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

Video gaming is not a sport

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/13/2016 Category: Games
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 756 times Debate No: 92668
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




This is for anyone gamers to try and prove that video gaming is a sport.

Round 1-accepting the challenge
Round 2-debating
Round 3-debating/rebuttaling


I accept the challenge, and I do think gaming can be a sport.
Debate Round No. 1


Video gaming does not fit the criteria to be an actual sport. The definition of a sport is "An activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment:" Baseball requires skill to be able to throw with such accuracy. Golf believe it or not takes a whole lot of skill to be able to hit the ball into a hole that"s four and a half inches big. Video games take sitting in a chair and holding a controller or a mouse to be good at them. That"s not a lot of skill, right?

Firstly there is nothing physically exerting about sitting on a chair in front of a screen for hours on end. Sports require physical activity! If the people playing the video games were actually doing what they did on the screen in real life in some kind of monitor then that could be a sport but they"re not. Sitting on a couch in a dark room for hours on end with energy drinks piled around is not the same as playing football against a real team that"s ready to bulldoze your team into the ground just to win. The day that people think that moving your fingers is physically exhausting will be one sad day that I hope will not happen for a long time.

Secondly gaming has no strategy. People say that first person shooter games have strategy like flanking the other team or setting up an ambush. But in reality most gamers usually don"t talk to their pre-assigned team. Nor do they usually work together and even when they do, it"s only to tell their teammates where the other team is. First person shooter games are all about looking through the scope of your gun a.k.a. the little dot in the middle of your screen that helps you with your aiming. There is no strategy in that. Even sports video games like Madden have no strategy. Do gamers seriously look at replays from their opponent"s team to narrow down the list of plays that they should use? I doubt it. They probably just choose the coach"s pick and coast with that.

Chess is a mind sport. Video games are not. Where chess uses a complex strategy of moving chess pieces so that they will draw out the king, Street Fighter uses pressing buttons as fast as you can to beat up your opponent. That"s not much of a mind sport material. Is shooting as many people as possible in a certain time limit a lot like chess? Not really, in fact that sounds more like the front lines of a war. And most first person shooter games have none of the strategy that it takes to actually win a real war. Video games can"t even qualify to be a mind sport. Mashing the buttons on a controller until you get sore fingers and hand cramps is really not up to par with the strategy it takes to win at chess.

Finally video games take no skill. If they actually required skill people would get frustrated with them because they see the game as too hard. That"s why not everyone wants to play a sport. A sport is difficult because it requires skill. Video games are easy because they require no skill. Of course there"s always those who talk about how fast gamers reactions are. Technically a gamer"s reaction is only with the move of a finger on a controller with conveniently placed buttons. Compare that to having to react with your whole body to return a tennis serve that"s going 140 mph. That is literally trying to lunge your whole body across the tennis court in less than half a second to return the serve. Think of all the goalies in sports like hockey and soccer that have to move their whole body to save a goal. The reaction time of a video gamer, even a professional is laughable compared to real sport reactions.

When you really sum it up, video games are just entertainment and hobbies. Video games are not up to par with real sports. They lack the skill and physical exertion required in a sport and therefore do not qualify to be a sport.


To start off, I want to clear up some of the misconceptions that my opponent has about gaming and gamers, and point out some of the mistakes he made. Firstly, not all gamers sit in a dark room 24/7 surrounded by energy drinks. I am a gamer but also love playing sports.

1) You say that there is nothing physically exerting about sitting in a chair, but there is also nothing physically exerting about sitting around a table and moving a few pieces around a board. You may say that chess is a mind sport, but does this not still count as a sport?

2) Gaming definitely has strategy. In games such as Counter Strike - Global Offensive, communicating with your team and coming up with a strategy is key to winning the game. The strategies in CSGO are also more complicated than "flank the other team" or "setting up an ambush." And yes, I do look at replays of other games so I can learn how to play the game better.

3) I responded to the mind sport thing in my first point.

4) Video games definitely require skill. Why don't you go play against a professional CSGO player and tell me that video games take no skill. Also, people do get frustrated with games and see them as too hard.

5) Aren't all sports technically just entertainment and hobbies? That's kind of the whole point.

Overall, I feel that video games are just as qualified to be sports as football or chess.One last note, use ' instead of " when making a contraction.
Debate Round No. 2


I would firstly like to point out that I know what normal video gamers do. Maybe normal video gamers don't sit in a dark room 24/7 but I do know that most video gamers play on their PC/console for hours on end. I also know that professional video gamers probably do sit in a dark room with energy drinks when they supposedly "train". I too am a gamer but I love sports a whole lot more. To associate video games at the same level of a sport is somewhat insulting to all the real athletes in the world.

Secondly I"d like to point out that I said that chess is a mind sport. That means that chess mainly focuses in the mental challenge more so than the physical challenge. Now don"t jump to conclusions that now video games can suddenly qualify for mind sports. Like I said before, video games take no skill or strategy. My opponent claims that he/she watches replays to improve himself/herself. That isn't strategy. Anyone can do that, what I was asking is if my opponent watched videos of the opposite team that he/she is going to play to narrow down the supposedly "plans" and "strategies" they have. I doubt that my opponent creates complex plans that have more than four parts to them which proves that video games do not have the amount of strategy that it takes to win at chess. Video games have only simple strategies that do not even qualify to be in a mind sport.

Thirdly I'd like to ask how complicated your strategies are in CSGO. Are they really more complicated than "flanking the other team" or "setting up an ambush"? I doubt it otherwise my opponent would have backed his/her point with explaining one of these "complicated" strategies. I doubt that when you play CSGO that you're thinking "Oh, we have to set up a three pronged attack". My opponent obviously has a very odd way of playing video games.

Fourthly I'd like to ask how playing against a professional CSGO player has anything to do with proving that video games require skill. If I played against a professional CSGO player I probably wouldn"t do very well but I'd still be able get a few kills. That's because the game is partly luck based. Now let"s have that professional CSGO player play some one on one field hockey with me. I would destroy him/her and he/her would never get a single goal because sports are not luck based. That's another difference between video games and sports. Now let's let this professional CSGO player play against a professional tennis player and the tennis player play CSGO. It would probably come out the same as with me. The tennis player would get some kills. Now let"s get on to the professional CSGO player playing tennis. With the supposedly "amazing reaction" skills that this professional CSGO player should have then it should be a no brainer that this'll be an even match right? No, not right, not even close. The professional CSGO player would only be able to look as the professional tennis player got ace after ace after ace. Voters, the difference between a sport and a video game is literally that the video game is the lazy version of sports. Video games are like a mod. You apply them to sports and suddenly sports are easy when all you"re doing is looking at a screen moving your fingers.

Fifthly we have to draw a line between what"s a sport and what's not. Technically piano could qualify to be a sport if video games were allowed to be a sport. The piano takes a lot of mental focus and skill to be able to perform well. It is competitive and it has more physical exertion than video games. So why isn"t piano a sport? Because piano doesn"t have enough physical exertion to qualify just like video games. If we don't draw a line between what's a sport and what"s not then academics could be the next thing wanting to qualify as a sport.


Sauerkraut forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by datGUUYY 2 years ago
Ok, i still agree with sourkraut, but I'll admit Panda won this round
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by datGUUYY 2 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: There were no spelling or grammar issues on either end. neither side used sources because no sources were needed to prove points on either end. I say that Pro used the more convincing arguments, despite his limited views on gaming; he clearly has never played Starcraft or League of Legends. (SERIOUSLY NO STRATEGY IN ANY VIDEO GAMES EVER???? HOW DOES THAT MAKE ANY SENSE!!!! YOU CAN'T PUT GAMES INTO A BOX LIKE THAT, THERE'S MORE THAN JUST FIRST PERSON SHOOTERS!!!!!!............ and with that rant out of the way, i will continue.) I'd say, even if con had as much content as pro throughout his arguments, just because he forfeited the last round, he lost on the "convincing arguments" side. Also, it would have been better if he mentioned games aside from counterstrike.