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

Video games have more positive benefits than negative ones

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 1/8/2015 Category: Games
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 847 times Debate No: 68036
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)




Since side Proposition has not posted any definitions to set up the debate, I will take on the task:
Video Games are games that are played by a human interacting with objects on the screen via a user interface, such as buttons on a console, controller or touchscreen buttons on a phone.
Case thrust:
Video games as a whole encourage negative behaviours in players.
The side that wins the debate will be the side that can show how each effect of video gaming is more detrimental/helpful to players and to society in general.
1) Inherent harm (Round 1)
2) Violent video games (Round 2)
1) "they do"
Firstly, this is not true as video games have a whole host of negative side effects not only physiologically but mentally and psychologically, as I will explain later in my substantives; such as increased risk of myopia, encouraging anti-social behaviour and subconscious negative influences.
Even if all this is untrue, this substantive is literally only 2 words. Unaided by any logic, and ungrounded in real life examples, this point can be dismissed as one that is untrue and cannot be taken seriously
1) Inherent harm
a) Anti-social behaviour
The idea is that video games encourage people to spend excessive time gaming, thus reducing important time spent with family and friends. Many people buy games because they are appealing to them, suggesting that these games are more appealing than interaction with friends and family. So this means that they have subconsciously placed these games OVER this interaction. This is bad because you are then unable to maintain meaningful relationships with family and friends, which important because maintaining them are essential to preserving the family, the building block of society
b) Increased risk of myopia
Having proved to you that video games are being placed in higher priority than social interactions, this means that protracted length of time will be spent gaming, leading to increased risk for myopia.
Debate Round No. 1


Positive effects of video games

1. Cognitive response
2 . Problem solving capabilities
3. Hand high coordination
4. Awareness
5. Social Skills (when online, despite what my adversary says
6. initiative-building
7. motivation
8. competitive nature
9. increased brain activity
10. critical thinking

In addition most researches and studies show that video games have more positive effects than negative.


Who is more useful to society, healthier and has better well-being: a bespectacled child, cooped in his dark bedroom having played video games unrestricted for the last 16 hours sniping down virtual targets and dying of fatigue? Or his twin brother attending school and socialising with his friends, building valuable friendships that will carry him through his life?

Here I am going to point out that my adversary has provided a seemingly wide plethora of reasons to prove his stance, he has provided no logical reasoning to substantiate them. I challenge him to prove them in the next round - or I shall treat them as invalid and take the debate. Also, analysing his "10" reasons, 1,2,9 and 10 are essentially the same. So are 6,7 and 8. So that leaves him with only 5 unsubstantiated reasons. Even if all this is untrue, this debate is not about throwing out plus points of both sides, but COMPARING THEM and seeing which are BETTER.
I will rebut his points in my 3rd round. I take it that seems he did not make any reference to my myopia point, he agrees with it completely.

Violent video games
The idea behind this point is the proliferation of violent video games has a negative psychological effect on children and on society. 90 percent of games rated E10+ and above have some kind of violent imagery, and violence is often portrayed as justified, fun, and without negative consequences (Iowa State University). One study found that 70% of E-rated games involved deliberate violence, and 65% reward violence or require violence to advance in the game. Studies have found that violent games promote feelings of hostility and aggression, desensitize the player to violence, and skew the player's perception of what constitutes violence. Long term effects include increased impulsiveness. Given that the brain sometimes is unable to differentiate real life and games, children are then subconciously influenced to carry out such violence in real life without understanding the consequences.
Debate Round No. 2


Con makes the assertion that someone who plays video games, is trapped in their room and has no social life. That is an assumption that is not supported by any statistics or facts. Someone is just as capable of being social and playing games, as someone who does not play games at all. In fact certain games require you to be social. RPGs teach you team work and utility and coordinating with other uses, while shooters require you to actually move in unison in order to achieve a goal. All require proper communication and the ability to coordinate (especially those online)

Con says I provided reasons with no grounding, but I linked to sources that stated and supported what I was referring too. Cognitive behavior is improved along with problem solving capabilities, which can be utilized through puzzle games and other games that require you to do hard objectives. Critical thinking and fast reflexes can be found in shooters and games that make you think on the spot in order to react properly. Awareness comes from paying attention to what is around you on the game, there are studies that support that actual transitions to real life. All of the reasons I supported are cited and supported in the sources below the first round.

R1) violence

My adversaries only contention against video games are violent video games. He fails to realize that all video games are not violent, and that most studies actually negate his contention. ( ) . They act as a catalyst for aggression in a ways, but they are not the primary cause. Teens that commit violence that play video games, often have pre existing problems that are highlighted by playing the video games. Meaning if a person that has psychological problem plays a violent video game , it can have negative effects. The same can be said if he were to go hunting though. The issue is the person not the game itself.

Pro has an extra round, id ask him to pa


josephchanke forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Shrek_sDrecKid 1 year ago
Hey I did a debate on this before and won as well. Hey, when are you going to do the Kirby VS Majin Buu debate with me? Or were you lying about the whole busy week thing because I will win?
Posted by donald.keller 1 year ago
Great :)
Truism's will lose a debate.
Posted by donald.keller 1 year ago
The last debate was about being beneficial (benefits v negatives) and so was okay. But this resolution is truism.
Posted by Beagle_hugs 1 year ago
No! They have negative, or perhaps neutral, benefits!!!!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 1 year ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: forfeit
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 1 year ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gave 10 reasons why video games have more positive benefits than negative ones. Pro additionally provided several studies and sources them appropriately. Con claims that he is going to rebut them in R3 but then forfeited R3. Thus all of Pro's points remain standing, even the ones Con grouped together which still remain without rebuttal. Futhermore, Con claims that Pro presented no logical reasoning to substantiate those 10 points, however, Con then goes on to claim that studies show this or that, yet fails to provide any sourcing to verify those claims or check the validity of the studies themselves. With all this in mind, along with the fact that Con forfeited the final round, Pro wins the debate.