Playing video games promote creativity more than reading a book
Debate Rounds (3)
This is my first debate on this site, so I am sorry in advance if I do happen to make mistakes.
Video games are fun entertaining devices that aid people in enjoying their day, while overcoming various challenges and storyline. The definition of video game is: "an electronic game in which players control images on a television or computer screen". A book is a "A set of written, printed, or blank pages fastened along one side and encased between protective covers."
In a book, you follow the story on a main character, or many main characters, and minor characters. In reading a book, you learn new vocabulary, and think of possible stories, however those stories are very similar to stories already told. So you don't exactly become creative, but you create stories that are already made, but by fusing or tweaking a previous story.
In a video game, you over come various challenges, and learn from a smart interesting story line. However there are also games like minecraft and animal crossing where you create your own world. In these games, you challenge your creativity, and create amazing things.
Basically, I am trying to explain that in a book, you follow one story created by someone else. In a video game, you create your own story, you create your own world, you construct. Sometimes you also follow stories, and find ways to overcome challenges that may come your way. And you find a variety of creative ways to overcome these challenges.
First I will establish the quantity of books versus that of video games. First, the ESRB, or Entertainment Software Rating Board, maintains and rates around 32000 video games based on content. This measly number is completely outweighed by the over 130 million books that are in the world at this time. Even if I say that video games produce 1,000 times the amount of creativity than a single book, books would still, in total, aspire and "accumulate" over 4 times video game's worth. Furthermore, a book is more accessible. The only skill required of books is the ability to read, while video games, by their very nature, require a large set of skills which degrades their accessibility. Also, it is much easier to get a book. A video game requires hardware which is typically expensive and complicated, while a book is very simple to obtain and use.
The reason why following a story created by someone else promotes more creativity than a video game is imagery. To conceptualize anything, the human brain (under normal circumstances, i.e. not blind or visually impaired) processes information and then mentally creates an image to pair with a character. When someone reads a story, for example, they create individual images and concepts to represent a character. They can then use these "images" to create whatever they please. The concept of an academic essay intrinsically promotes creativity. Moreover, numerous readers use their ideas to create fan fiction, a field of writing where individuals expand stories based of their own individual creativity, further promoting creativity through books.
Why this matters is that it can be applied to any book, while a lot of video games cannot match this level of creativity. Vote
"Even if I say that video games produce 1,000 times the amount of creativity than a single book, books would still, in total, aspire and "accumulate" over 4 times video game's worth."
The debate is "Playing video games promote creativity more than reading a book",. Though there are more books, and they may accumulate more creativity, the topic explains how playing a video game can promote more creativity than reading a book. One book.
"When someone reads a story, for example, they create individual images and concepts to represent a character."
Creating a image of a character does not exactly lead to creativity. I can think about a character and what they may look like, but that does not exactly involve my creativity, I am only following what the author is saying, which does not promote my creativity.
" Also, it is much easier to get a book."
This is irrelevant to the debate. The question is not which one is easier to get, but which one can promote creativity more effectively.
" Moreover, numerous readers use their ideas to create fan fiction"
Players and fans also make fan fiction based off of the video game. Using a variety of characters and storyline, they change the storyline, or make predictions for the future of the game. Here is an example: https://www.fanfiction.net...
Now for my arguments:
In video games, you can restart puzzles and challenges. And every time you can find a new creative way to overcome these challenges. Not only does this promote creativity, but it also promotes problem solving. Also, video games are more entertaining, so a person would be more compelled to playing a video game than a book. So the video game would promote more creativity in the person than a book because he invests more time in the video game. According to this article: http://news.cnet.com...
91% of children play video games. Everything you learn as you grow of is based on what you learn when you were a child. So if more children play video games and gain more creativity as children, more future adults will be creative. So basically, video games would promote creativity more.
The legitimate "topic" is "Playing video games promote creativity more than reading a book". If we would look to this exact wording every single time, we would see that it is hardly at all fair for the con, and it would be impossible to win, as your side is plural, and mine is singular. Therefore, you could use the total "accumulative" creativity, and I could only use the weight of a single book.
Because it would be rather audacious for you to propose that we argue that topic, I looked to your description of my argument in the first round: "Con will explain how they think books are better for creativity than video games." Here we see both sides of the topic is plural, so yes, the total and accumulative number is ENTIRELY relevant.
Reader and judge, even if you don't buy that we should look to the notes made in the first round, you're voting con. If you were to vote pro, you would be promoting the inherit bias that comes with starting a debate. When someone starts a debate, they have the ability to change the topic towards whatever they like. For example, we could create a topic that was extremely one sided: "Nerf guns shoot farther than a nerf gun". Obviously, because one side is plural and the other singular, this argument is in favor of the pro all of the time. Obviously, no one in their right mind would accept this debate, as they know as con they would lose.
This is similar to this debate. My opponent had a very large inherit bias for the topic based on the written topic at the top of the screen. If he did not make the note that he did in the first round, I wouldn't have accepted the debate. By voting con, you're helping Debate.org turn into a fun and academically promoting site, while by voting pro, you would be supporting inherit topical bias and further watering the seeds to turn the community towards abusive debates.
Lastly, even if you don't buy any of the above arguments, I've still manage to prove the greater creative value of a single book versus that of a single video game.
My opponent did not even once mention the fact I brought up about academic essays, and this was a large mistake. Extend this argument to the final round as the creative value of an essay trumps over the small creative value of problem solving in video games.
Onto my opponent's arguments in the last round:
>In video games, you can restart puzzles and challenges. And every time you can find a new creative way to overcome >these challenges. Not only does this promote creativity, but it also promotes problem solving.
-I believe you're very much over generalizing here. You've neglected to name a single example of a video game that is non-linear enough to allow an "obstacle" to be overcome in more than one way.
> Also, video games are more entertaining
-Once again, an EXTREME generalization. If you'd like to say this, then you'd have to have another debate round to prove it. Entertainment is, by its very nature, subjective to an individual, so no conclusions can be drawn about the entertainment values.
>91% of children play video games
-First, if we're judging by your standards, then this is irrelevant. However, if you don't buy that this is irrelevant, then consider the following, reader:
The article says that only 4,136 people were surveyed. The article also fails to provide the location, we don't know if this is in a community with a large percentage of wealth or technological access.
Also, turn this around to help the con out. The CIA world fact-book says that the literacy rate of the United States is 99%, even higher than my opponents alleged 91%.
In conclusion, based on my opponent's abuses, the reader needs to vote con. I've also provided evidence even if the reader doesn't buy the arguments based off of those abuses.
As antagonizing as I sound, I would like to thank my opponent for the opportunity to debate, and I would like to thank the reader as well for the time they have invested in reading this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.