The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
8 Points

Video Games Are Good for You

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 3/23/2015 Category: Games
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 696 times Debate No: 72166
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)




My claim:
Video games are good for you.

-Provide convincing evidence on why video games are bad for you
-Don't forfeit
-First round is for acceptance

Who's interested?
(Remember, have fun!)


I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


Alright! This is my first debate on here, so I'll try to do my best.

1. Video games provide useful social skills.
Most video games nowadays require teamwork and cooperation with other players in order to win. Playing these games can help you out in the real world, where social skills like these are important in order to complete tasks. Also, these kinds of games can help you connect with more people of different races and cultures. This can help you build relationships and become comfortable with different people.

2. Video games help relieve stress.
Playing video games reduces your stress and pain. When you're playing games, your brain is more focused on winning the game than on thinking about stress and pain. Playing games release endorphins in your brain, which can make you happier while reducing the amount of pain we feel and stress we have.

3. Electronic games can help boost your brain.
Believe it or not, playing video games can actually help shape up your brain. Playing games can improve your concentration and focus. A study revealed that kids with attention disorders had better test scores after they played video games because it helped them focus harder. Video games also teach you how to deal with problems. A ton of video games require the use of strategic thinking in order to win. Playing these games could help you make smart decisions faster and help you solve problems in real life.


Rebuttals in Round 3
Conclusions in Round 4
(I forgot to include it in the rules)

Your move!


I'd first like to outline that my opponent's sources are structured unclearly, as he hasn't cited any particular point. This is bad practice.

Negative Case

P1: Video games promote violence.
This isn't a well researched topic, but there are a significant number of studies that strongly allude to detrimental effects directly from playing video games, particularly violent games. The 2008 study Grand Theft Childhood reported that 60% of middle school boys who played at least one Mature-rated game hit or beat up someone, compared to 39% of boys that did not play Mature-rated games. [1] Moreover, a 2009 study found that it takes up to four minutes for the level of aggressive thoughts and feelings in children to return to normal after playing violent video games. It takes five to ten minutes for heart rate and aggressive behavior to return to baseline. Video games that show the most blood generate more aggressive thoughts. When blood is present in video games, there is a measurable increase in arousal and hostility. [2] And finally, Exposure to violent video games is linked to lower empathy in players. In a 2004 study of 150 fourth and fifth graders by Professor Jeanne Funk, violent video games were the only type of media associated with lower empathy. Empathy, the ability to understand and enter into another's feelings, plays an important role in the process of moral evaluation and is believed to inhibit aggressive behavior. [3]
These worrying studies show a clear correlation hinting at a causal link between violent games and violence, and it's not difficult to figure out why.

[1] Lawrence Kutner and Cheryl K. Olsen, Grand Theft Childhood: The Surprising Truth about Violent Video Games and What Parents Can Do, Apr. 2008
[2] Christopher Barlett, Richard Harris, and Callie Bruey, "The Effect of the Amount of Blood in a Violent Video Game on Aggression, Hostility, and Arousal," Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Oct. 2007

[3] Jeanne Funk, Heidi Bechtoldt Baldacci, Tracie Pasold, and Jennifer Baumgardner, "Violence Exposure in Real-life, Video Games, Television, Movies, and the Internet: Is There Desensitization?," Journal of Adolescence, 2004

P2: Staying seated is bad for your health.
To play video games, especially for long periods, as most gamers do, one usually remains seated. This can be a driver of serious health issues. A review completed earlier this year concluded that "Prolonged sedentary time was independently associated with deleterious health outcomes regardless of physical activity." [1] This is a result reciprocated by a number of notable studies. Another line of study found a strong link between television viewing and mortality rates, concluding: "Television viewing time was associated with increased risk of all-cause and CVD mortality. In addition to the promotion of exercise, chronic disease prevention strategies could focus on reducing sitting time, particularly prolonged television viewing. " [2] Finally a 2011 study found that "Recreational sitting, as reflected by television/screen viewing time, is related to raised mortality and CVD risk regardless of physical activity participation. Inflammatory and metabolic risk factors partly explain this relationship." [3]


I've brought up two significant detrimental consequences of playing video games and supported them with reliable data and studies.

Debate Round No. 2


Uranus forfeited this round.


1. Most video games aren't multiplayer. Skyrim, a popular game, is an extremely solitary experience. I've wasted hours completing idiotic quests as my social skills declined.
2. So can cigarettes, but it doesn't matter because, in the end, they cause more pain than they are worth.
3. These studies are pretty sketchy, and the authors were probably avid gamers attempting to justify their useless hobby.

Having faster reactions and some largely useless skill is not a really of significant benefit, and, as you can see, there also exists numerous reports based on empirical data that have found a serious link with obesity and violent behavior.
GG. Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by BarbieSoFetch 1 year ago
Bruh, I'm bipolar and I have a borderline personality disorder and video games help me get my rage out instead of being a threat to myself and others. Go check out my other comment on whether video games are bad or good for you. It's better well worded.
Posted by ZenoCitium 1 year ago
I am awarding points for better sources to CON. PROs sources were OK but mainly seemed second hand while CON provided higher fidelity sources.
Posted by ZenoCitium 1 year ago
@Simonstuffles: I agree, PRO did not cite his sources well. In my mind, that is a good reason for a tie break but not to discount his sources altogether unless it is completely impossible to discern what is cited and what isn't.

In my opinion, PRO had the more convincing arguments. The arguments provided by CON were somewhat problematic. CON presents sources that show that video games increase blood flow and decrease empathy but does not provide enough evidence to support the final conclusion, which is that video games lead to violent behavior. With respect to playing video games seating vs. not seating doesn't really affect the resolution. This evidence only supports the negative aspects of sitting for long periods of time. It is conceivable that playing video games alone does not cause the issues supported by this argument. Sitting in a chair or talking walking breaks while playing would mitigate these issues.

This being stated, I cannot award points to PRO. PRO stated that it was against the rules to forfeit. PRO did not state what the consequence was so I must assume the worst, that a forfeit of any round would cost all points to be awarded.
Posted by simonstuffles 1 year ago
I don't care whether he quotes the source or not. You're right it's OK to summarize. However he didn't even link each citation to a particular premise, which makes it much more difficult to read, and generally makes his argument hold up less well.
Posted by Cinnamon 1 year ago
Just because he didn't copy word-for-word and put quotation mars around some sentences doesn't mean he didn't use evidence from sources.
Posted by DenisR 1 year ago
My son was ADD. He got hook on Mario Bros (30 years ago). I was concerned that this would be bad for him. Our shrink said no, let him play. It will get him to focus on one thing, and help show him how to control is ADD.
Posted by haydos 1 year ago
this should be good and I do agree with video games are good
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: FF. I read through some of the PDF's associated with Con's sources, and they were better.
Vote Placed by ZenoCitium 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Please see my comment.