The Instigator
AquaBlue64
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
yixuan
Con (against)
Winning
81 Points

Video games are detrimental to the modern day society.

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: 2/23/2010 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,721 times Debate No: 11266
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (20)
Votes (13)

 

AquaBlue64

Pro

I challenge my opponent to prove that video games are indeed not detrimental to our society.
yixuan

Con

I would like to thank the Pro for the opportunity to voice my opinion about how video games are not detrimental to the modern day society.

Now before i start, I would like to inform the voters that and Pro, since we are in the same school, have agreed to certain rules which I would like to re-implicate since he is terrible at following directions.
I. cursing or foul language prohibited at the risk of automatic forfeit
II. arguments must be plausible, concise and properly cited

Now I would like to begin my argument of why i think video games are detrimental to the modern day society.
Since Pro did not write anything re-iterating or useful for the 1st round, I will begin.

I like to begin with several definitions taken from the Word-Web dictionary:
Video game- A game played on a computer (or other device) using computer graphics for display
Detrimental- Causing harm or injury

While I do not agree with how the video game marketers market slogan for some video games aimed at children, such as:
"*Kill your friends, guilt free.
*More fun than shooting your neighbor's cat.
*As easy as killing babies with axes (Carmageddon). "[1]
I do believe, and hope that a proper parent will not allow a 7 or 8 year old to play video games that are too violent.

While the leading games sold are violent games, most of today's games force kids to learn complex rule systems, master challenging new interfaces, follow dozens of shifting variables in real time and prioritize between multiple objectives. In short, precisely the sorts of skills that they're going to need in the digital workplace of tomorrow.

Consider this one fascinating trend among teenagers: They're spending less time watching professional sports and more time simulating those sports on Xbox or PlayStation. Now, which activity challenges the mind more — sitting around rooting for the Packers, or managing an entire football franchise through a season of "Madden 2005": calling plays, setting lineups, trading players and negotiating contracts? Which challenges the mind more — zoning out to the lives of fictional characters on a televised soap opera, or actively managing the lives of dozens of virtual characters in a game such as "The Sims"? [L.A. Times]

"There are many people who argue that video games offer nothing but the downfall of society through a slippery slope of sex, drugs and violence. Take, for example, the Columbine High School shooting that occurred in 1999. Several people had blamed this act of violence not on an underlying issue caused by cruel peers, but evil music and violent video games. But is this really the case? As an interactive form of entertainment, are they really as bad as many people think?

Those who oppose video games cite several negative effects to an excessive amount of playing time achieved, which includes addiction, permissive behavior, an increase in social isolation, aggression, gender bias and wasted time that could have been spent learning. None of which, I may add, was used in my opponent's posts. However, not all games foster these attitudes, just like not all movies allow an outlet or a sense out rightness in aggression, promiscuity and gender bias.

Not only this, but video games are just one of many outlets that often portray underlying issues society is faced with- murder, war, ineffective governments, inequality, poverty and crime. There are various modes of education. While we should not promote video games, television and other technological ways over others, we still should not completely be opposed to these as well. Education can be found in anything, whether through social interaction, books, board games, music, video games and so forth.

What you want to learn and how you want to learn, that is up to you. It is the individual's responsibility, and his or her responsibility only, to take whatever it is that one wants to take from anything. While it is true that children are easier to influence, it is up to the parents to determine what content they want their children to be exposed to.

Just because a person reads a counter view to an issue, this does not mean that person will be persuaded to believe in that viewpoint. Just because a person reads a book in which a character imbibes in alcohol and illegal drugs does not mean the individual will then fall into that pattern. Just because a person watches a violent crime take place on a television screen does not necessarily mean that person will in turn commit a violent crime. Nor would any of these outlets justify a person's turn from the ethical rules that bind a society, or the laws themselves. At the end of the day, video games are not to blame for any action that occurs; it is the individual." [2]

"I think that video games help prepare children for today's life and technology. Many of the games require strategy and decision making skills and these are always helpful. Actually, aren't these games like computers with menu's and options? This would aid children in learning basic computer language and ops. Though they may seem like a waste of time, like most playful behavior, it is grounded in abilities that children need to practice and learn to become successful in today's world." [3]

[1] http://www.softforyou.com...
[2] http://www.nwmissourinews.com...
[3] http://www.blurtit.com...

Now that I have stated my opinion and facts about how video games are not detrimental to the modern day society, I would like Pro to counterattack my argument. Cheers.

Note- because I am a newbie to this site, and the type box was messed up on my computer, I hope the voters would forgive me if I had misspelled or omitted any necessary words or punctuations. Also, apparently the tab key does not work so I sorry I am not able to indent my paragraphs for easy reading.

Again, best of luck to Pro.
Debate Round No. 1
AquaBlue64

Pro

First of all before I start, I never freaking agreed to those dumb terms that I had to follow. I will only follow the rules on this site and nothing else. I could care less about what you say and all that bs you write and I will only present my argument based on my own beliefs and nothing else. Furthermore, you say concise? How is writing all that stuff concise? Finally, I shall begin my argument.

"While the leading games sold are violent games, most of today's games force kids to learn complex rule systems, master challenging new interfaces, follow dozens of shifting variables in real time and prioritize between multiple objectives."
Ok, so the leading games such as Modern Warfare 2 and Assassin's Creed 2 are fun. (I personally like them too because of their amazing graphics and wonderful gameplay)
However, there is a difference between fun and getting addicted. A lot of today's kids, including immature adults a well, play games 24/7, ignoring their family, ignore their jobs, and just focus on this game the whole day like gambling or getting addicted to drugs.
So you say "force" kids to learn complex rule systems? You cannot "force" someone, they must do it by their own free will as stated in the proverb, "You can lead the horse to the water, but you cannot make it drink." No matter how "educational" a game is, a child can only understand it up to a certain level. In my person experience, the only educational games I see nowadays only include leapfrog games and other such games for kids up to 9 year olds or less. Or you can add in scrabble and other mind games online which less than 5% of the population plays.
So addicted people make excuses such as, "O, this game is so educational because I learn history in it".
Ok, let's take call of duty 3 as an example. There is a historical background in it which is WWII. However, that's the only thing you know about it. Do you learn about kamikazes suiciding to destroy ships? Do you learn about the secret messages and how they communicate?

"Consider this one fascinating trend among teenagers: They're spending less time watching professional sports and more time simulating those sports on Xbox or PlayStation. Now, which activity challenges the mind more — sitting around rooting for the Packers, or managing an entire football franchise through a season of "Madden 2005": calling plays, setting lineups, trading players and negotiating contracts?"
I beg to differ with your view on this. I doubt you negotiate contracts in that video game and the only way you can do so? What, just offer money and players?
Actually, when you watch a football game, you learn how the game works and different techniques that each team uses. Also, many adults usually call up their friends to watch the superbowl together. Do you think spending time with friends and actually having a taste of real life is worse than playing a football game by yourself and staring at the screen?

"What you want to learn and how you want to learn, that is up to you. It is the individual's responsibility, and his or her responsibility only, to take whatever it is that one wants to take from anything. While it is true that children are easier to influence, it is up to the parents to determine what content they want their children to be exposed to."
That statement is very unrealistic. You actually think that parents nowadays can 100% control what their children see and what they pick up? You think that every kid doesn't watch porn behind their parent's backs or do illegal things? The video games and tv are not 100% liable, but they are at least partly responsible for this.
Ok, let's say you have a child and he goes to school. At school, his classmates showoff how much profanity they know and how "cool" they are because they smoke french fries.
Where do they pick up smoking and want to fake it?
From their parents or tv shows where they see people smoking and cursing.
"Up to the individual" eh? And you think little kids will know this? And it is around the mere ages of 10-13 where they pick up these kinds of things are even further exposed to this in high school.
Therefore, I believe that this statement is flawed in many ways.

"Just because a person watches a violent crime take place on a television screen does not necessarily mean that person will in turn commit a violent crime. Nor would any of these outlets justify a person's turn from the ethical rules that bind a society, or the laws themselves. At the end of the day, video games are not to blame for any action that occurs; it is the individual."
I truly disagree with this statement as well. As you said, it does not "necessarily" mean that they will do something wrong. But that means there is the slightest of a CHANCE that they WILL do it right? Video games are not to blame for this? Not even a little? I would advise you to look at something like this: http://forum.mmosite.com...

now you will argue that it's for 18+ kids right?
Let's see how many people below 18 play M rated games. A LOT?

"I think that video games help prepare children for today's life and technology. Many of the games require strategy and decision making skills and these are always helpful. Actually, aren't these games like computers with menu's and options? This would aid children in learning basic computer language and ops. Though they may seem like a waste of time, like most playful behavior, it is grounded in abilities that children need to practice and learn to become successful in today's world." [3]
This, I 100% disagree with. They help prepare children for today's life and technology? So you're saying that every kid would be able to know what games to play and their parents will know exactly everything that they see?
There are many departments in the gaming field. There are strategy which makes up only a small portion of it. Even if you decide to say that it is beneficial, wouldn't playing chess with a friend actually enhance one's communication skill and the ability to converse with other people about various topics?
Furthermore, there are computer classes that teach people how to use computers. When you play games, all you do is just click and follow the instructions. How might you learn basic computer language?

Finally, there is my own personal view of this.
Before computers were invented, people such as our parents did not have the luxury of video games. Did they die because they didn't have them? Did they suffer? NO
Instead, they actually benefited from this loss.
They had a wide imagination. For example, my mom was born in Hong Kong.
What did she do without video games?
For entertainment, she would make her own toys and her own games to play with her friends. They still had a merry life and they did not have the problems that we have today.
Furthermore, some companies that publish the violent and mindless video games can be called a little cold-hearted. They do not care who plays it and the do not care about whether people die or not. They only care about themselves and getting money into their little pockets.
You might argue that they do put ratings on their games?
Okay, so the parent tells the children not to buy those M or A rated games.
But with the technology now, the child can just go online and download those even more horrid games or just buy them via online if they are old enough. The parent will never have total control over what their kid does.

LASTLY, games are very addicting nowadays. Take the popular online mmorpg, maplestory.
How is it beneficial? So the parent takes a look at it and think it's fine because there are cute little avatars and the monsters are just snails?
Yes and when you play this seemingly harmless, game, it is a waste of time.
You just kill repeatedly with no brain and other immature players on there use profanity as well.
THAT proves how kids these days can pick up bad habits.

As a result,
yixuan

Con

"I could care less about what you say and all that bs you write and I will only present my argument based on my own beliefs and nothing else." You claim to care less but yet you still actively still in this debate. Furthermore, since you apparently will base your argument solely based upon your own beliefs and nothing else, I am entertaining the thought of whether or not you realized that the world is not based upon one man's view of the world, which is probably why your argument proves to be biased, as shall demonstrate clearly as best as I can in the time and space allotted to the voters Pro.

I "there is a difference between fun and getting addicted… gambling or getting addicted to drugs." I totally agree with what you are saying. There are kids and adults out in the world, especially in well-developed countries such as the US, China, and Japan, that will spend all their time glued to the screen, disregarding everything. However, the portion of people that are that committed to gaming compared to the rest of the world is extremely small, if not insignificant. After all, how many people do you know that fit your description to the letter? Since it is "based on" your own beliefs. I will discuss this point further if my opponent chose to pursue this angle.

II "You can lead the horse … less than 5% of the population plays." Pertaining to the first sentence with an adage, you could always insert a pipe down its throat while the horse it sedated. That way, the involuntary peristalsis of the esophagus will move the water down to the stomach... jk. Anyway, I completely agree with your second sentence. The brain of a child continues to grow until they reach adulthood and young children can only understand so much. Again since you are relating your "personal experience," you would no doubt be oblivious to the number of educational games out in the real world. Finally, your statistics are not clear. I know from research that the of people who play violent video games far outnumber those who use it for education, however, please take into consideration that large percentage of the population do not own gaming systems either because they are too poor to own one, or think they are useless. Again, I will discuss this point further if my opponent chose to pursue this angle.

III "So addicted people make excuses such as, "O, this game is so educational because I learn history in it".
Ok, let's take call of duty 3 as an example. There is a historical background in it which is WWII. However, that's the only thing you know about it. Do you learn about kamikazes suicide to destroy ships? Do you learn about the secret messages and how they communicate?" Okay, since I am not a fan of such games for my own reasons, I cannot answer your questions. But I don't get the point you're trying to get across. Please reiterate.

IV "I doubt you negotiate contracts in that video game and the only way you can do so? What, just offer money and players?" Please don't answer if you do not have the game and have not done any research on it.

V "Actually, when you watch a football game, you learn how the game works and different techniques that each team uses. Also, many adults usually call up their friends to watch the Super bowl together. Do you think spending time with friends and actually having a taste of real life is worse than playing a football game by yourself and staring at the screen?" True, but what is the point of such knowledge to a couch potato and his friends if they don't play football them self? Why certainly, here I am ma an educated assumption, when one gets a new game, they would invite their friends over, except for people who doesn't have any because they annoy other people. Sitting and starring at a TV screen, even with friends, is by no means a conversation starter. For huge fans of the Super bowl, they would tare at the screen all the way through. With a Super bowl video game, you are more relaxed and people tend to joke around more often. Of course, that is my opinion for the matter. I don't think you will agree with me, but at lea try to see my point.

VI "You actually think that parents nowadays can 100% control what their children see and what they pick up? ... Pick up these kinds of things is even further exposed to this in high school." I absolutely agree your statement. At this age and time, with more and more people diving into the world of electronics, we cannot know every single minute where our children are or what they are learning. On the topic of porn and other illegal things, it is obvious that you do not know as much about the outside world as you should.

VII "I truly disagree with this statement… But that means there is the slightest of a CHANCE that they WILL do it right?" You're right. There is a SLIGHT CHANCE they WILL commit violent crimes, and maybe video games are to blame. I saw the website you mentioned and I see that it is an ADULT game. If young people choose to play it, they are at the discretion of the law. After all, it seems that you think that teens can do whatever they want so long as they don't get caught. Since teens will play it anyway, it is their fault for any actions that happen after.

VIII "now you will argue that it's for 18+ kids right? Let's see how many people below 18 play M rated games. A LOT?" You have read my mind. From your sentence, I infer that you also play adult rated games? Kids are vulnerable to violence the most because they are still in development, which is why improper exposure can lead to bad deeds to be done.

IX "They help prepare children for today's life and technology? … When you play games, all you do is just click and follow the instructions. How might you learn basic computer language?" With the implosion of the non-violent area of video gaming, such as Second Life, countless companies have gone digital with meetings and important events. The slightest exposure to what it's like to function in a graphical environment will help in such situations. I am not saying that all kids will follow orders and all parents will enforce them, but kids usually know the implication of the games he plays. How many chess games have you played with your friends? Certainly less than when playing a team oriented game where partners must constantly send messages in order to accomplish the goal. You just answered your own question. Games teach kids to follow instructions closely, and as a result, improve their concentration levels. Finally, apparently, you don't understand how video games operate. Clicking are mainly for computer flash games and whatnots. There are different languages for different programs for the computer. I am assuming you are referring to the programming languages. Obviously you cannot expect a kid to understand how to write and execute programs. Kids learn functions such as how to alter the sound effects, adjust graphics, and starting and terminating programs.

X "Before computers were invented… The parent will never have total control over what their kid does." Is this a joke? Are you saying people who have video games die because of them? If you look so favorable upon the past times, why don't you stop playing video games and start making dolls and friends to play with them? Are you saying people after the computers were invented lack the creativity of older generations? I agree that almost all companies are out for the money and does not care about the life's they supposedly ruin like the cigarette companies. Again, I agree that kids are becoming more and more disobedient, but that is the cause of the buying of video games, not the effects of it.

Unfortunately, I do not have enough space remaining for the rest of my argument. However, I see that Pro might not have finished his argument. I will post my remaining argument in the next round
Debate Round No. 2
AquaBlue64

Pro

I would like to inform you that although, I do not derive any of my arguments from any site and it comes solely from my beliefs, I am sure that at least one person in the world will agree with me on this issue. As to the biased part, I would also like to tell you that humans are all biased on a somewhat way.

"However, the portion of people that are that committed to gaming compared to the rest of the world is extremely small, if not insignificant. After all, how many people do you know that fit your description to the letter? Since it is "based on" your own beliefs. I will discuss this point further if my opponent chose to pursue this angle."
How do you know that it is small? Maybe it is not as extreme as I have described it, but I am sure that 25% of the world to somewhat degree, is glued to some technology that interferes with their life.

"So addicted people make excuses such as, "O, this game is so educational because I learn history in it".
Ok, let's take call of duty 3 as an example. There is a historical background in it which is WWII. However, that's the only thing you know about it. Do you learn about kamikazes suicide to destroy ships? Do you learn about the secret messages and how they communicate?" Okay, since I am not a fan of such games for my own reasons, I cannot answer your questions. But I don't get the point you're trying to get across. Please reiterate."
It should be fairly easy to understand my dialogue. What I am trying to get across, is the fact that even though some games might seem educational in some ways, 99% of the gameplay is not related to it whatsoever.

"I doubt you negotiate contracts in that video game and the only way you can do so? What, just offer money and players?" Please don't answer if you do not have the game and have not done any research on it."
1st hand perspective is always most obvious. Research is not always as reliable as playing the game. Furthermore, stop being a hypocrite. You do not have the game nor the respective console. Also, why would you need to know about football managing if you do not plan on being a team manager? Case closed.

Why certainly, here I am ma an educated assumption, when one gets a new game, they would invite their friends over, except for people who doesn't have any because they annoy other people. Sitting and starring at a TV screen, even with friends, is by no means a conversation starter. For huge fans of the Super bowl, they would tare at the screen all the way through. With a Super bowl video game, you are more relaxed and people tend to joke around more often. Of course, that is my opinion for the matter. I don't think you will agree with me, but at lea try to see my point.
You're really funny. Instead of trying to be sardonic and directing your insulting comments at me, I prefer you to polish up your logic. So sitting in front of the tv playing the video game is not being a couch potato. Have you ever seen people at the bar or at the stadium? They cheer for their teams and scream so loud. Staring at the tv watching? I think not.

On the topic of porn and other illegal things, it is obvious that you do not know as much about the outside world as you should.
And here you have no evidence supporting your statement?

If young people choose to play it, they are at the discretion of the law. After all, it seems that you think that teens can do whatever they want so long as they don't get caught. Since teens will play it anyway, it is their fault for any actions that happen after.
O, so you're saying the teens are the ones that are totally in fault? If there were no games like this, they wouldn't be in that situation would they? It's the same thing as saying the drug dealers are not at fault at all, the ones who buy from them or completely at fault? Furthermore, I never said that they can do whatever they want. People should answer their own conscience and everyone knows what is right and what is wrong.

From your sentence, I infer that you also play adult rated games? Kids are vulnerable to violence the most because they are still in development, which is why improper exposure can lead to bad deeds to be done.
Blind assumption much? I do not play adult rated games and the most that I play is modern warfare 2 which is m rated. Please sort out our facts before accusing someone of something that they do not do. And you just answered your own question. Kids are vulnerable. Duh, that's why there shouldn't be those video games influencing them?

"The slightest exposure to what it's like to function in a graphical environment will help in such situations. I am not saying that all kids will follow orders and all parents will enforce them, but kids usually know the implication of the games he plays. How many chess games have you played with your friends? Certainly less than when playing a team oriented game where partners must constantly send messages in order to accomplish the goal. You just answered your own question. Games teach kids to follow instructions closely, and as a result, improve their concentration levels. Finally, apparently, you don't understand how video games operate. Clicking are mainly for computer flash games and whatnots. There are different languages for different programs for the computer. I am assuming you are referring to the programming languages. Obviously you cannot expect a kid to understand how to write and execute programs. Kids learn functions such as how to alter the sound effects, adjust graphics, and starting and terminating programs."
I laughed at another blind assumption. So you think that playing online and im'ing can make up for playing a chess game and experiencing the game with your friend right ahead of you? Im'ing does not make up for the invaluable human communication skills that you acquire from playing with your friend and actually looking at him.
Clicking is mainly for flash games? How about your little educational games like scrabble and monopoly? Finally, I totally disagree with how games teach kids to following instructions. That is one of the main reasons that video games are bad. You follow instructions and acquire no imagination of your own. You do not need to think, all you do is follow the instructions? People should have their own imagination, their own view of the world. What is the difference between them and a robot then? they just follow a set rule that you must complete in order to level. What is the point of that?

The parent will never have total control over what their kid does." Is this a joke? Are you saying people who have video games die because of them? If you look so favorable upon the past times, why don't you stop playing video games and start making dolls and friends to play with them? Are you saying people after the computers were invented lack the creativity of older generations? I agree that almost all companies are out for the money and does not care about the life's they supposedly ruin like the cigarette companies. Again, I agree that kids are becoming more and more disobedient, but that is the cause of the buying of video games, not the effects of it.
This is totally uncalled for. I never said that people who have video games die because of them. That is your own assumption again. And yes I am saying that people who now play video games and just know how to follow a set rule in order to pass a level or the game has a horrible imagination and creativity compared to their ancestors. The people that make the games, yes they have a good imagination, but the ones that play it and are absorbed into the game are the followers, not the leaders.

I look forward unto my opponent's next set of arguments but I strongly advise you not to blindly assume things that I never said nor implied.
Good day.
yixuan

Con

In this round, I will be arguing several new aspects of video games and reiterating some older matters.
"I am sure that at least one person in the world will agree with me on this issue. As to the biased part, I would also like to tell you that humans are all biased on a somewhat way." Of course there's bound to be at least 1 person who agrees with you. After all, there are nearly 7 billion people on this planet. I'm not saying people are not biased, but facts are not supposed to be. You can't just say something that you believe and pass it as a fact without research.

"I am sure that 25% of the world to somewhat degree, is glued to some technology that interferes with their life" Of course people are glued to technology, gadgets such as the watch and weapons and the radio, not so much nowadays, have impacted people all around the world.

"What I am trying to get across, is the fact that even though some games might seem educational in some ways, 99% of the game play is not related to it whatsoever." Really? 99% of games are not educational? Where did you learn that? In fact, I have evidence to dispute your 99% non-educational games statistic:
Type of Games Played Most Often:
11% (Persistent Multi-Player Universe)
14% (Downloadable games such as Bejeweled)
16% (Action/Sports/Strategy/Role Play)
47% (Puzzle/Board/Game show/Trivia/Card)
12% (Other)
Puzzle/Board/Game show/Trivia/Card combines to make a whopping 47% of all games played. Puzzles are certainly educational in that it trains the player to envision the big picture and utilize the smaller pieces. Board games, not so much, encourages socialization from player. Game show games, such as Jeopardy requires you to have an immense amount of knowledge to win. Same goes for trivia games. Card games such as poker and blackjack requires careful consideration from serious players, increasing their ability to strategize better.
http://karlkapp.blogspot.com......

"1st hand perspective is always most obvious. …Case closed." Certainly 1st hand perspective is always more obvious, but do you have 1st hand perspective? Have you played through the whole game? Furthermore, if you think video games are detrimental to society, why do you play such things? Face it, life revolves around the little inconspicuous things. People have a tendency, in order to make other people be jealous of them, of being knowledgeable of certain things even though they have not participated in the actual event.

"So sitting in front of the tv playing the video game is not being a couch potato. …I think not." I have never been to a stadium before because I am poor, and I have never been in a bar since I am not of age yet, so I don't know the exact response to such events. If they don't stare at the screen, how can they know what happened?

"You think that every kid doesn't watch porn behind their parent's backs or do illegal things? On the topic of porn and other illegal things, it is obvious that you do not know as much about the outside world as you should. And here you have no evidence supporting your statement?" Sigh, I was hoping you would understand my implication. Certainly not every kid watch porn, some, like in China, cannot because of governmental censorship on search engines, others because they are aware of the consequences of their actions. 42% of youths age 10-17 had constantly seen Internet porn in 2006. That means more than half of teens do not watch porn more than once.
http://74.125.93.132/...

"O, so you're saying the teens are the ones that are totally in fault? …People should answer their own conscience and everyone knows what is right and what is wrong.?" Teens in part are at fault because they are at a point of age where they are forming their own view of the world and can judge their actions adequately most of the time. We can't know completely if whether or not they would be in certain situations if they did not play such video games. It is completely different than dealing drugs. How many illegal drug users create their own animated show? (I write about famous people who play games later in this piece.) That was just one example, however, since we are not debating whether or not video game creators have malicious intent toward the player or not, I will not pursue this topic further. On the topic of right and wrong and the conscience, there is no such thing as a line drawn between the two, and the world is not just monochrome. Something that is right in one instance might not be the right choice in another.

"I do not play adult rated games and the most that I play is modern warfare 2 which is m rated. …Kids are vulnerable. Duh, that's why there shouldn't be those video games influencing them?" You don't? But didn't you write that all kids do illegal things behind their parent's back? I would certainly include playing adult rated games as one of them. It is the job of the parent to be responsible for the well being of their children, but unfortunately, that is often not the case. Video games may influence them, as we have concluded previously, but much more things influence kids than video games. Peer-pressure, cultural assimilation, desire to fit in, behavior of adults around them, etc. Furthermore, if you look at this list: All of the top games listed are rated E, with the exception of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, which is only #8 and the game that you play, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, which is ranked #16. Violent video games do NOT dominate the industry in any way, shape, or form, until the media puts a spin on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org......

"Im'ing does not make up for the invaluable human communication skills that you acquire from playing …What is the point of that?" I completely agree with you. I have even written a thesis on such topic. Well, I have to say, scrabble and monopoly aren't MY little games, since I did not create them. Following directing is essential to a functional society. For example, in an educational environment, the teacher expects you to follow his/her criteria, and I know this for a fact because I have experienced it, being enrolled in the most prestigious high school in New York City, and those who does not comply receives zeros. In an employer-employee work zone, the employee must obey and follow instructions at the risk of being fired.

"I am saying that people who now play video games and just know how to follow a set rule in order to pass a level …are the followers, not the leaders." Again, please at least do background checks before you write anything. The creators of South Park Matt Stone and Trey Parker play video games, but are they unimaginative? The website below lists ten famous people who play World of Warcraft, a video game.
http://timesonline.typepad.com......

Now some new angles:
I Video games lead to new technology.
Video game companies are always looking for new technologies to give themselves a competitive edge in the gaming industry. This technology is then replicated outside of video games. Graphic cards used for video games are used to give more accurate MRI scans, X-rays, and seismic graphs.

II Video games are used for practical purposes.
Many people use video games for physical therapy. Computer simulations are used for war training in a less costly, less deadly manner.
http://www.uspharmd.com......
http://www.wired.com...

III Video games increase dexterity for those who play them.
Video games have been proven to help surgeons be more accurate in their surgeries. That means that less people have died of surgical errors because of video games. Try telling the people who would otherwise be dead that video games have had a bad impact on society.
http://discovermagazine.com......
http://www.upi.com......

IV Video games create jobs.
http://www.nintendo.com...
These points have been brought up by mongeese from http://www.debate.org...... And I would like to discu
Debate Round No. 3
AquaBlue64

Pro

I can see that my opponent has failed to comprehend my argument and is misleading the readers as well.
"Of course there's bound to be at least 1 person who agrees with you. After all, there are nearly 7 billion people on this planet. I'm not saying people are not biased, but facts are not supposed to be. You can't just say something that you believe and pass it as a fact without research."
In a debate, both points of perspective are both opinions, not facts. There are essentially very few things that can be passed as a fact. If you say that you find statistics via researching, how do you know that the number is still the same now? How would you know that it's exact and it can't be a mistake? What's the point of a debate if all you're doing is just copy and pasting ideas from various articles and not putting any of your own personal idea and opinions into it? Then what's the difference between the debate and just copy and pasting words from sources?

"I am sure that 25% of the world to somewhat degree, is glued to some technology that interferes with their life" Of course people are glued to technology, gadgets such as the watch and weapons and the radio, not so much nowadays, have impacted people all around the world."
This I did not state. Stop forcing words down my throat.

"What I am trying to get across, is the fact that even though some games might seem educational in some ways, 99% of the game play is not related to it whatsoever." Really? 99% of games are not educational? Where did you learn that? In fact, I have evidence to dispute your 99% non-educational games statistic:
Type of Games Played Most Often:
11% (Persistent Multi-Player Universe)
14% (Downloadable games such as Bejeweled)
16% (Action/Sports/Strategy/Role Play)
47% (Puzzle/Board/Game show/Trivia/Card)
12% (Other)
Puzzle/Board/Game show/Trivia/Card combines to make a whopping 47% of all games played. Puzzles are certainly educational in that it trains the player to envision the big picture and utilize the smaller pieces. Board games, not so much, encourages socialization from player. Game show games, such as Jeopardy requires you to have an immense amount of knowledge to win. Same goes for trivia games. Card games such as poker and blackjack requires careful consideration from serious players, increasing their ability to strategize better."
You obviously cannot comprehend my statement because you did not read it thoroughly enough. I said the GAMEPLAY of games that seem educational have 99% content that are not educational. For example, take COD 3 which has the background story of WWII. Besides this fact and the opening story, I do not see anywhere that any educational reference is included in the gameplay. Furthermore, the statistics only apply for computer games. "I do not know much about the outside world"? I think this statement fits you better. All you know about are online games. Did you ever see chess games for consoles in videogame stores?

"1st hand perspective is always most obvious. …Case closed." Certainly 1st hand perspective is always more obvious, but do you have 1st hand perspective? Have you played through the whole game? Furthermore, if you think video games are detrimental to society, why do you play such things? Face it, life revolves around the little inconspicuous things. People have a tendency, in order to make other people be jealous of them, of being knowledgeable of certain things even though they have not participated in the actual event."
Really, I never said that I had 1st hand perspective and nor do you since the only games you play are online. I have actually played similar football games before so I have a slight idea of it. You, on the other hand, can't have anything to say because you didn't even own any consoles before.

"So sitting in front of the tv playing the video game is not being a couch potato. …I think not." I have never been to a stadium before because I am poor, and I have never been in a bar since I am not of age yet, so I don't know the exact response to such events. If they don't stare at the screen, how can they know what happened?"
You're funny. So you think people sit on the chair in the bar and just stare quietly at the screen the whole freaking day? Uh no, the obviously order beer and chat loudly. If they're not in the bar, they go to a friend's home to watch the superbowl. And OBVIOUSLY, they do not just sit there the whole entire game. They don't need to go to the bathroom according to you right? Furthermore, staring is not the right word. More like watching.
stare-to gaze fixedly and intently, esp. with the eyes wide open. I
I seriously doubt that they would fix their eyes intently at their screen eh?

"You think that every kid doesn't watch porn behind their parent's backs or do illegal things? On the topic of porn and other illegal things, it is obvious that you do not know as much about the outside world as you should. And here you have no evidence supporting your statement?" Certainly not every kid watch porn, some, like in China, cannot because of governmental censorship on search engines, others because they are aware of the consequences of their actions. 42% of youths age 10-17 had constantly seen Internet porn in 2006."
Your statistics are not reliable. 9 out of 10 kids have viewed porn at least once.
http://www.temptationseries.com...
Furthermore, on this similar note and relating to video games, there are constant ads containing sexual content tempting the use to click it and play the game which usually doesn't have sexual content.
A good example of this would be Evony. So you're saying that video games tempting people with sexual ads so that they will spend money and play the game is good?
I think not.

"Teens in part are at fault because they are at a point of age where they are forming their own view of the world and can judge their actions adequately most of the time. We can't know completely if whether or not they would be in certain situations if they did not play such video games. It is completely different than dealing drugs. How many illegal drug users create their own animated show?"
How is it different from dealing drugs? You were saying how the company was not at fault for creating inappropriate games so that the teens can play it.
So drug dealers are not at fault for selling drugs because the teens apparently should be able to judge their actions?

"But didn't you write that all kids do illegal things behind their parent's back? I would certainly include playing adult rated games as one of them. It is the job of the parent to be responsible for the well being of their children, but unfortunately, that is often not the case. Video games may influence them, as we have concluded previously, but much more things influence kids than video games. Peer-pressure, cultural assimilation, desire to fit in, behavior of adults around them, etc. Furthermore, if you look at this list: All of the top games listed are rated E, with the exception of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, which is only #8 and the game that you play, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, which is ranked #16. Violent video games do NOT dominate the industry in any way, shape, or form, until the media puts a spin on it."
I would advise you to not force words down my throat anymore. I did not say ALL children do illegal things behind their parent's back. That is too extreme. Furthermore, so you're saying that the parent should be around the child 24/7 and not go to work? Yes peer pressure influences them, but where do their peers get their ideas? It all goes back to video games.
And you obviously did not do any thorough research. The most popular game of the ps3 is Metal Gear Solid 4. There is also Assassin's Creed II, Uncharted 2: Among Thieves, Bioshock, Killzone 2 and much more.
Finally, I will conclude with the fact that E games can contain violent content (just no blood).

No more room. I sh
yixuan

Con

My opponent says that I have been misleading the readers and comprehending his argument. I confess I did fail to comprehend his argument because it was not concise and did not follow, overall, a readable, at least to me, format. I will now spend the next few lines to explain as best as I could as to why I plea not guilty to his accusation of me misleading the reader.
I. Accuracy of information: I try to find the most recent article or statistics relating to my argument and I double check most of the links that I post for correctness.
II. Wording of phrases and spelling/grammar: I try to reread everything that I write, but because of time constraints, and because I'm only human, I can not possibly find every single error there is or every inconsistency. Therefore, I beseech the reader to overlook the occasional mistakes.
III. Since this is my first argument, I do not know much about the preferred format of the debates although I have analyzed the structure of other debates and read the rules and terms. Please leave a comment about anything I might have missed and I would be very grateful.
I am sorry if anything seems misleading and I will try and remember to not let it happen again if the reader could comment on what was misleading.

I "In a debate, both points of perspective are both opinions, not facts… Then what's the difference between the debate and just copy and pasting words from sources?" Certainly debates are about opinions, but the opinions have to be justified by facts. I do not give exact numbers because they are indeed changing; I only give the rounded figure. The difference is that a debate is, by definition a discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal. Copy and paste is just as the name suggest, copy and paste things.

II "'I am sure that 25% of the world to somewhat degree, is glued to some technology that interferes with their life' This I did not state. Stop forcing words down my throat." Are you sure, after all, I did copy and pasted that statement from Round 3.

III "You obviously cannot comprehend my statement because you did not read it thoroughly enough. …Did you ever see chess games for consoles in videogame stores?" Okay, let me revise my statement, you say game play of games that seem educational are 99% not educational, right? But doesn't a game like COD 3 help you more than just by telling the brief history of WWII?
It helps:
- social skills- you have to communicate efficiently
- teamwork- you need to work together
- tactic work- you have to strategize your plan for the mission
- reflexes- you have to react fast in such games
- concentration- you need to focus on the task at hand
- management skills- you have to travel and battle efficiently
and it also helps you to prepare for war etc.
Its seems that you are also "forcing words down my throat." Do you think you know me that well from the things that I told you in school? I don't seem to remember; perhaps you can juggle my memory, when I have ever said I don't play video games. I know I said I don't own consoles, but that's because I'm poor. Yes, in fact, I saw several chess games when I went to Game Stop on Thursday with my friends when we wanted to buy controllers for his Xbox.

IV "Really, I never said that I had 1st hand perspective and nor do you since the only games you play are online. I have actually played similar football games before so I have a slight idea of it. You, on the other hand, can't have anything to say because you didn't even own any consoles before." Of course you didn't, or otherwise I would be quoting you. In round 3, what you mean when you said "1st hand perspective is always most obvious?" If you did not have 1st hand perspective, then what perspective did you have to back up your statements? Everything other than 1st hand perspective is research because you have to inquire the information from others. Wow, where did you learn your deductive skills? Obviously you don't know me that well. Just because I don't own any consoles doesn't mean I don't play video games. As I have said, just last Saturday, I went to my friend's house to play Dragon Age: Origins for the whole day. Almost every Sunday afternoon, my family would go visit my dad's friend and I would play on his Wii. I don't play video games on the weekdays because of the HW and reading that I have to complete.

V "You're funny. So you think people sit on the chair in the bar and just stare quietly at the screen the whole freaking day? …I seriously doubt that they would fix their eyes intently at their screen eh?" Where did I say they just sit and not move? Did I say they didn't need to go to the bathroom? I don't think I did. Beside, they just stay in the bar getting drunk and watching the Superbowl for 4 hours, then what? Celebrate their teams winning by getting more intoxicated or lug home defeated. They can, however, go home with friend and continue the excitement by playing the video game of their favorite sport.

VI "Your statistics are not reliable. 9 out of 10 kids have viewed porn at least once. http://www.temptationseries.com......
So you're saying that video games tempting people with sexual ads so that they will spend money and play the game is good?" I believe I said in 2006, note the year, 42% of youths age 10-17 had constantly seen Internet porn, and note the word constantly. Your source dates back to January of 2002, in London. When did I say that video games that tempt people with sexual ads so they will spend money and play the game are good? But we are not debating about the nature of the advertisement of video games, just whether or not the games themselves are detrimental to society.

VII "How is it different from dealing drugs? You were saying how the company was not at fault for creating inappropriate games so that the teens can play it. So drug dealers are not at fault for selling drugs because the teens apparently should be able to judge their actions?" Is playing Scribblenauts or Drawn to Life: The Next Chapter or Wii Sports Resort or dozens of other children rated games really going to mess up a 3-7 year olds brain like drugs? People play violent games because they choose to play, don't you agree? You can't force someone to play violent games if they don't want to right? Freedom of choice. I did not say the company is not entirely at fault, after all, humans are corruptible. And most secular people aim for materialistic things, right? What better way to gain ownership of such things then to buy it with money? Now how can a CEO of a gaming company get more money? By getting more customers. How can he/she get more customers? By targeting the most vulnerable age groups: children. But since we are not arguing about how the gaming industry is detrimental to society, I see no use in pursuing this angle further. Same argument goes for the drug industry.
http://games.venturebeat.com...

VIII "I would advise you to not force words down my throat anymore. …The most popular game of the ps3 is Metal Gear Solid 4." How can you advice me on such matters that you your self have implied? Observe: Directly from round 2 "You think that every kid doesn't watch porn behind their parent's backs or do illegal things?" Let us take out the words every kid (e + k) and since the synonym for every is all (e = a), so by the substitution postulate, every kid equal all kid (e + k = a + k). (Sorry about the parentheses, but we just learned geometry last term and the definitions and theorems are still in my head.) Why would I say parents should watch their kids all day? The influence of peer pressure not only trace back to video games, it is also influenced by TV and the people older than them. When I did my research, I did not look solely on the games for PS3, but the rank of all console based games. After all, not every one who plays video games
Debate Round No. 4
AquaBlue64

Pro

Most of your statements are misleading and full of incorrect data. First of all, my phrases were completely comprehendable and the reason you misunderstood it is that apparently, you don't know the meaning of gameplay and somehow substitute or games -_-
Now back to the argument:
"Certainly debates are about opinions, but the opinions have to be justified by facts. The difference is that a debate is, by definition a discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal.
First of all, I had clicked on your links. They do not show anything since for example, the wikipedia link shows the main page of wikipedia -_-.
I never said that I disagreed with supporting opinions with justifying facts. The only thing that I found a problem in was that you were pretty much repeating everything that the sites were stating, therefore, not revealing your true opinion on the matter.

"'I am sure that 25% of the world to somewhat degree, is glued to some technology that interferes with their life' This I did not state. Stop forcing words down my throat." Are you sure, after all, I did copy and pasted that statement from Round 3."
Fine, I see it. I'm pretty sure it's a glitch because I never used the word "glued" before ever.

"You obviously cannot comprehend my statement because you did not read it thoroughly enough. …Did you ever see chess games for consoles in videogame stores?" Okay, let me revise my statement, you say game play of games that seem educational are 99% not educational, right? But doesn't a game like COD 3 help you more than just by telling the brief history of WWII?
It helps:
- social skills- you have to communicate efficiently
- teamwork- you need to work together
- tactic work- you have to strategize your plan for the mission
- reflexes- you have to react fast in such games
- concentration- you need to focus on the task at hand
- management skills- you have to travel and battle efficiently
and it also helps you to prepare for war etc."
Sorry to tell you, but you just humiliated and made yourself look like a fool. You claim that you play the wii every day, yet you don't know that there is no multiplayer for Cod3 on the wii? You never bothered to research did you?
Okay I actually played Cod3 a year or two ago, so I have a more reliable source than you.
Besides telling you a brief history of WWII, COD3 teaches you how to point your wii remote at the enemy and click.
There is none of the above related to it since it does not have multiplayer, therefore you basically just follow your "team" and go kill the computer enemy.
If you are talking about the wii on the xbox which has multiplayer, I can tell you from my experience of playing modern warfare 2 (COD6) on the p3 that you are also very wrong.
There is social skills necessary, yes it is possible to communicate by talking in the headset or whatever, but in my 200 or so games that I have played, the people rarely every talk, and when they do, they talk about going to their friend's house. Not much communication eh?
So you call groups of people randomly dispersing and killing the enemies teamwork? O fine, your comrade gets killed and then you kill enemy because they're off guard. That's teamwork right? :P
REFLEXES? You're kidding?
People just spring around either sniping, spraying, or stealth. Reflexes? You'll be dead before you have a chance to use your incredible "reflex" skills.
Concentration? What do you mean by that. I think that you wouldn't call me laying down on my bed and lazily click buttons concentration right? Furthermore, I doubt most people would be "staring at the screen intently".
Management. Not really the right word for moving around and killing successfully but that's the closest you're getting to the game. Congratulations!

"Yes, in fact, I saw several chess games when I went to Game Stop on Thursday with my friends when we wanted to buy controllers for his Xbox."
The only chess game you'll find are ones for pc. That's about as ever as you will get to one of those dumb games -_-

"Obviously you don't know me that well. Just because I don't own any consoles doesn't mean I don't play video games. As I have said, just last Saturday, I went to my friend's house to play Dragon Age: Origins for the whole day. Almost every Sunday afternoon, my family would go visit my dad's friend and I would play on his Wii."
You go to your friend's house and play his console. Uh so?
I go to my friend's house and take turns playing his ps2. Your point? I never said that you didn't play video games. I know that you don't have consoles though.
Furthermore, Dragon Age: Origins is an M-rated game, so have fun telling me that children shouldn't be playing M games.

"Beside, they just stay in the bar getting drunk and watching the Superbowl for 4 hours, then what? Celebrate their teams winning by getting more intoxicated or lug home defeated. They can, however, go home with friend and continue the excitement by playing the video game of their favorite sport."
You're so amusing bro, honestly. Since when did drinking cups of beer get you drunk? How do you know that everyone will get drunk. Also, people can go to their friend's home and enjoy with them watching the superbowl without drinking beer if you like that?
O, and according to you, apparently seeing FAKE people play FAKE football is so much more amusing than watching REAL people play REAL football, eh?

"When did I say that video games that tempt people with sexual ads so they will spend money and play the game are good? But we are not debating about the nature of the advertisement of video games, just whether or not the games themselves are detrimental to society."
You obviously do not get the idea. You see the company showing sexual ads, and you think that company is good? Obviously not. And then its that company that makes the game, so how appropriate will you think it'll be? Also, lots of people play the game BECAUSE the see the sexual ads and hope to see those same content in the game. Not detrimental eh?

"People play violent games because they choose to play, don't you agree? You can't force someone to play violent games if they don't want to right? Freedom of choice. I did not say the company is not entirely at fault, after all, humans are corruptible. And most secular people aim for materialistic things, right? What better way to gain ownership of such things then to buy it with money? By targeting the most vulnerable age groups: children. But since we are not arguing about how the gaming industry is detrimental to society"
And apparently you repeat the same mistake. If the gaming industry is detrimental to the society and it is they that make the games, you think the games won't be detrimental?

Let us take out the words every kid (e + k) and since the synonym for every is all (e = a), so by the substitution postulate, every kid equal all kid (e + k = a + k). The influence of peer pressure not only trace back to video games, it is also influenced by TV and the people older than them. When I did my research, I did not look solely on the games for PS3, but the rank of all console based games."
Buddy, this ain't math class. Leave your "smart brain" (if you had one you wouldn't be talking crap like this in a freaking debate about the effects of video games) for someone that actually cares. Also, where do you think the "adults" with a child brain gets the ideas from? Video games and TV.
Fine, you want the top games of 2009?
Let's see: the only "not violent" games super mario world and Zelda.
wanna know the rest? Resident Evil, Cod4, Halo, WoW (have fun paying every month for this game), sically everything violent :D
So, in conclusion, I still see that video games can be detrimental to our society especially when people are addicted.

p.s. I know this is very hard for you with your big ego, but try not to brag that you go to a "prestigious school" since Stuy was no
yixuan

Con

Since this is the last round, I will be closing loopholes and leaving others open for possible future debates. I really had fun debating with Pro, and in the middle somewhere, I think we switched sides and back again.

"Sorry to tell you, but you just humiliated and made yourself look like a fool. You claim that you play the wii every day, yet you don't know that there is no multiplayer for Cod3 on the wii? You never bothered to research did you?" I'm sorry, did I say I play Wii everyday? I wonder where I said that. Also, please check your spelling and grammar in future debates.

"There is social skills necessary, yes it is possible to communicate by talking in the headset or whatever, but in my 200 or so games that I have played, the people rarely every talk, and when they do, they talk about going to their friend's house. Not much communication eh?" Yet you think video games are detrimental to society. People, even in video games, rarely talk to strangers.

"So you call groups of people randomly dispersing and killing the enemies teamwork? ...Congratulations!" So I as wondering, why are we talking about this based solely on your brief experience with COD?

"That's about as ever as you will get to one of those dumb games -_-" I do deem this comment worth responding to.

"Dragon Age: Origins is an M-rated game, so have fun telling me that children shouldn't be playing M games." I thought you were suppose to be one who argues that M rated games are not for kid... Besides, I can't even if i wanted to. This is the last round.

"O, and according to you, apparently seeing FAKE people play FAKE football is so much more amusing than watching REAL people play REAL football, eh?" Especially when there is no football game on.

"Also, lots of people play the game BECAUSE the see the sexual ads and hope to see those same content in the game. Not detrimental eh?" I'm sorry, but can you show me statistical data concerning your case?

"If the gaming industry is detrimental to the society and it is they that make the games, you think the games won't be detrimental?" So, according to your theory, if an automaker is evil, the car that he makes will have an evil influence on the owner?

"Buddy, this ain't math class. Leave your "smart brain" (if you had one you wouldn't be talking crap like this in a freaking debate about the effects of video games) for someone that actually cares. Also, where do you think the "adults" with a child brain gets the ideas from? Video games and TV." I will comment on this with an sarcastic remark. Looks like someone is getting frustrated.

"So, in conclusion, I still see that video games can be detrimental to our society especially when people are addicted." Sigh, we never got to discuss the new issues.

"p.s. I know this is very hard for you with your big ego, but try not to brag that you go to a "prestigious school" since Stuy was no" Since when did I ever have a big ego? Hey, who says I'm bragging? According to you, I just copy and paste, so if the New York Times says that Stuy is prestigious, then I will copy and paste the words.

I again thank Pro for his quickness to respond to by posts and putting up some good defenses. As mentioned Pro, and I will elaborate, in an attempt to save space limits, I shorted some of the URLs for the reference websites. Unfortunately, I did not bookmark any of them, and once i find them again I will post it in the comment section. Once again I thank Pro for my first debate on this website. And I now leave it to the voters to decide which side was more convincing. It has been a great pleasure, and my sincerity to the winner. Cheers.
Debate Round No. 5
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Whyme0424 6 years ago
Whyme0424
Ok, you both have valid points whether biased or factual, just to let you know. However, you both went the wrong way about picking out your arguments. You used video games as a whole, not the seperate sub-categories. Yes, certain video games have been known to cause harm to people but not as a society. Futhe more, using only one video game as a reference is a bit asinine. Video games do have thier dark sides and they have the light, but video games no matter what anyone says the out come of whether video games are bad or not is always and will be biased, no matter how many facts are thrown in to it. Also, debates arent supposed to be a time for personal attacks, you aren't running for president. Please don't take this as a critique, but more as advice. If you need me to clarify anything up, don't be scared to say something.
Posted by Rodriguez47 6 years ago
Rodriguez47
If you irresponsible to get sucked into games rather than you're job you're just dumb (Personal Note: I'm in love with MW2). If you choose to ignore you're family...that's you're choice, invite you kids to play with you like Little Big Planet or something like that; you marriage, if that fails because of game's you never really like you're wife anyway.
Posted by Uryu52134 6 years ago
Uryu52134
and I am not ben
Posted by yixuan 6 years ago
yixuan
I don't recall mentioning that we are not all biased, besides, if you would like to have another go at a similar topic, I will gladly take the side of Pro. I'm getting tired of constantly arguing with you out of school on video games though, Ben.
Posted by Uryu52134 6 years ago
Uryu52134
O and furthermore, you really think none of the voters are a even bit biased to their view of the debate based on their experiences with video games, not on the argument?
Posted by Uryu52134 6 years ago
Uryu52134
Con has no right whatsoever to influence anyone's judgement of who has a better argument. One who actually went through the process can understand what I said better. Furthermore, con has stated that originality plays no role in debating. I disagree with this in the sense that in a debate, you must make up your own opinions and provide substantial evidence to make someone agree with you. Con has done nothing of that source, only relying on sources and statistics.

ps. he did make a badass mistake on cod3 afterall >.>
Posted by yixuan 6 years ago
yixuan
Oh, another thing "warllamas", please do not vote for who has better conduct, who had better spelling and grammar, who had better spelling and grammar, who used the most reliable sources, based upon your past experiences with videos games. After all, your opinion of the topic should not have any influence here.
Posted by gbpacker 6 years ago
gbpacker
OK, within his first sentence, the PRO lost himself the conduct point. He admitted using no sources, so he lost himself the two source points and his arguments were crap, so all points go CON. Aqua, being a jerk gets you nowhere on this site or anywhere else. CON wins for sure.
Posted by yixuan 7 years ago
yixuan
What game did you play in 7th grade?
Posted by warllamas 7 years ago
warllamas
Sure I can find some fun in video games just like anyone else can, but I remember when I was in the 7th grade I was addicted and it was detrimental to my social life and I had lost interest in hobbies and other activities. Now as I look back I realize the problems with videos games, mainly it is no different from watching TV, and people can waste a lot of time on it. Also it is artificial, I mean come on at least in a board game you can see your friends and family, but in video games you are just looking at a screen. I have not confirmed my identity yet but when I do I will vote for AquaBlue64.
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Descoladan 6 years ago
Descoladan
AquaBlue64yixuanTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Ninedump 6 years ago
Ninedump
AquaBlue64yixuanTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Vote Placed by Rodriguez47 6 years ago
Rodriguez47
AquaBlue64yixuanTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by gbpacker 6 years ago
gbpacker
AquaBlue64yixuanTied
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:06 
Vote Placed by stephenm 7 years ago
stephenm
AquaBlue64yixuanTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Darkness250 7 years ago
Darkness250
AquaBlue64yixuanTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
AquaBlue64yixuanTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Vote Placed by lliwill 7 years ago
lliwill
AquaBlue64yixuanTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by zamann234 7 years ago
zamann234
AquaBlue64yixuanTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by LastManStanding 7 years ago
LastManStanding
AquaBlue64yixuanTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07