Video Gaming Should Be An Olympic Sport
Debate Rounds (3)
"The act of playing video games."
"A digital world that usually involves objectives and is controlled by a player."
"A human being who interacts with video games."
"A communal, usually competitive, human activity that involves mental and physical effort to accomplish a given task(s)."
"A sport that is chosen for its versatility and challenge, that usually involves the best performing players, and that is - in modern times - a publicized, televised competitive event which occurs over a certain period of time.
(3.) Burden of Proof:
The burden of proof is shared between PRO and CON.
PRO must satisfactorily prove the resolution to be true.
CON must satisfactorily prove the resolution to be false.
(4.) PRO's Opening Argument:
Since the Greeks began the Olympics with a few, physically demanding sports, the famous competition has grown to include unoriginal sports, such as fencing, bobsled racing, and synchronized diving. At the same time, the popularity of the modern biannual event has skyrocketed due to the increased amount of state participants, athletes, and citizens. The Olympics is also lucrative for a wide variety of factors. First, the host state receives exposure to both its nationality and marketable goods. Second, advertisements on television reach an enormous audience. Third, live audience tickets to the Olympics are in high demand and are, therefore, expensive. Considering now it historic evolution and commercial nature, imagine how much profitable the Olympics would be if competitive video gaming was included!
II. Arguments in Favor:
A). Video games can be played communally as a competitive sport. Although not overly physical, video games still require light-speed thinking, even quicker reflexes, and remarkable strategy to win at highly competitive tournaments. Therefore, video games meet the definition of a sport and should be qualified for consideration.
B). Video games have an almost ubiquitous appeal and modern cultural significance. From ERB to PewDiePie, TellTaleGames to Markiplier, Disney to CaptainSparklez, the video game culture pervades the modern world. The Olympics would be wise to harness the popularity of video games to its advantage.
C). Video games would make the Olympics more profitable. By adding diversity, video games would attract more viewers and thereby more monies to the Olympics, specifically from the younger demographics. The addition would not necessarily disinterest older demographics because there would still be other intriguing sports to watch.
For primarily these three reasons, video games should be added as an Olympic sport.
This is a topic that is important to me and it is one that I hope to debate well.
Thanks for reading; I await my opponent's acceptance and opening argument.
- Mr. Speaker
1. "I think the Video game should not be just Olympic Sport."
Poor grammar and spelling aside, I think what CON is trying to say is that... I don't know.
Is CON saying that video games should be MORE or LESS than an Olympic sport? His use of "just" is ambiguous.
Even so, this is just a claim; there's no evidence here. Thus, there's nothing to refute.
2. "Because Some people can want other games which is not Olympic sport..."
Ok, this is actually an argument. Yet, as I have said before, the Olympic games has evolved over the years to include modern sports, like fencing. Given that video games are at a record popularity and have a permeating cultural significance, it follows that video games deserve to become an Olympic sport, where players can watch and learn from the best of the best. For those who dislike video games, they can go watch another sport on the TV. No harm, no foul. Only benefits.
3. "and People have their human right which shows they can play the game whatever they want."
Well, of course I agree! My proposal does nothing to infringe on the fundamental right of human liberty. To the contrary, my proposal enhances the liberty by including video games as an Olympic sport, where players can choose to compete against each other on a much larger stage in front of a massive, global audience. I do not see how this argument is germane to this discussion.
I have responded to CON and do await his responses in Round 2.
- Mr. Speaker
and In the video game, there is some types of game which is not allied with video game such as star wars, etc. so If the video game turn to Olympic sports, any sports game will not replace it.
1. "I think NOT all Olympic sports are not evolved - just parts of sports evolved. such as crossbow,etc."
I has to read this several times before I could understand it. CON, please improve your sentence structure!
Basically, CON says that Olympic sports don't evolve entirely. Instead, CON maintains that they change over time partially.
I will concede this because it's a factoid that is irrelevant to this debate. So what if sports change partially? Why should that be a reason for why video games should not become Olympic sports?
2. "and In the video games, there.... ???"
I don't get this at all.
3. "so If the video game turn to Olympic sports, any sports game will not replace it."
Huh? What does this mean?
Ultimately, I am bewildered by both CON's grammar and argument.
CON will hopefully do better next Round.
- Mr. Speaker
davidko forfeited this round.
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.