The Instigator
Pro (for)
2 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
6 Points

Technology used only for entertainment should've never been invented.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/27/2015 Category: Technology
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,701 times Debate No: 72429
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (47)
Votes (2)




I believe technology used only for humans to be entertained is not very beneficial to anyone.

R1 Opening statements.
R2 Arguments
R3 More Arguments and some rebuttals
R4 Rebuttals and closing remarks.

1. No forfeits
2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be individually provided in the text of the debate
3. No new arguments in the final round
4. No profanity
5. No trolling or semantics
6. No accepting other debates. ( If you have an ongoing debate it's fine if you accept this debate.)
7. Violation of any of these rules is loss of a conduct point.

Please keep your arguments organized and sourced.


I accept.

The burden will be on Pro to prove that technology used only for entertainment should have never been invented.
Debate Round No. 1


Before I begin I'd like to thank con for accepting this debate and I hope it'll be fun for the both of us also please no noob sniping. Now I shall begin, my arguments are mainly about addiction and health this round will be about addiction. But first I'd like to define the word technology. The word technology means machinery or devices developed from scientific knowledge.


Addiction is a cause of death, broken families, broken relationships and much more. Addictions caused by technologies are video game addiction, internet addiction and porn addiction. In this round I will primarily be focused on video game and smartphone addiction.

Video games.
There were several instances where a gamer has died because of addiction see videos here

Here are some articles about video game addiction

UK counselor and therapist Steve Pope even says "2 hours of gaming is like abit of cocaine." Granted he overstated but still it is addicting and as we've already learned video game addiction is dangerous.

Now onto smartphones.
Smartphones cause cancer....... I'm just kidding.

But seriously.
Recently a twelve years old girl tried to poison her mother cause her mother took away her IPhone.

And here are some articles about the topic.

I hope that I made good points and an overall good argument. I now await con's arguments but before that I'd like to sadly inform the voters that Con broke rule #6 by accepting this debate
so please vote fairly and give Con his punishment the loss of the conduct point.
Thank you and that is all for now.


Thanks Pro.

Since R1 doesn't mention rebuttals in the second round, I will present my case for why technology that is used only for entertainment purposes ought to have been invented.

-The Entertainment Industry-

This will likely be the most compelling contention. It goes without saying that for entertainment technology to exist, it must first be invented. The sheer number of jobs that are created from technology, that is just used for entertainment, is staggering by itself. If Con would like a source for all of the film actors, game developers, support staff, and story writers' jobs entertainment has created, I will provide them, or he can simply turn on his television and see these people doing their job.
"The U.S. film industry posted $31 billion in revenues in 2013, a modest increase over 2012, according to data from PriceWaterhouseCoopers."[1]
This is valuable commerce and trade that have resulted from the creation of "only entertainment" purposed technology. The harms of allowing such a technology would need to be catastrophic to allow such valuable revenue to be thrown away. Pro will need to demonstrate this catastrophic harm in order to win this debate.

-Benefits of entertainment-

Its not surprising some schools have started adding digital media and video games in their curriculum, at this day and age, it's become almost common knowledge that there are benefits tied together with using this technology.

"A recent study from the Education Development Center and the U.S. Congress-supported Ready To Learn (RTL) Initiative found that a curriculum that involved digital media such as video games could improve early literacy skills when coupled with strong parental and teacher involvement. Interestingly, the study focused on young children, and 4- and 5-year-olds who participated showed increases in letter recognition, sounds association with letters, and understanding basic concepts about stories and print."[3]

Couple this with another study that shows,

"[...] those in the shooter video game condition show faster and more accurate attention allocation, higher spatial resolution in visual processing, and enhanced mental rotation abilities (for a review, see C. S. Green & Bavelier, 2012). A recently published meta-analysis (Uttalet al., 2013) concluded that the spatial skills improvements derived from playing commercially available shooter video games are comparable to the effects of formal (high school and university-level) courses aimed at enhancing these same skills."[4].

These studies provide sufficient evidence to put forth the notion that video games and digital media have a benefit to their user. I do believe these benefits far outweigh any kind of harm that may come from one or two isolated incidents of "video game addiction". Any kind of addiction is bad though. Even if he convinces you that this addiction should lead to its removal, it would only make sense to remove cigarettes or alcohol as well since both have been found addictive [2]. This isn't something that can really be done though.

Although this isn't the strongest point, but I feel it is a necessary one. People should have the right of freedom to live as they choose, and that includes the right to invent a product. The only time ones rights should be infringed on, is when they undermine anothers. Even if there is a harm to oneself from using entertainment technology, it doesn't justify the idea that it should never have been invented in the first place.

-Regarding Pro's R2-
I find it rather under handed that Pro slips that rule (#6) into the standard rules structure for debates. I acknowledge it is my responsibility to read the rules first, however I can't possibly see the justification used for adding it in to begin with. Ironically, Pro has already violated his own rules "2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be individually provided in the text of the debate". As you can see they're scattered throughout the middle.

This alone warrents at-least a tie for conduct points.

Debate Round No. 2



1. Energy.
The entertainment industry takes more than $1 billion dollars.

Research say most gamers lack vitamin D and are obese but there is a way to save more than a billion dollars be healthier and live longer and that way is sports. Here is a list of health benefits of sports.

3. Porn addiction
People used to rarely see porn but now the internet is here addiction comes.
Here is a list of bad things porn addiction brings.

4. Internet addiction.
The internet, everybody loves it but some people more than others some people are even addicted to it.
Here is a list of bad things internet addiction causes.


1. Entertainment industry.
Yes, I acknowledge the fact that the industry gave thousands of jobs but if it had never been invented nobody knows if they could have better jobs or not.

2. Benefits.
As I've said earlier there are other ways to get these benefits as I stated earlier technology used only for entertainment should've never been invented but if they create video games for learning or for faster reflexes that's okay.

3. Freedom.
I did not say to ban inventing them I'd rather the inventors to think before creating it but they van create them.


I would first like to say that doing anything in excess, or lack of, will more often then not result in some sort of harm to oneself.

If Pro really believes video games and other forms of technology entertainment need to be taken away or should have never been invented, he would also admit that things like books should be banned. Anybody can abuse the things they find entertaining and do them in excess, but that doesn't mean they should have never been invented. These things all serve great purposes when you overlook the few people who give them a bad name. Pro's distaste for entertainment technology is indeed misplaced. He should be petitioning to try and help the irresponsible people, not prevent beneficial technology from being created.

A1. Pro states that the entertainment industry takes up more then 1 billion dollars to run. I find that to be a very reasonable cost since its return revenue to the government is 31 billion dollars (see R2).

A2.Technology is irrelevant here. The people who are irresponsible and spend every waking moment indoors depriving themselves of sunlight and physical activity are to be blamed not the technology. Any kind of entertainment could lead to someone doing these kinds of things, like reading books.

3. See A2.

4. See A2.


Pro doesn't really refute anything I'v posted, he just speculates in favor of his resolution.

B1. It's impossible to know that. It's like speculating that all book writers could have possibly gotten better jobs, despite the fact that no one would want this.

B2. Pro confesses that entertainment technology have benefits. It was his job to prove they are not beneficial and should have never been invented. Pro essentially concedes the debate here.

B3. Now Pro is accusing the inventors of these wonderful forms of technology, that they have harmed the general public. I have not only refuted that using entertainment technology has benefits to it in moderation, but have also given evidence that America doesn't prevent things from being made that can be abused. America respects its citizens will make responsible decisions no matter how much they doubt that may happen.

Pro's round three, again broke the rule "#2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be individually provided in the text of the debate".
This means I should receive the conduct points.
Debate Round No. 3



1. Money.
I stated the entertainment industry takes up lots of energy which could be used for more beneficial things I personally do not care about the cost.

2. Technology is relevant here cause it causes the addiction. Con stated reading should also be banned if video games are but I say this video games are quite addicting it's even in the top ten most addicting things. I'd like to ask Con if there is such thing as book addiction? I've researched and found ether there is no such thing or it is rare ether way books are better then video games.

3. See 2

4. See 3

5. This is not a proven fact. Maybe J.K Rowling could've been an award winning singer we do not know.

6. My job is not to prove everything is wrong with technology only for entertainment I am not an idiot my job was to prove the world would have been better without it.

7. I have proven that some of their inventions did in fact hurt and even kill people.

8. I have not broken rule #2 ever if Con is referring to when I said no noob sniping that is not a end note and if he was referring to the time I said can I accept another debate that too was not a end not. Too prove my point here is the definition of end note and since I made the rules I define them.





a note, as of explanation, emendation, or the like, added at the end of an article, chapter, etc.


[ee-muh n-dey-shuh n, em-uh n-]



a correction or change, as of a text.

Footnote another word for endnote

Closing remarks.

Vote justly and debate logically. Goodbye I had fun.


My case stands firm. I will explain why this is the case and refute what remains of my opponents arguments.

-Entertainment Industry-

I have provided statistics on the revenue generated from the entertainment industry in R2. Pro believes we should have tossed this 31 billion dollars in revenue, so that we can invest the 1 billion that takes to run it into what he believes are better causes. Although, he fails to mention what possible causes this money should go to, and why it would be more beneficial than entertainment the entertainment industry.


Pro concedes that there are indeed entertainment technology that are beneficial (like video games), he simply thinks there is a better way to obtain these benefits. Now, while there is nearly always an alternative method of achieve similar goals, that itself isn't a reason for why we should do away with one or the other. Pro also fails to explain why people who already have these benefits shouldn't use video games in the first place.


It would seem Pro is against peoples freedom to invent what ever it is they want. He essentially believes that if it can be abused or cause harm, it should be banned. He believes we should all have to live optimally healthy lives regardless of what we actually want. Even though Pro admits that entertainment technology can have benefits, and also fails to show why its bad to simply use them on occasion, he still believes that these things should have never been created. I ask you the reader, has he really justified his position here?


B1. We can speculate all day. Unless you have an argument though that's based off more than speculation, you have no evidence that these people could be doing other jobs that are more beneficial than the ones they are already doing.

B2. Pro has completely failed to prove the world would be better without entertainment technology, he simply looks at all the special cases of the irresponsible people abusing this tech, and thinks it should never should have been invented. People abuse all sorts of entertainment, Pro seems to think that this isn't true, but one look at otakuism in american or japan makes it very evident that there are hundreds of thousands of people who spend their entire day indoors reading manga/books or collecting figurines [1]. Pro can speculate all he wants about how someone could have lived their lives better, but until he has proof that they would be, it's just speculation.

B3. I thinks its rather obvious that inventions have killed people. This doesn't follow they should never have been invented though, not by a long shot. It's like arguing cars should have never been invented because someone could die from using them.

Pro goes on to say that he actually has used foot/endnotes correctly. This is not true. Foot/endnotes go at the end of a document or article not scattered throughout the middle. Like feet, they appear at the bottom. Perhaps he has confused each of his contentions for an article.

Either way, the resolution is negated.

Debate Round No. 4
47 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ClashnBoom 1 year ago
@Kozu I wasn't actually supposed to mention addiction much.
Posted by Kozu 1 year ago
It's ok clash, I also have a top debate that i'm losing in. For now...

Why did you choose this resolution btw?
Posted by TheMarquis 1 year ago
ClashnBoom, you know that your profile picture is filled with things that go under the category that you said shouldn't have been invented, right?
Posted by ClashnBoom 1 year ago
I feel lame. I lost a debate that is now a top debate.
Posted by ButterCatX 1 year ago
I feel cool, my vote was removed from a debate that Is now a top debate.
Posted by ButterCatX 1 year ago
As my rfd is not good enough to appease supreme dictat(in a star wars novel: was the position held by Han Solo's brother who was a tyrannical dictator who killed off anyone who did not agree with him) Bluesteel, I will not attempt to tweak it anymore. If both Pro and Con agree that I placed out a great rfd then that should be enough for Bluesteel. Also as I highly doubt that my was so awful that it would it would be removed that makes me wonder if I am be targeted for being friends with bhu which would be very un-moderator like.
Posted by ButterCatX 1 year ago
I would like to add to my rfd that Pro used 31 sources to secure the source points, Con broke rule #6, and Con explained many points including freedom and the benefits of the entertainment industry (such as the economy boost) to secure the better debates points.
Posted by ButterCatX 1 year ago
This is my rfd for this debate as my voting privileges were removed this will be my rfd. Pro included many high quality sources(2 points pro). Pro mostly focused on gaming and did not mention any other entertainment systems, while con made the burden of proof extremely well(3 points con). Pro recieves conduct points because con broke on of the pre-set rules(1 point Pro). Con used better spelling and grammar but I will give the points to neither because it was minor infractions and Pro does not live in the U.S. and thus I will be more lenient.
Posted by ClashnBoom 1 year ago
Ops sorry for the reposts.
Posted by ClashnBoom 1 year ago
Maybe this will help you rethink your votes
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by TBR 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro concentrated almost entirly on video games and addiction. The movie and television industry, and a host of other technologies were never mentioned. Virtually impossible to win this debate on the argument.

Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's sole arguments were based on direct sources as presented by them. A very close debate, but the negation of the resolution via. BoP was done effortlessly by Con. Con accurately portrayed the effects of the entertainment business on each state's economy and thus its effect on greater issues such as welfare, etc. Pro's sources were more technical and straightforward, though.