why video games are good for you.
Debate Rounds (5)
my resons why video games are good for you.
On an angle, it pretty much depends on the person. Because you know, we have different way of thinking and these Pros won't imply on each person.
Only a gamer would start this kind of thread. This is one con of being a gamer. You persuade people to believe that that they need gaming and gaming is good.
I know it might or might not be a joke. Either way, you can see the streak of hatred of the commenter to his parents. And he is obviously a gamer. (Only a gamer would say that). One reason why it was obvious was the way he responds to people in the comments. The people were contradicting him. And he was like "Welcome to the internet b*tch." And I'm like "H*ll no this isn't the internet, you are making your own world, f*g."
Now explain how gaming is good here.
One more story: About the Psycho Dad destroying his son's video games. Well, I wouldn't believe that was true. It was pretty much for a show. I mean, too Overacting. BUT, Another commenter said: "Kick his dad's *ss though he paid for those video games blah blah blah." It's too nonsensical to read. But same goes my reaction. I would be happy if you could explain this.
Addiction is one of the most severe con of being a gamer. But as I said it, it won't imply to everyone. It's really depending on people if they want it to be their distraction or plain entertainment.
Let me give you a little example. A man had his PS4 technically broken, then he raged broke everythings in their house.
A gamer who had his console hidden and has raised his voice against his mom and hasn't eaten for several weeks.
Let me say it again. It depends on the brain thinking of the beholder. Let's be neutral.
that just depends on the person. some people become more social.
i didn't admit to anything. i just copied what you said but most people have a reaction ot one of the things in the list i posted first.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 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||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Both had adequate conduct. S&G - Con. Aside from Pro's first round, which was plagiarized, he never capitalized at the start of sentences. I saw no such issues from Con. Arguments - Con. Not only did Pro plagerize his entire first round from multiple sources (as evidence by simply copying his argument into a google search) Con was able to show how his claims were subjective at best. Pro conceded to that fact in R4. For these reasons, Con wins arguments. Sources - Tie. Neither utilized sources in this debate.
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.