should schools use video games to teach subjects?
Debate Rounds (5)
Now, I am a teenager (my profile says I'm 41, but this isn't true.) Just today, we were playing a video game in class that was related to physics. The teacher provided us a work sheet and asked that we answer the questions based off of what was depicted in the video game.
I hardly completed it; I got distracted and started playing the game, and totally forgot about the assignment. I turned it in on time - sloppily, of course. And most of my class didn't complete it.
Looking back, I hardly remember anything that I learned off of participating in that activity.
My point is: the fact that it is a GAME will distract students. They will play the game without benefiting from it, because in their minds the point of a video game is to win. Not to learn anything.
My experience today only deepens my position: video games will distract students. They may enjoy it, and may find school a bit more entertaining; but my problem is whether or not they are learning. This is what my argument is going to be focused on for the next four rounds.
Imagine how long it would take to complete that problem. They'd have to build an entire house on MineCraft just to solve one problem. And then there is the hassle of getting the program turned on - which may take a few minutes. And you would not be teaching your students the same things at the same time, because not all of them would have access to a computer at that moment.
Teachers would not enjoy this, and although students may find it interesting, it would take forever for them to complete it.
And who would pay for this? Taxpayers? I'm sure those struggling to survive would not approve of their hard-earned money being turned around and used for video games. Also, schools are struggling right now to come up with adequate funds - I'm sure the installation of the equipment used to play MineCraft is pricey.
My argument is that, while students may have fun, there is a good chance that they won't complete their work OR finish it sloppily due to the excitement of playing games such as MineCraft.
Your idea seems like a neat way to improve student involvement - but it isn't time efficient. Students would benefit from a quicker, more efficient system; not a slower system. They would gain more in a classroom that was efficient.
Utilizing games such as MineCraft may seem cool, but in my perspective it is a time-wasting, tax money-spending idea that wouldn't benefit students in the least.
hashtagmugger forfeited this round.
Video games, as I stated previously, will have a negative effect on education. Why?
First, most students associate video games as being "fun". This will encourage learners to have a new idea of the classroom - one that is more "fun" and little hard work is required. It will make students believe that their own personal entertainment is above the hard work required in a classroom.
The opposite should be occurring - we should inform our younger generation that no matter how boring a subject is to them, they should still work hard. This is required in real life, in the work force; bosses don't care about how entertained you while on duty, but how well you do your job. And even if it is a tad boring, they should still work hard and achieve - not complain and whine about it.
Secondly, I would like to restate my opinion on funding for these video games. I don't think those that can't hardly afford essentials would appreciate their tax money being spent on things such as video games. I don't. I think it is a waste of money; we should be spending tax money on teachers' salaries or other such essentials in education. And, currently, most schools are lacking funding, and are introducing budget cuts; how could we afford things such as video games?
"Traditional skills such as critical thinking, reading, writing and math are being forgotten so that shortcuts can be taken and the classroom can be "fun". Let's stick with fulfilling the purpose of schools instead of creating a new one."
I extracted this from an article entitled "Video Games are Useless in Education'. I believe that it sums up my argument perfectly. You can find it at: http://staytraditional.blogspot.com...
One last point - before we started to consider student entertainment, the USA was number one in education, in all subjects across the board. But when we began to reshape the classroom to fit the wants of the students, we began to fall behind.
The US is now rated just "average" compared to other nations around the world.
We need to stop reshaping the classroom to fit the students' wants; this includes video games. We need to consider traditional methods of educating our younger generation, and reintroduce those back into the classroom.
Hopefully, voters will see my side of the argument and will consider the negative effects of video games in education.
I appreciate your criticisms; I am happy to rebuttal.
1. "i didnt forfeit i forgot that i was arguing with an idiot"
Pardon me and my word usage - however, according to Debate. Org, you did. No matter whether you forgot or you just didn't have enough time is beside the point. When a debater doesn't argue within the indicated time, 4 big, red letters fill the space: hashtagmugger forfeited this round. Sorry for getting off track, but I had to make that clear.
2. " its simply peaking the interest of students compelling them to solve the problem"
As I stated previously, we can't keep shaping the classroom to fit the wants of the students. The workforce does not fit the wants of adults; why should we teach our younger generation that whining can get you anything you want? We need to reintroduce traditional methods of education into schools, methods that were used when our educational rankings in the world were much more substantial. We can't keep taking shortcuts to make sure that the classroom is "fun"; we need to stick with fulfilling the purpose of schools instead of creating a new one. I pulled that statement from Jilleen Rickard's quote.
3. "with your argument about what will pay for it well some kids might volenteer or teachers"
I want to emphasize that word - might. This is what your entire argument is based on. Students, or teachers, might volunteer to buy these video games. They might learn from these games. Your argument isn't full proof - might does not mean 100%. Your argument is based on assumption. Mine is based on tried-and-proved methods of educating our students. No one can deny education was better before the students' wants were considered.
4. "yes tax payers its still an education and is still highly supported by our government."
Let's spend tax money on proved methods of educating our students. Let's spend our tax money on the hiring of more teachers, which will get class sizes small, which, in turn, ensures that our younger generation is well-educated. Let's spend our tax money on bettering our school environments - new textbooks, etc. These things have been proved to help students with their learning.
Introducing video games will require more budget cuts to an already cut budget. Teachers are being laid off, textbooks can't be replaced. Our budgets are already too small to afford the essentials - how could we afford video games for every class in every school?
And is it really supported by the government? Provide me some proof. And don't let it be partisan - let it be an unbiased support that is between both liberals and conservatives.
In closing, I want to apologize if I offended you. I'm glad you didn't completely forfeit - this debate topic excites me, and I think it excites the voters. Perhaps they can decide on who has more logic when it comes to this topic.
Your argument makes little sense to me.
First off, you may believe what your school has bought with taxpayer money is not beneficial - however, this is an opinion. Administration might see a need for appliances, desks, books, etc. If this is your argument on the topic of funding for video games, it is an opinion not backed up by fact.
I am going to sum up my argument so that the voters may understand my stance a little bit better.
Bringing video games into the school will not benefit students, or at least their grades, in the least. It will persuade them to have a different view of the classroom, one that is a "fun" environment rather than a learning environment. My stance is that we need to stop reshaping the classroom to fit the entertainment needs of students - instead, we need to reintroduce traditional methods that have provided us with much better scores in the past.
This past - say, pre-1970 - was one that provided a much better education for children. The USA was the highest in the world across the board - math, reading, physical education, you name it. Teachers were stricter on students. Students had a clear idea of what "respect" meant. It was a great time for American education.
Starting in the 70's, educators began to reshape the classroom - and not in a way that made it stricter. They introduced the value of student entertainment - which has proved to have a negative effect on the state of the American education system. Video games fall under this category.
Today, the USA is rated "average" compared to many other world leaders.
What made the classroom convert to a "fun" environment? Students began to whine - and ultimately got what they wanted: a more-laid back, "fun" classroom.
But grades - in all subjects - have been slipping. The classroom is less strict, and students don't treat their teachers with as much respect. It is a shame that this has happened to the once-world leader in education.
We can't let this go on. Again, I say that we need to reintroduce traditional methods of teaching in the classroom. These "fun" ways of doing things need to be redesigned, rethought. And, unfortunately, video games do not need to be a method of teaching in our classrooms.
Video games will further increase this image of "fun" within a class environment - while students goof off and don't truly play the game to understand it. They play it to go onto the next level, and then forget what they learned. They'll only play to play. They won't play to learn.
And, public funding for video games seems inappropriate to me, at least in this economy - when our schools have tight budgets and are laying off teachers, you want to further these budget cuts? No. Small class sizes is a proved way to improve grades and increase student understanding. Video games are not.
My opponent argued that our government strongly supports the use of video games in schools, but failed to cite anything that would agree with this.
So, voters, it is your ultimate decision - do you vote for the argument that is inconsistent and shaky, or the argument that is more factual and pro-proved methods. Whether it is the finical side of the argument that you vote for, or the role of video games in education, please vote for the debater that uses logic over opinion. Vote for the debater that uses proved methods of educating students to back up his argument. Vote for the argument that is true.
Thank you, hastagmugger for debating with me. I look forward to the feedback from the voters. I'm sure we will receive a lot.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 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: Pro should have won this debate. He needed to provide a few examples of successful application of software in the video genre that has taught successfully, and that would establish that it ought to be used as part of teaching. However, Pro only argued that there ought to be such application, not that there were any. That's not enough. Pro's S&G was so poor as to make is arguments hard to follow, and he lost conduct for forfeiting and for insulting has opponent. A great deal has been written on this subject, but neither side had any references. Search something like "video games used as teaching tools" to find useful sources.
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.