Debate Rounds (5)
I'll assume that we are able to make arguments for the first round, as it has not been stated otherwise.
Before we begin, however, in terms of who is providing funding, are we talking about public funding (i.e. From local/state/Federal funds) or private funding? I ask as, generally, virtual (video) games are produced by privately owned companies (Eidos, Electronic Arts, etc). In any case, I'll provide arguments for the terms of both public and private funding here in the first round.
In the time that I have spent searching thus far, I am unable to find an example of a government-funded video game. The government, remember, is the entity responsible for the upkeep of the public works that you mentioned above (Streets and schools). Therefore, money is not being subtracted from the funds for road and school upkeep/construction.
In terms of the private sector, the government does not necessarily mandate how, and on what, the company will spend. While the government possesses the right to regulate business to promote public health and safety (Ex. The FDA requiring safety labels for medicine), it cannot order private companies to allocate funds for the construction and upkeep of public works, as these PUBLIC works are under governmental jurisdiction.
As for the outlawing of video games, you are talking about the illegalization of a business sector that (As of October, 2013) is worth about $93 billion . Into 2015, this value is projected to grow to more than $111 billion. Making such a large industry illegal is ludicrous, not only because of its size, but because of the potential sales tax revenue that the government could gain. Sales tax revenue that would then be able to be used, possibly, for several public works. Such as streets and schools.
Let's do some quick math: The estimated value of the video game industry in 2014 is projected at about $101 billion. From the chart in my first source, value from consoles is at about $49 billion, and we'll assume that this is from sales. Using the average state sales tax for 2014 of 5.48 percent , we can calculate that about $2,685,200,000 in taxes is generated that the government then receives. Once again, this is money that can be used for the construction and maintenance of public works such as streets and schools.
Current Virtual Reality interfaces that you are likely thinking of would be something akin to the Oculus Rift system. Interfaces such as these are not hardwired into the brain, but rather display dual images via the headset to simulate real vision. From personal experience, I can say that the experience is incredibly efficient, and that I have never suffered any ill side-effects from the use of the device. Besides myself, there has not been any official side-effect(s) reported from Oculus use that would not be associated from gaming in general.
Theoretically speaking that if there were to be a system developed that would link directly to the brain, side effects would be similar to those caused by implants used within the medical field. Side effects would include temporary dizziness, temporary nausea , and a possible slowing of beta waves . However, users would no longer experience the dizziness and/or nausea after acclimation to the system , and in the case of slowed beta waves, it could easily be remedied by the use of biofeedback systems to train the user to have more control over their own brain waves .
John6867 forfeited this round.
Additionally, you have yet to present any evidence of how interaction with virtual reality interfaces can cause serious harm.
Forward all previous arguments.
John6867 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Christian_Debater 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct is a tie because there were no insults, etc. Spelling and grammar is a tie because both candidates made barely noticeable mistakes (if any). For convincing arguments, my vote goes to Pro. Pro made great arguments against Con who didn't even attempt to refute his arguments. As for reliable sources, the point goes to Pro. Pro used sources to back up his claims, specifically about the tax revenue argument. Victory for Pro. On a side note, Con had many avenues he could have potentially taken such as addiction, changing perspectives on reality, etc. Unfortunately, he never attempted such arguments.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.