The Instigator
whitesoxfan450
Pro (for)
Winning
30 Points
The Contender
thegreats
Con (against)
Losing
12 Points

Video games are an innocent hobby!

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/12/2007 Category: Education
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,855 times Debate No: 326
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (14)

 

whitesoxfan450

Pro

There is nothing wrong with a video game! The chances of a kid going out and killing someone is almost not even existing! The Wii makes you move, so obesity is out of question. They are also a great way to communicate!

Someone ready for a fun debate? Challenge me!
thegreats

Con

First, thank you for posting this. It is an honor to oppose your statement.

I agree with some of your statements. Video games tackle obesity in a progressive way lately and true, they can be a hobby.

I negate although with the following point:

Disadvantage 1

The Uniqueness
Currently video games have been around for nearly thirty years. In that time they have evolved into many different progressions from their humble bad-pixled roots. Children are more likely to commit the actions of a character in a video game, video games require active participation, repetition promotes inclusion and finally video games are based on a solid reward system (you shoot someone, you are praised, don't and you are shot yourself). Needless to say this is not an act of violence in all games, but some do. The most commonly used would be Grand Theft Auto where games are targeted at children ages 13 and up to shoot, steal, kill, etc. These are not just people often, they're police officers.

The Solvency
Restrict video game use via the venders. I'm not going to press this seeing as I'm neg, but it couldn't hurt.

You say that video games are an "innocent hobby." First on the word innocent, shooting people who ARE innocent is not harmless. Inciting violence is not something that is alongside playing chess or debating which are much closer to the definition. Second, the word hobby is not necessarily true. Video games are careers for some and they make good money. Pushed into that is the influence of money in the rewards system and the essence that school doesn't matter as much as getting to level five.

You do not solve. You just make the situation worse. You don't have a plan to institute the stability of video games and your point goes no where, but where it is, leaving us with the impacts which leads me to...

The Impacts
1. Video games kill. The incitement of violence takes it to far. Kids can name characters off real people, and shoot them in a surreal world. It warps young minds of their own reality.

2. You can claim that video games like the wii are making a head start in ridding the world of obesity, but really does that get rid the problem originally caused by things like television and video games? I have played the wii, and frankly you can do it sitting down pretty easily. I have also played DDR and the eye-toy and though they make progress it is not as rewarding as running or playing a sport in the arena of obesity. It causes it.

3. You say that this boosts our connections but again as I said before, not as much as other activities. This is a surreal world in which people pretend to be someone they aren't. If anything, this disconects you from the real world much much more than it would ever connect you.

To conclude,

Video games cause violence, the obesity you claim to prevent, and a surreal disconnection from the real world leading to the loss of lives and in all, the downfall of a global village.
Debate Round No. 1
whitesoxfan450

Pro

On the Disad 1:

Nonunique: The probability of a child curbstomping someone from playing 5 hours of Gears of War is small. The last time ANYTHING like that has happened was about three years ago, when Manhunt came out! MUCH worse games have come, and this hasn't happened. I just played Halo for about an hour, And I played about 50 people. NONE of them have gone out and killed anyone in the last year!

Solvency: Yes, shooting people isn't innocent. But you can't claim a game like Mario Brothers "juvinile!" Thats what I mean by Innocent. BUT: once again, the chances of a kid going out and killing is small. Also, the ESRB rates games, and it is illegal to buy an M-Rated game under 18, so the only way for a kid to get it is a PARENT. No good parent would buy a game like that for a kid with a problem!
2. Yes, hobby is true. Video games are mainly used as a quick output for fun. It HAS come to a point where there are gamer jobs, but most gamers are just either kids, or adults around 35.(Except for Wii gamers, which I will get to later.) And in my house, SCHOOL BEFORE GAMES. It's the parents job to control it, and it shouldn't be taken as a juvinile crime.
3. What exactly do you mean by the stability of video games? Please explain.

Impacts(Answers):
1. Video games don't kill. Not many cases of kids having warped minds. I played Mortal Kombat when I was 4, I'm not a killer! Not all games are violent, so video games in GENERAL can't be seen as bad. Some are even educational!(Leapster,Vsmile, etc)

2. It actually does rid the problem. Games are DESIGNED to make you get up, and games are in production so that you CAN't sit. Wii fit is an example. It comes with a balance board, so you must get up. Also, Wii sports DOES require Some movement! DDR is the same idea. Also, think about if it is raining, or snowing, or even cold. Would you play baseball in the snow? The Wii is also used in Rehab, so when people CAN'T go outside, they get excersize. And think about if you have the chicken pox, or something. Can't leave your house? Play Wii, DDR, Eyetoy, or Etc!

3. It actually does boost connections. I can't play baseball with my friends in China, India, or anywhere else BUT my town everyday, but I can with a game system. I also use my Xbox 360 as commmunication with my cousin in California!(Im in Illinois) We have fun, and talk at the same time. I am not saying that you should play video games ALL the time(I do agree some fresh air is needed every once in a while) But I am saying they aren't bad, and are ok.

In conclusion,
Video games RARELY cause violence, are changing to help keep in shape, and can help network the world.

Thank you for a fun debate! I thought debating about video games would be a fun change from the Iran, Iraq, war stuff! Good luk in the next argument!
thegreats

Con

On the Uniqueness: It's not about probability that someone is going to kill someone. It's that it happens a notable amount of time. Devin Moore, a minor killed three people in 2005 in the name of Grand Theft Auto. A year later Warren Leblanc, in London faced the death penalty for the brutal murder of a peer causing headlines like "murder by playstation" for the incitement to violence caused by yes, Manhunt. Still games like 50 Cent Bulletproof, God of War, 300 and Manhunt cause what lawyers would even charge as copycat crimes. Meaning that the deeds done within the surreal world and mimicked by actions outside. Inciting violence to kids at such a young and a lot of the vulnerable age is dangerous. I think what you're saying is basically like guns don't kill people, people kill people. Lots of people own them, but they don't all shoot each other. I am saying that, yes, games don't kill people, people kill people but games have a responsibility to not incite that violence and to not enable people to kill people. I could go to a shooting range with fifty people and I can bet none of them will murder someone. Crime is not rational. That's why it is crime: it is an act of irrationality by irrational people. When you enable irrational people, already slightly not in the real world with an escape the line becomes blurred. Words like "innocent" are the kind of lack of seriousness that the companies and government need understand are not what the families of Ace Mealer, James Crump and Arnold Strickland who were killed by Mr. Moore would call it.

Solvency:
1. I'm not claiming the Mario Brother is juvenile. The original argument you made was general, about all video games. I'm saying that some video games, and coincidently the most popular video games incite violence. You can crossiply my arguments above to your killing statement. The ESRB ratings, as you, if you play video games frequently probably know it is very, very easy to get a video game rated M if your a minor without your parents knowing. Getting it with a parent is not the only way. You could get someone else older to buy if for you and very often the vendors will sell it to you without question.
2. Yes, gamers are just kids and playing video games isn't a juvenile crime, but murder is. And incitement to murder is. And sadly some people, when it comes to the reward system.
3. As you being the affirmative it's like part of the burden of proof lies with you and you don't carry it. You talk about how it stops obesity and makes connections, but don't impact this at all. Negative saves more lives and strides further in a better direction of awareness then affirmative.

Impacts:
1. Crossiply. Video games don't kill, true. They incite. I'm not calling you a killer or video games in general bad, but your plan was general. And as I said before, it's not the video games, it is how they warp the minds of vulnerable people to make them irrational. Irrational people commit crimes.
2. It doesn't matter what they are designed to do, they are designed to get results. They don't get results. You can sit. If you choose not to, that's great, but if you're lazy you don't. As for being stuck inside: I'm not going to exercise at all if I'm sick and DDR, eyetoys and Wii are still models that don't compete at all with real exercise.
3. Connections made are over a surreal playing field. You don't know their names, you don't know anything about except if they play well. They aren't relationships. They are solid deontology. You use them to achieve a means.

In conclusion negative again, save lives and I can't stress that enough. They negative saves live, affirmative doesn't. Video games are a deonological playing field of people who can deal and those who can't. Those who can't decide what is real and what is not kill and it is because of video games.

Thank you too! This is a good debate, I meant to bring up the army and laziness but don't have time. Good luck to you too.
Debate Round No. 2
whitesoxfan450

Pro

whitesoxfan450 forfeited this round.
thegreats

Con

thegreats forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by tyger2057 9 years ago
tyger2057
Its not really a big problem on video games anymore.

The government in the U.S. has tried a lot. Including various programs, schools now serve all baked food.

The rating system on which games are based on protects them from being taken off the shelves.

On the violence issue. There is a difference between an unstable person playing them and a stable person.
Posted by zainie143 9 years ago
zainie143
it depends on the people playing...there should be a time for video games...it should not be in all times..
Posted by Klashbash 9 years ago
Klashbash
Video games provide a relief from the stresses of everyday life. Instead of physically taken out anger on an actual person, a video game could be played instead. Not to mention the mind stimulating and therefore beneficial games such as Starcraft.
Posted by chuuuer 9 years ago
chuuuer
Thegreats, keep in mind GTA has an M-rating which means you have to be at least 17 or older to buy it. So video games aren't marketed to kids 13 years and younger.
Posted by arcrep85 9 years ago
arcrep85
I do not think the issue of kids killing other kids because of the games is as big of an issue as the amount of time that can be wasted playing these games.
Posted by whitesoxfan450 9 years ago
whitesoxfan450
I'm saying about an hour or 2 a day(Thats about how much I play)
Posted by Neruda 9 years ago
Neruda
Are you saying the occasional video game, maybe three sessions a week, or constant video game use, let's say 4 hours every day?
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by LedLegend 8 years ago
LedLegend
whitesoxfan450thegreatsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by d-bate241 8 years ago
d-bate241
whitesoxfan450thegreatsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by turtlecool2 8 years ago
turtlecool2
whitesoxfan450thegreatsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by DeATHNOTE 9 years ago
DeATHNOTE
whitesoxfan450thegreatsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by richguy_69 9 years ago
richguy_69
whitesoxfan450thegreatsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by jamie_l_2oo6 9 years ago
jamie_l_2oo6
whitesoxfan450thegreatsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by coolgurl56 9 years ago
coolgurl56
whitesoxfan450thegreatsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by soccergamer92 9 years ago
soccergamer92
whitesoxfan450thegreatsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by tyger2057 9 years ago
tyger2057
whitesoxfan450thegreatsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Ambition 9 years ago
Ambition
whitesoxfan450thegreatsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03