The Instigator
baggins
Pro (for)
Winning
26 Points
The Contender
Phoenix_Reaper
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Video Games do more harm than good

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 5 votes the winner is...
baggins
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/8/2011 Category: Technology
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 10,642 times Debate No: 16945
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (5)

 

baggins

Pro

This debate is part of Social Pinko's debate tournament.

== Rules ==

This is a 4 round debate, with following rules - in addition to standard debating rules which apply.

1. BoP will be shared. I have to prove that Video Games do more harm than good. Phoenix Reaper has to prove that Video Games do more good than harm.
2. First round is for rules and introduction.
3. Final round is for summary and conclusion. No new arguments in the final round.
4. In case any of the rules are considered as inappropriate by the Con, he is free to discuss them in comments - and when we come to a consensus, he may make the suitable amendments in his first round.
4. We debate in good faith. No semantics or syntactical argument. We will make full effort to have an informative and enjoyable debate.

== Introduction ==

This debate is about the benefit vs. harm of video games.

By video games we are referring to the computer games, which are typically played on a display device in which images are controlled by electronic controller connected to the computer such as joystick, Wii or even keyboard or any similar device. The players may play against the computer or with each other; present at same location or over the network.

Games like soccer, cricket, hockey and tennis are sports which are not considered as video games even though computers may be involved at some stage. This because the computer is not involved in the playing of game itself but in decision making or broadcast.

We are debating the video games as they exist today. We shall be looking at what loss they have caused and what benefit they have made to the society till this date. If the video games are going to destroy humanity in future or they have the potential to solve all our problems in few decades; arguments like that are irrelevant to this debate.

We shall be looking at both qualitative and quantitative aspect of the benefit and harm. So if a particular video game can give a particular benefit, we will have to see if the benefit is widespread and common before accepting it. Otherwise it would be treated as an anecdote rather than evidence.

In this debate, I am not discussing the solutions. I may support some regulation or self-regulation from video game industry, however that is not a subject of this debate.

Let us get this debate started.

Phoenix_Reaper

Con

I agree with my opponents view on what this debate is about.

I would like to provide definitions;

Good - according to context two definitions;

morally right; behaving in a way that is morally right

having a useful or helpful effect on somebody/something

Harm - damage or injury that is caused by a person or an event
*In this case event would be video games.*

------

I accept my opponents introduction. I will be favoring the side of Videos do more good than harm.
Debate Round No. 1
baggins

Pro

I would like to thank Phoenix_Reaper for debating this highly relevant issue with me.

My opponent has defined harm as "damage or injury that...". I accept his definitions but I would like to point out that the damage need not be physical only. It can be psychological. The damage might be the damage to the academic grades of a student as a result of addiction to video games.

Video games are a fascinating invention of mankind. It allows a person to imagine herself as the brave warrior taking on the whole battalions all alone. Or it allows her to plan battle strategies. Or play cricket, scoring sixes that will put Sachin Tendulkar to shame. Or to drive around the town at speeds at which formula One drivers would panic.

And the best part is - it is risk free. If you crash while playing road rash, you never die or get injured. You just lose a bit of time. Worst case, you press escape and restart!

These are the reasons why video games sales are sky rocketing. As per an article published in edge magazine the video games industry is worth $44 billion! [1]

But, are the video games risks free? Unfortunately, we have clear evidence that the video games, as they exist, are causing severe harm.

Addiction:

Ironically, the biggest problem with video games is there success. They are so successful that people find it addictive. As per a survey conducted for Americans by NPD group [2], a market research firm, gamers nearly spend over 13 hours per week playing video games. A small subset of around 4% plays video games for over 48 hours every week. Video games have become serious problems in South Korea [3]. Around 2.4 % of the population is addicted while 10.2% are on the borderline. Borderline cases are considered as cases where the gaming seriously begins to interfere in life leading to sleep deprivation and loosening grip on reality. One of the most problematic segments may be Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games (MMORPG). As per Maressa Orzack [4], a psycologist and computer addiction specialists, 40 % of MMORPG players may be addicted to these games.

Social Life and Academic Performance:

Naturally the time spent in gaming world is the time lost in real world. This affects the real social life of people. The difference between the real and virtual world may become blurred. It also affects the academic performance of addicted gamers. As per a research published in Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine [5][6], teens boys and girls who play video games spend less time on studies. They expressed concern that video games will interfere with the development of skills needed to make a successful transition to adulthood. They concluded that concerns regarding gamers' neglect of school responsibilities (reading and homework) are warranted. Maressa Orzack [4] confirms that she gets students from Ivy League colleges suffering from addiction. In University of Essex, she informs a game MUD has been given the unofficial title of Multiple Undergraduate Destroyer. The real title is Multi User Dungeon. In 2008, Deborah Taylor Tate, speaking at Practicing Law Institute on Telecom Policy and Regulation confirmed [7],

"You might find it alarming that one of the top reasons for college drop-outs in the U.S. is online gaming addiction— such as World of Warcraft — which is played by 11 million individuals worldwide."

Distracts from physical activity / sports:

As people experience ultimate thrill while playing video games, they lose interest from real life activity. In video game soccer, you can score fantastic goals without much exertion. Scoring normal goals in average match is much more difficult - without any glamour. Why bother then? Research conducted by a team of National Center for Health Marketing at the Centers for Disease Control [8] in Seattle-Tacoma area, found strong correlation between regular gaming and internet use, and increased risk for depression, higher body mass index (BMI), and other negative physical and mental health issues.

Conditioning to violence:

A significant fraction of video games are violent. A research conducted by Craig A. Anderson of Iowa State University [9] found that

"Exposure to violent video games is significantly linked to increases in aggressive behaviour, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, and cardiovascular arousal, and to decreases in helping behaviour. Experimental studies reveal this linkage to be causal. Correlational studies reveal a linkage to serious, real-world types of aggression."

People who are exposed to these video games become desensitized to violence, which contributes in raising the level of aggression in society. The California State Congress passed a law restricting access to violent video games - specially for minors [10][11]. An appeal is pending before Supreme and decisions is expected shortly [12].

Degradation of women:

Research published in a SpringerLink article [13] found that traditional gender roles and violence as central to many games. 28% of the video games treated women as sex object. While 80% of the games were violent, 21% depicted violence targeted specifically at women.

A Japanese video game 'RapeLay' lead to international outrage[14]. The purpose of the game was to rape a teenage girl.

In US, a hidden portion of the popular video game GTA: San Andreas was found to contain explicit sex scenes [15].

I might present more evidence and arguments in the next round, depending on the thrust of my opponents response. It is now turn of my esteemed opponent to enlighten us about the benefits of video games.

[1] http://www.next-gen.biz...
[2] http://asia.gamespot.com...
[3] http://www.washingtonpost.com...
[4] http://web.archive.org...
[5] http://www.sciencedaily.com...
[6] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[7] http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov...
[8] http://healthland.time.com...
[9] http://www.sciencedirect.com...
[10] http://www.gamasutra.com...
[11] http://law.justia.com...
[12] http://gadgets.ndtv.com...
[13] http://www.springerlink.com...
[14] http://articles.cnn.com...
[15] http://asia.gamespot.com...

Phoenix_Reaper

Con

Phoenix_Reaper forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
baggins

Pro

My opponent has unfortunately forfieted. It is possible he is busy playing video games!

Since this was 4 round debate, we still have at least one more round for debate - before we conclude in final round. I will extend all my arguments and wait for his response.

Phoenix_Reaper

Con

I forfeited a round which means my opponent wins by default. I have not been able to keep up with debates as of late. I sincerely apologize to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 3
baggins

Pro

It is unfortunate that my opponent did not find the time to debate this issue. I am sure it is due to some unavoidable reason. I wish him best of luck with whatever he is occupied.

This was not the way, I wanted to win this debate. But my arguments stand unchallenged, so the voter should vote PRO.
Phoenix_Reaper

Con

Look above.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by hazmanassir 2 years ago
hazmanassir
as for myself , dont you think that violent video games actually enhance our critical thinking as it gives benefit towards us in a suitable n appropriate time. for instance , someone is trying to get in to your house such as a burglar or thieve. with our critical thinking of playing violent video games, we'll actually implement it in that incident or particular situation. dont u think so ? we will gain some techniques or skills for hiding or tackling someone or violent communication skills that have in the video games really helpful when this case or incident occurred in our live. even though it occur sometimes as one in a million days . but it will give us benefit . dont you ?
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
There is research on long term behavior, but the research rarely shows any bad effects from heavy game playing. Only one study showed a small correlation, and in that one case the cause and effect were not established.
Posted by baggins 5 years ago
baggins
@ RoyLatham

Till now there has not been sufficient research to show video game cause long term violence and aggression. There has been research which proves that players of violent video games are more likely to be in fights in real life. However proving causation is more difficult. It is possible that violent people are more likely to be attracted to violent video games.

Absence of research was the reason it was my point number 3.
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
Pro obviously wins easily, since Con didn't show up.

The problem with the social research that allegedly shows harm is that while there are very short term bad attitudes, there is no research showing bad long term effects. Video game fanatics are no more violent than those who don't play. It's like watching an action movie with lots of car stunts. That's likely to change responses to immediate questions about fast driving per "Yeah, it's really cool.", but it actually doesn't change driving behavior. The Japanese experience is that it's cathartic rather than exacerbating. ... Not that there aren't exacerbaters on this site ...
Posted by baggins 5 years ago
baggins
This debate was part of a tournament. We discussed many possible topics through PMs. Funny thing, this particular topic was proposed by him. He also asked me to instigate.

BTW, it is quite likely that he got busy in something else. That can happen to anyone.
Posted by badger 5 years ago
badger
at a glance anyway.
Posted by badger 5 years ago
badger
i completely agree with him. it's just too late for me.
Posted by Kinesis 5 years ago
Kinesis
It's somewhat annoying (and ironic) that the more effort someone puts into a round, the more likely their opponent is to take one look at it and go 'oh jeez, I can't take that on' and forfeit. I'd like to take you on with this issue sometime, baggins.
Posted by baggins 5 years ago
baggins
Some form of regulation will be needed. However, I might support self-regulation or more clear warning labels over violent video games or mandating game companies to advertise risk of improper use - rather than prohibiting or controlling the nature of game development itself. The nature of action required is not a subject of this debate.

Video Games of the sport cricket are video games. No problem with that. However the sport cricket also uses computers nowadays for making tough umpiring decisions. That does not make the sport 'cricket' a video game.

I explained the resolution rather than defining it. Feel free to add definitions if you want to. Just make sure your argument does not hinge on a particular definition.
Posted by Phoenix_Reaper 5 years ago
Phoenix_Reaper
Also since we are not looking for a solution, or regulation result, is it just a manner of proving if gaming does harm.

I also disagree with your stance that sports games are invalid as they are pat of our current gaming society.

Again I apologize for waiting until now.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Adam_The_Analyst 5 years ago
Adam_The_Analyst
bagginsPhoenix_ReaperTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: I was looking forward to a good debate =/
Vote Placed by SuperRobotWars 5 years ago
SuperRobotWars
bagginsPhoenix_ReaperTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Epic Fail, he could have followed my example: http://www.debate.org/debates/playing-sports-is-way-better-than-sitting-at-home-and-playing-video-games/1/
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
bagginsPhoenix_ReaperTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited and did not debate, a great waste of a good topic.
Vote Placed by Andromeda_Z 5 years ago
Andromeda_Z
bagginsPhoenix_ReaperTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited, so he has lost the conduct point. Pro's arguments were unchallenged, so he gets the points for those.
Vote Placed by CiRrK 5 years ago
CiRrK
bagginsPhoenix_ReaperTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit