The Instigator
John6867
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
RaalTheWyvern
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points

Virtual Gaming

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 1 vote the winner is...
RaalTheWyvern
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/26/2014 Category: Games
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 724 times Debate No: 49943
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

John6867

Con

Virtual Gaming Should be illegal because it will be very expensive and instead of making a virtual game that will cost a lot of money use that money to fix the streets and for schools.
RaalTheWyvern

Pro

Glad to accept this topic.

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 [1]. 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 [2], 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.

[1] http://www.gartner.com...
[2] http://www.bankrate.com...
Debate Round No. 1
John6867

Con

It would also pose as a threat because it is connected to their brain and thoughts. And how would they be able to turn it off without death or brain damage?
RaalTheWyvern

Pro

If you have evidence of any kind of gaming device that connects directly to the user's brain, please present it.

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 [1], and a possible slowing of beta waves [2]. However, users would no longer experience the dizziness and/or nausea after acclimation to the system [1], 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 [3].

[1] http://www.technologyreview.com...
[2] http://www.wired.com...
[3] http://www.brainwavetraining.com...
Debate Round No. 2
John6867

Con

John6867 forfeited this round.
RaalTheWyvern

Pro

Forward previous arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
John6867

Con

But what if there was a more upgraded version of it that has not been made public?
RaalTheWyvern

Pro

*If* there is an upgraded version of current virtual reality systems that is not yet public, it is likely because the system is still undergoing quality testing, etc. If you are aware of such a device undergoing testing, then please present evidence of it for the sake of the debate.

Additionally, you have yet to present any evidence of how interaction with virtual reality interfaces can cause serious harm.

Forward all previous arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
John6867

Con

John6867 forfeited this round.
RaalTheWyvern

Pro

As my opponent has not presented an argument for this round, I forward previous points, once again.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by xoskeleton99 3 years ago
xoskeleton99
Actually the us army developed a video game a few years ago.
Posted by lightingbolt50 3 years ago
lightingbolt50
Con is a absolute idiot that's been watching to much SAO.
Posted by lolsyourallthick 3 years ago
lolsyourallthick
you absolute hippy basterd
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Christian_Debater 3 years ago
Christian_Debater
John6867RaalTheWyvernTied
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 
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.