The Instigator
flamingbutter05
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ThinkingPunk
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

schools should allow kids to play video games at break

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...
ThinkingPunk
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/7/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 638 times Debate No: 60158
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

flamingbutter05

Pro

Schools should allow kids to play video games at break
ThinkingPunk

Con

Kids should not be allowed to play video games during breaks (assuming breaks during classroom hours). I will not post any arguments this round in order to give my opponent a chance to have the same amount of rounds for which to make his argument.
Debate Round No. 1
flamingbutter05

Pro

Ok what if theres a new kid nobody likes? He dosent know around the school and is always left alone what will he do at break the best awnser is play video games to spend the time also kids can do multiplayer at games and they can learn about cooparation and teamwork they can have fun playing video games at school then playing at home since they cant have friends at thier house forever.
ThinkingPunk

Con

There is many problems with playing video games in between times of needing attention however, as well as other inhreent issues.
Firstly, children (and adults) who play videos games have a slight decrease in attention span over the long term. To be honest, this can be combatted easily, and the benefits outweigh the cons when the video games are played during certain times (notably, after all attention required activities are finished). However, playing video games also has a DRASTIC negative impact on the immediate attention span, for about an hour (varying) afterwards. This means that children, when returning from break, will have a GREATLY reduced attention span for which to listen to their teachers and elders, and will learn, proportionately, less. Video games can be used to great effect at schools if they are structured and educational, but during break they will not be, and will be more likely to be unstructured.

Moving on, with bullying as prevelant as it is, what are the chances that a child who chooses not to play with friends, but rather to play video games on the computer, will be less bullied? The answer, unlikely, as the child, unless the games are specifically structured and tailored to multiplayer, and other kids are also forced to play multiplayer with him, will be bullied for being an outcast, and will be even more fringe than he already was.

Furthermore, while video games can inspire teamwork and cooperation, they much more frequently inspire vitriol and competition. Competition can be very beneficial for a child but, again, the effects are more powerful the sooner after the video game it is, and therefor the child will be much more competitive and aggressive than would be normally appropriate immediately following a break.

Plus, there is the issue of the necessity for mobility that children have. The early years are the most important to be physically and mentally active. Video games, while that can be mentally challenging, are not always, and they are most certainly not physical. Yes, they can increase reaction time, as well as a whole slew of other things. But, supplanting them for purely physical or mental activity, when the child (likely being an avid video game player) has a chance at already not getting enough of those activities already is a recipe for obesity, complacency, and overall apathy.

A few studies on attention span:
http://www.cnn.com...
http://www.thetowntalk.com...
http://psychcentral.com...
Debate Round No. 2
flamingbutter05

Pro

First lets say about the bullys its bullying its better to stay quiet and play video games then do so ething in fro t of the bullies that reduces the chances of getting picking on since your innocent plus if your good at video games and all your friends like video games too you might win a contest and earn fame so if people play at school too they will get better plus wanting to beat someone is a good thing.
ThinkingPunk

Con

Bullies can still attack a child on the side of the room, not interacting with peers. In fact, they are more likely to do so, as bullies almost always target the alone and defenseless, which a person playing on the computers would most definitely be both. Besides, bullies may attack the kid (for being fringe) outside of school, or may torment him at any other time during the school day, because he is so CLEARLY the out group, whereas if the child was intermingled amongst other children, he would be a harder target. And I agree that wanting to beat someone (comptetition) is a positive trait, but the amount of aggression and comptetition after playing video games is drastically increased to levels that only make cooperation all but impossible, which is also an important skill. Even team based games have relatively little teamwork, and rely mostly on the player themselves. Also, just because a child may someday, in the future, win a contest to earn modest fame does not mean that it is a justification to add thirty minutes onto the gaming schedule. Or, if you are talking about a contest within school, either mediated by the teachers or the kids themselves, there is little fame to come of that, and it is all temporary. PLus, bullies, being arseholes, are even more likely to pick on the child after winning this award, either from jealousy or because he is now even more isolated for being the sole winner. No matter what the situation, bullies are always present, a lack of attention is always present, and the need for physical and mental activity is always present.

While I am certain that many voters will have come into the debate on the side of video games, I would wager to say that my arguments are both superior and better researched, as well as more logical. I would like to ask hat people vote not on their biases, but by they truly think who won the debate. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Vexorator 2 years ago
Vexorator
flamingbutter05ThinkingPunkTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments were very thorough and were hardly refuted at all.
Vote Placed by InnovativeEphemera 2 years ago
InnovativeEphemera
flamingbutter05ThinkingPunkTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Interesting topic. Conduct was fine on both sides. It wasn't necessarily that Con had superior spelling and grammar, but Con's was not serviceable, lacking punctuation and misspelling words. Pro had some good contentions but didn't write nearly enough to support them. Had he presented his case more strongly I might have voted in his favour. Con's argument, while not perfect, were better articulated and more logical. While Con did supply some material to read, I would have liked to have seen footnoting and explicitly relevant references to contentions; too much of your speculative argument had no supporting evidence, although your opponent provided none whatsoever. Interesting topic but you can both refine your skills!