The Instigator
DemosthenesWiggin
Pro (for)
The Contender
Thehousemaster
Con (against)

Public Locations should be able to request Pokemon Go removal.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Thehousemaster has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/26/2016 Category: Games
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 427 times Debate No: 94118
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

DemosthenesWiggin

Pro

Pokemon Go is a popular smartphone game in which users go to real life locations to catch virtual creatures called Pokemon. However, several locations have requested their removal from the game, including the Holocaust Museum in Washington DC (1), Auschwitz Memorial in Poland (1), and several hospitals (2) want to be removed from the game, saying that it disrespects the memory of the victims (Holocaust Museum and Auschwitz) or interfere with patient care (hospitals). This debate only deals with public locations (such as hospitals, museums, businesses, and police stations), NOT private locations (such as personal houses, private land, and other private property).
(1)- http://www.usatoday.com...
(2)- http://www.kansascity.com...

In this debate, I, the Pro, will argue that public locations should be allowed to remove themselves from Pokemon Go. My opponent, the Con, will argue that public locations should not be able to remove themselves from Pokemon Go.

Round One will be acceptance. Round Two will be support, no rebuttals. Round Three will be counterclaims and rebuttals of opponents Round Two claims. Round four will be conclusion/closing statement, with no new arguments/rebuttals.
Thehousemaster

Con

I gratefully accept my opponent request for a debate over this issue.
Debate Round No. 1
DemosthenesWiggin

Pro

Pokemon Go, although it provides entertainment and exercise, has a negative impact on several locations: hospitals, museums, and memorials. Due to the negative impact Pokemon go causes to these places, they should be allowed to request removal from the game.

Pokemon Go negatively impacts hospitals, due to players entering restricted areas and wasting staff time. Several hospitals have reported Pokemon Go players trying to enter restricted areas, whether intentionally or accidentally, to chase Pokemon, leading to a ban of the game from several hospitals, including University of Kansas Hospital (1) and a hospital in Midlands (2). Players entering restricted areas can put their own safety at risk, as well as the safety of patients. Examples of restricted areas include rooms where patients with highly infectious and/or dangerous diseases are held; entering such an area can put the player at risk of catching the disease and spreading it to the general public. Additionally, players entering hospitals solely for the purpose of playing Pokemon Go can waste valuable hospital staff time. After a Midlands hospital's A&E (Accidents and Emergencies) department was marked as a Pokemon Go gym, they had to ban the game from the location, due to the large hordes of players arriving at the location. The associate chief nurse of that hospital said that "anybody who visits the hospital solely to play the game will provide an unwanted distraction to the important work of the hospital" (2). Additionally, Saint Luke's Health System said that "gameplay can lead to disruption in patient care" (1). These quotes from hospitals demonstrate the negative effect that Pokemon Go can have on their work.

Pokemon Go can also negatively affect museums and memorials. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington DC says that "playing Pokemon Go in a memorial dedicated to the victims of Nazism is extremely inappropriate" (3). Auschwitz Museum said that Pokemon Go is "not appropriate in the museum", since it is "a memorial to the victims of Nazism" (4). These memorials to victims of the Holocaust are intended to be serious places, not a park for lighthearted fun. These locations have already banned Pokemon Go from the premise and requested to be removed from the game. Niantic, the maker of Pokemon Go, should accept these requests and honor Holocaust victim's memory by removing these memorials from the game.

(1)- http://www.kansascity.com...
(2)- http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
(3)- http://money.cnn.com...
(4)- http://www.cbsnews.com...
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by DemosthenesWiggin 10 months ago
DemosthenesWiggin
With the examples provided, a public relations official requested removal, however the decision was probably made by a board of directors.
Posted by devinator534 10 months ago
devinator534
oh, ok i see
Posted by devinator534 10 months ago
devinator534
Then who would request these Pokemon Go removals if no one owns them?
Posted by DemosthenesWiggin 10 months ago
DemosthenesWiggin
@devinator534
I would include that in the group I am arguing for, but I doubt that many, if any, will, since having people going into businesses to catch Pokemon might buy something and help the business. I am more arguing for places like hospitals, museums, and other places where Pokemon Go can have a negative effect.
Posted by devinator534 10 months ago
devinator534
As in public locations, you mean like private owned businesses should be allowed to request pokemon go removal?
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.