the brain doesn't benefit from playing a game, if Con knew what he was arguing, he could of used an argument on how reading interesting books can increase your lexile level. For me, argument four is almost relevant if Con would of went further into depth, but like the others it isn't. Why? Yet again, he doest explain any benefits that improve the brain. (Sigh) Another 'duh' argument, of course books don't have loading screens, and how does this correlate to any physiological benefits? Argument 6 ties into the reasoning behind argument 5. Now that I got all the out of topic arguments shot down we can begin a real debate.
Note* As I was reading Cons points I feel as if he thought this would be far from a serious debate. I was rather entertained by the points he made, not kidding, they were true and funny, sadly they do not fit within the agreed upon terms.
Now Con has pointed out that video games have less variety than a the field of fiction literature. This is simply untrue, video games in fact might have even more genres then whole of fictional books. Video games come in several categories and those categories can split into further subcategories. You have options to play a strategy game, a first person shooter, a massive multiplayer online, a role playing game, a horror game, a adventure game, etc ( I could go one for a while). Now what's amazing is that those can be split into further groups or each genre can mix. For example, lets take the game Minecraft, it can be considered a role playing game, a MMO, and a adventure game (mods extend the variety). There are a plethora of games all with their own taste.
Video Games do cost more, this is a fact, but most provide way more than the average 200 page book. If he were lets say a college level reader, you could most likely blast through a 200 page books in under 12 hours of total reading. A video game on the other hand will provide much more entertainment and it will do so in a longer time frame. Games like Skyrim can take days to "complete". when I read the Hunger Games (Book 1) it took me like 10 total hours of reading, the book was entertaining but the game provided much more. Also, most video games takes millions of dollars to complete, so a price tag of $60 dollars is quite a deal. These are the reasons I think a 60 dollar price is justified.
Cons study is not within the resolution, we are talking about which is more beneficial, not which pacts a harder punch.
Video games proves to be the forefront of mass entertainment, with the industry worth a hefty 91 billion dollars, it has surpassed Hollywood and sport entertainments and what's even more amazing is that its still growing at a rapid pace. As better machines get cheaper we could only see a rise of people participating in the gaming industry, which can be directly translated into people finding games to be entertaining and worth the time and money.
Con also failed to reply to any of my arguments in round one.
In summary, more than half of Cons arguments are invalid to the debate, video games are in huge variety, and the gaming industry proves that people find games entertaining.
Thanks for Rezamme to make post his rebuttal. First I will answer to his rebuttals, make some minor arguments, and also make some rebuttals.
I have an answer. Of course books are way easier to access because there is free public library where you can get access to books. Also most books are about 5$. However, if you play games you need a phone or computer. Usual computers are 1000$ and a phone, you have to pay montly.
Note: This is a serious debate. I just did that to not be sleepy.
2. However books are entertaining too. If you end fast, you will start reading the next one.
Now I will go on to my minor arguments.
1. I think there are a whole host of reasons. Books have, of course, been around for a lot longer than video games and so have had longer to be accepted into the cultural canon, the world over. They’ve also have had longer to develop as an art form – writers have the comparatively larger weight of literary history behind them to learn from, to reference and to improve upon. In fact, as a general point, there are more books in existence than there are video games (humans have been writing for much longer than they’ve been programming) so, purely from a statistical standpoint, there are more good books out there than there are good video games. (And, naturally, there is a veritable ocean of literary tripe out there too, which certainly overwhelms the number of crappy video games in exactly the same way. Simply because there’s more to choose from.)
I think there’s a crucial difference in perception too. Books are studied in virtually all schools, colleges and universities, whereas video games are studied far, far less often; instead, they’re played. We can all remember being in a classroom as a child, labouring through the finer points of a book or poem, but hardly any of us have ever studied the complexities of gaming in an academic environment. Consequently, books appear to be more ‘serious’ and ‘smart’, whereas video games are associated with ‘fun’ and ‘frivolity’.Now I will go onto my rebuttals.
However even though you have quicker speed in those situations that is not really true. You don't need fast speed in playing games. You need fast reflexes. For example, if a ball just comes straight to you, if you have fast reflexes from your game. I am saying you don't really need those skills. If you do sports, you can use your fast reflexes. I am not saying you can do this in a book, However it is better than a game.
You don't need motor skills. It is the same thing. Games do not give you the time learning literature except for looking at the gmae name or such.
Rezamee forfeited this round.
|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||1|