Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

101 Reasons Against Video Games Being A Sport

HeavenlyPanda
Posts: 819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2016 11:06:29 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
I HeavenlyPanda will try to refute any reasons as to why video games could be a sport.
Post your reason and I will refute it.
I am for video games not being a sport.
HeavenlyPanda. The most heavenly of all heavenly creatures.
Biodome
Posts: 138
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2016 11:34:24 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/14/2016 11:06:29 PM, HeavenlyPanda wrote:
I HeavenlyPanda will try to refute any reasons as to why video games could be a sport.
Post your reason and I will refute it.
I am for video games not being a sport.

There exist competitive team events, where professional video gamers face against each other. These events are broadcast just like any other sports event, providing entertainment to huge audiences.

Note that because of this, professional video gaming falls under the definition of a sport.
HeavenlyPanda
Posts: 819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2016 2:41:08 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/14/2016 11:34:24 PM, Biodome wrote:
At 7/14/2016 11:06:29 PM, HeavenlyPanda wrote:
I HeavenlyPanda will try to refute any reasons as to why video games could be a sport.
Post your reason and I will refute it.
I am for video games not being a sport.

There exist competitive team events, where professional video gamers face against each other. These events are broadcast just like any other sports event, providing entertainment to huge audiences.

Note that because of this, professional video gaming falls under the definition of a sport.

So technically by your logic, anything that is entertainment, competitive and is pre-organized can be a sport. Therefore piano can be a sport by your logic. Therefore science competitions can be a sport, etc. You see what I mean here? If it was just competition and entertainment practically anything could be a sport as long as its competitive. Entertainment is purely subjective. A sport has to have physical exertion which you just happened to leave out. Plus it has to have skill and right now I'm not really convinced there are many skills in video games.
HeavenlyPanda. The most heavenly of all heavenly creatures.
missmozart
Posts: 306
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2016 8:01:54 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/15/2016 2:41:08 AM, HeavenlyPanda wrote:
At 7/14/2016 11:34:24 PM, Biodome wrote:
At 7/14/2016 11:06:29 PM, HeavenlyPanda wrote:
I HeavenlyPanda will try to refute any reasons as to why video games could be a sport.
Post your reason and I will refute it.
I am for video games not being a sport.

There exist competitive team events, where professional video gamers face against each other. These events are broadcast just like any other sports event, providing entertainment to huge audiences.

Note that because of this, professional video gaming falls under the definition of a sport.

So technically by your logic, anything that is entertainment, competitive and is pre-organized can be a sport. Therefore piano can be a sport by your logic. Therefore science competitions can be a sport, etc. You see what I mean here? If it was just competition and entertainment practically anything could be a sport as long as its competitive. Entertainment is purely subjective. A sport has to have physical exertion which you just happened to leave out. Plus it has to have skill and right now I'm not really convinced there are many skills in video games.

It's the difference between subjectivity (to some extent) and objectivity that differentiates art and sport.
"Bonjour" -Feu

Diqiu: "Asian men are generally perceived as more feminine..."
Me: "Are you feminine?"
Diqiu: "Hey, no!"

"Do really really really good pens turn you on?" -Hayd

"bsh1's profile pic is what the snapchat filter would look like on steroids"- VOT

"let's keep it simple and traditional :D" -Biodome
Biodome
Posts: 138
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2016 9:10:25 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/15/2016 2:41:08 AM, HeavenlyPanda wrote:
So technically by your logic, anything that is entertainment, competitive and is pre-organized can be a sport.
Not anything. It depends on the competition format. Not every competition promotes equal use of skill, individual or team effort, and sportsmanship.

Therefore piano can be a sport by your logic.
No. I am not aware of any piano competitions that fall anywhere near the format of current sports competitions. I assume you could make one. It would be really artificial though, like two players or teams racing against eachother, trying to determine who could play certain notes faster or something like that.

Therefore science competitions can be a sport, etc.
Could you provide an example here? I don't see what you have in mind. Science is a very general term. A sport is always clearly defined, with exact rules and goals, promoting individual or collective effort that is by its very nature conpetitive and provides entertainment to observers.

You see what I mean here?
I see what you're trying to do, but what you're saying doesn't support your conclusion. I am not saying saying that anything can be a sport if you make it competitive.

If it was just competition and entertainment practically anything could be a sport as long :as its competitive.
Again, I am not saying that mere competitiveness is a sufficient criterion for something to be a sport. You are misrepresenting my position and your arguments don't address what I have said.

Entertainment is purely subjective.
Yes, but it does have a definition, which can be reasonably applied.

A sport has to have physical exertion which you just happened to leave out.
Why is physical exertion necessary? Many definitions that I have seen allow for non-physical activities. I agree that a sport is usually a physical conpetition, but mind games, such as Chess, can be fully considered as sports - even the International Olympics Committee recognizes that. Why are video games different?

Plus it has to have skill and right now I'm not really convinced there are many skills in :video games.
Have you actually tried and played a competitive video game, such as those from the first-person shooter or MOBA categories? You will be surprised how much skill is actually necessary.
HeavenlyPanda
Posts: 819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2016 11:23:13 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
"Video games are a sport because they have competition and are broadcasted. Because of this, video games are a sport" is practically what my opponent said. Here is the definition of sport "an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment." [1] Broadcastig has nothing to do with what qualifies as a sport. Just because I'm playing basketball and a TV company isn't filming us does not mean I'm not playing a sport. You seem to think that there is a rigid format for sports. As the sport definition states, it has to be competitive and entertaining. Therefore piano is more qualified than video games. Individuals or teams (duet, quartet) play against each other and are judged. They do not all play at the exact same time. That would be impossible to judge.

A science fair by your logic could be a sport. It is a pre-organized competition that has rules. You only addressed competition and entertainment in your first point and then stated that those qualities make a sport.

Why is physical exertion necessary? Lets pull up the definition of sport but take out the physical exertion. "an activity involving (physical exertion and) skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment." An activity that an individual or team competes against each other. Entertainment and skill is all that is needed. Now monopoly could be a sport. Any board game could be a sport. This is practically the definition for game. The physical activity is the difference that makes a sport a sport and not a game. A video game is a game. See it even has game in it's name. And that's because it doesn't have any physical exertion in it.

"Many definitions that I have seen allow for non-physical activities."
Like what? Give an example.

Chess is a rare occurrence of a game being made into a sport. Why is that? Because of the mental abilities are absolutely ridiculous in it. The difference between video games and chess is that chess has a lot more strategy. It's a mind sport.

The "have you actually tried" point is not a valid point. I too could say "have you actually tried to play Fantaisie Impromptu?" As for FPS games, they take relatively little skill. You have a dot in the middle of your screen even when your not looking in your scope, the aim assist is absolutely ridiculous in some of those games. Round a corner and see an enemy, no need to even actually aim because of aim assist. Do basket ball players have a little dot in their vision that helps them aim? Do the basketballs gravitate towards the hoop when it gets close? No, because in real sports there is no aim assist. There is no little dot in the middle of your vision that allows you to see where your aiming. You'd be surprised how much skill is needed for a sport. The players are extremely good when they make the sport look effortless just like a pianist is good when their playing looks effortless. Video games don't really have that because all the player is doing is sitting in a chair staring at a screen. I too could say that watching the TV is a sport. I mean there is a remote control and its practically the same as video games.

[1] https://www.google.ca...
HeavenlyPanda. The most heavenly of all heavenly creatures.
Biodome
Posts: 138
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2016 12:28:44 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/15/2016 11:23:13 AM, HeavenlyPanda wrote:
Broadcastig has nothing to do with what qualifies as a sport. Just because I'm playing basketball and a TV company isn't filming us does not mean I'm not playing a sport.

You're right, and I didn't imply otherwise. The reason I mentioned broadcasting is because I wanted to emphasize the entertainment aspect of it. We are not talking about casual physical activity here, we are talking about professional sports, which have international federations that support them, organize massive tournaments and attract public engagement.

If you think that casual video gaming isn't a sport, then, of course, you're right. But competitive video gaming, in my opinion, is a sport. Official community and tournaments, public engagement and the creation of a competitive atmosphere is what makes an activity a sport.

Individuals or teams (duet, quartet) play against each other and are judged. They do not all play at the exact same time. That would be impossible to judge.

You're confusing arts & musical competitions with sports competitions. Sports, by their very nature (i.e. clear and defined rules & goals) promote competition between people. People do sports because they look for competition, and people watch sports because they enjoy watching such competition. Playing piano is an art, and there are no rules or goals. You can play as you like.

Of course, you can certainly judge art and award the most skilled players, but you will never see the familiar sports competition format applied to a piano competition. There is no "International Piano Federation" that turns piano players into opponents, for the entertainment of the spectators. There is no ELO rating system, the are no "World Champions" or "No. 1 ranked teams" of piano players. Judging art is subjective, while sports, as I've mentioned, have exact rules and goals - you reach that goal, you win, and you are rewarded. You don't "win" by playing the piano. It's not why people play the piano.

A science fair by your logic could be a sport. It is a pre-organized competition that has rules.

Could you give an example of such rules and the competition format? You might be able to think of something, but I am willing to bet that it's going to look completely artificial and that it won't represent the spirit of science or what science is really intended for.

Why is physical exertion necessary? Lets pull up the definition of sport but take out the physical exertion. "an activity involving (physical exertion and) skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment." An activity that an individual or team competes against each other. Entertainment and skill is all that is needed. Now monopoly could be a sport.

Would you consider stamina as one of the criteria of what makes something a sport? I might as well just show to you that video games require stamina and prove to you that video games are sports in this way.

As for Monopoly, I wouldn't see it as a sport, because there is too much of a luck/chance element in it. I believe that the outcome of sports competitions should be determined by individual or collective physical and/or mental skill & effort, not the roll of dice.

The physical activity is the difference that makes a sport a sport and not a game. A video game is a game. See it even has game in it's name. And that's because it doesn't have any physical exertion in it. "Many definitions that I have seen allow for non-physical activities." Like what? Give an example.

For instance, Wikipedia has no problem including games into their sports definition. Of course, you're going to attack the validity of Wikipedia, but they do actually cite a reasonable source: https://web.archive.org...

Chess is a rare occurrence of a game being made into a sport. Why is that? Because of the mental abilities are absolutely ridiculous in it. The difference between video games and chess is that chess has a lot more strategy. It's a mind sport.

How would you quantify the amount of strategy required? FPS and MOBA games require vast amounts of tactical and strategical knowledge - there are actually strategy theory books published on those video games. Chess has a larger library of tactics & strategy theory, but it might be just because chess is an ancient game.

Chess can be made into a sport because it encourages competition by its very nature, rules and goals. Similarly, video games can be made into sports for exactly the same reasons.

If you would accept chess as a sport, then you should accept video games as sports. The amount of strategy is not what promotes something into a sport, and this criterion of yours doesn't seem reasonable.

The "have you actually tried" point is not a valid point. I too could say "have you actually tried to play Fantaisie Impromptu?" As for FPS games, they take relatively little skill. You have a dot in the middle of your screen even when your not looking in your scope, the aim assist is absolutely ridiculous in some of those games. Round a corner and see an enemy, no need to even actually aim because of aim assist. Do basket ball players have a little dot in their vision that helps them aim?

This is a ridiculous oversimplification. It seems evident to me that you don't actually know what you're talking about. A "dot in the middle of your screen" might be sufficient for a casual player, having fun with friends at home, but it's nowhere near what is expected of professional players. Hell, they even undergo real-world military tactics and strategy training to apply this knowledge in their games.

This discussion of ours is getting pretty extensive. Would you be interested in doing an actual debate on some of the points that we've disagreed on?
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2016 4:52:35 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/15/2016 8:01:54 AM, missmozart wrote:
At 7/15/2016 2:41:08 AM, HeavenlyPanda wrote:
At 7/14/2016 11:34:24 PM, Biodome wrote:
At 7/14/2016 11:06:29 PM, HeavenlyPanda wrote:
I HeavenlyPanda will try to refute any reasons as to why video games could be a sport.
Post your reason and I will refute it.
I am for video games not being a sport.

There exist competitive team events, where professional video gamers face against each other. These events are broadcast just like any other sports event, providing entertainment to huge audiences.

Note that because of this, professional video gaming falls under the definition of a sport.

So technically by your logic, anything that is entertainment, competitive and is pre-organized can be a sport. Therefore piano can be a sport by your logic. Therefore science competitions can be a sport, etc. You see what I mean here? If it was just competition and entertainment practically anything could be a sport as long as its competitive. Entertainment is purely subjective. A sport has to have physical exertion which you just happened to leave out. Plus it has to have skill and right now I'm not really convinced there are many skills in video games.

It's the difference between subjectivity (to some extent) and objectivity that differentiates art and sport.
One could say that's problematic though. It's rare to hear chess or solving mathematical problems being called a sport (except the Mathematics Olympiad), while most people would consider figure skating to be one.

I think 'sport' is, like 'game', a pretty good example of Wittgenstein's idea of family resemblance. Most of them are competitive, have objective standards, involve significant physical activity, etc. The more criteria something satisfies, the more likely one is to consider it a sport, but there are many borderline cases.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
HeavenlyPanda
Posts: 819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2016 8:46:13 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
I see now that we are only talking about professional gaming now. So you concede that gaming that is not professional is not a sport right?

Official community and tournaments, public engagement and the creation of a competitive atmosphere is what makes an activity a sport.

Therefore piano could be a sport by your definition. The Frederic Chopin International Piano Competition is one of the most important piano competitions in the world. This piano competition is for the greatest pianists all around the world. There are several levels that pianists need to pass to go on to the final round. This is extremely competitive since it is the best pianists from all around the world. [1] And that is just one out of many piano competitions.

Playing piano is an art, and there are no rules or goals. You can play as you like.

There are rules to piano. Of course you can improvise on the piano but usually there are rules otherwise piano playing would be chaotic. A quarter note is only played for so many beats in a measure. If there were no rules music sheets would just have a bunch of dots strung onto one line. As for piano having no goals, then what's the point of playing piano. Of course piano has goals. To complete a song, to become the best, to be a professional pianist, to perform, these are examples of goals.

There is no "International Piano Federation" that turns piano players into opponents, for the entertainment of the spectators. There is no ELO rating system, the are no "World Champions" or "No. 1 ranked teams" of piano players.

The World Federation of International Music Competitions organizes over 120 music competitions. [2] This shows that piano competitions are just as organized as sports competitions. And Beethoven could technically be the no. 1 pianist. ELO systems do not make a sport. Technically if that were true DDO could be a sport and do you count DDO as a sport? Probably not. World champions are decided by who wins the most prestigious piano competition. Therefore I have proven that piano is just as competitive as video games. Gymnastics is a sport and it is not judged by rigid rules. It is judged by a jury. Diving is a sport that is judged by a jury. Your kind of right when you say that you don't win by playing the piano. You win a competition by practicing the piano which is technically playing it. Just like you don't "win" when your practicing your accuracy of shooting in basketball. This is all the same for pretty much all instruments like violin, etc.

Stamina is technically endurance. I don't see how video games improve your endurance. I will await your explanation on that.

The definition that you provided was from Wikipedia. Here is the definition from the Oxford Dictionary. "An activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment:" [3] As we both know, the Oxford Dictionary is more of a reliable source than Wikipedia. [4] Considering that the Oxford Dictionary is just a dictionary rather than Wikipedia being an unreliable source of information, the definition I have provided has more credibility. And the definition that you provided is not official. They are deciding on it. Even you said that monopoly shouldn't be a sport and monopoly is a game.

FPS and MOBA games require vast amounts of tactical and strategical knowledge - there are actually strategy theory books published on those video games.

So what, Minecraft has published books about it, does that make playing Minecraft a sport?Give me examples of strategies that people use in those first person shooter games. Are they really as complex as chess? You seem to emphasize the fact that competitiveness is mainly what makes something a sport. But like I've proved before, piano is extremely competitive so therefore by your logic it could qualify to be a sport. The criteria of a sport is individuals or a team competing against each other, physical exertion, skill and entertainment.

Prove to me that professional video gamers go to study military strategy tactics. You do agree though that there is a little dot in the middle of the screen to aim with. I am trying to point out that real sports do not have all these little tricks like aim assist, jump and strafe.

[1] http://www.pianotea.com...
[2] http://www.wfimc.org...
[3] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
[4] http://public.oed.com...
HeavenlyPanda. The most heavenly of all heavenly creatures.
Mikal
Posts: 11,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2016 9:19:04 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/14/2016 11:06:29 PM, HeavenlyPanda wrote:
I HeavenlyPanda will try to refute any reasons as to why video games could be a sport.
Post your reason and I will refute it.
I am for video games not being a sport.

I would debate this if you would like :)
HeavenlyPanda
Posts: 819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2016 9:32:06 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/15/2016 9:19:04 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 7/14/2016 11:06:29 PM, HeavenlyPanda wrote:
I HeavenlyPanda will try to refute any reasons as to why video games could be a sport.
Post your reason and I will refute it.
I am for video games not being a sport.

I would debate this if you would like :)

I prefere not to bit if you want to send me a challenge and be clear about what kind of video games we are talking about.
HeavenlyPanda. The most heavenly of all heavenly creatures.
Mikal
Posts: 11,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2016 9:37:40 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/15/2016 9:32:06 PM, HeavenlyPanda wrote:
At 7/15/2016 9:19:04 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 7/14/2016 11:06:29 PM, HeavenlyPanda wrote:
I HeavenlyPanda will try to refute any reasons as to why video games could be a sport.
Post your reason and I will refute it.
I am for video games not being a sport.

I would debate this if you would like :)

I prefere not to bit if you want to send me a challenge and be clear about what kind of video games we are talking about.

Computer Games, consoles , etc
HeavenlyPanda
Posts: 819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2016 9:40:50 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
Ok just post your points here. I don't really feel like debating because there's always a cap on words and time.
HeavenlyPanda. The most heavenly of all heavenly creatures.
missmozart
Posts: 306
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2016 7:47:38 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/15/2016 12:28:44 PM, Biodome wrote:
At 7/15/2016 11:23:13 AM, HeavenlyPanda wrote:
Broadcastig has nothing to do with what qualifies as a sport. Just because I'm playing basketball and a TV company isn't filming us does not mean I'm not playing a sport.

You're right, and I didn't imply otherwise. The reason I mentioned broadcasting is because I wanted to emphasize the entertainment aspect of it. We are not talking about casual physical activity here, we are talking about professional sports, which have international federations that support them, organize massive tournaments and attract public engagement.

If you think that casual video gaming isn't a sport, then, of course, you're right. But competitive video gaming, in my opinion, is a sport. Official community and tournaments, public engagement and the creation of a competitive atmosphere is what makes an activity a sport.

Individuals or teams (duet, quartet) play against each other and are judged. They do not all play at the exact same time. That would be impossible to judge.

You're confusing arts & musical competitions with sports competitions. Sports, by their very nature (i.e. clear and defined rules & goals) promote competition between people. People do sports because they look for competition, and people watch sports because they enjoy watching such competition. Playing piano is an art, and there are no rules or goals. You can play as you like.
What???

Of course, you can certainly judge art and award the most skilled players, but you will never see the familiar sports competition format applied to a piano competition. There is no "International Piano Federation" that turns piano players into opponents, for the entertainment of the spectators. There is no ELO rating system, the are no "World Champions" or "No. 1 ranked teams" of piano players. Judging art is subjective, while sports, as I've mentioned, have exact rules and goals - you reach that goal, you win, and you are rewarded. You don't "win" by playing the piano. It's not why people play the piano.

A science fair by your logic could be a sport. It is a pre-organized competition that has rules.

Could you give an example of such rules and the competition format? You might be able to think of something, but I am willing to bet that it's going to look completely artificial and that it won't represent the spirit of science or what science is really intended for.

Why is physical exertion necessary? Lets pull up the definition of sport but take out the physical exertion. "an activity involving (physical exertion and) skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment." An activity that an individual or team competes against each other. Entertainment and skill is all that is needed. Now monopoly could be a sport.

Would you consider stamina as one of the criteria of what makes something a sport? I might as well just show to you that video games require stamina and prove to you that video games are sports in this way.

As for Monopoly, I wouldn't see it as a sport, because there is too much of a luck/chance element in it. I believe that the outcome of sports competitions should be determined by individual or collective physical and/or mental skill & effort, not the roll of dice.

The physical activity is the difference that makes a sport a sport and not a game. A video game is a game. See it even has game in it's name. And that's because it doesn't have any physical exertion in it. "Many definitions that I have seen allow for non-physical activities." Like what? Give an example.

For instance, Wikipedia has no problem including games into their sports definition. Of course, you're going to attack the validity of Wikipedia, but they do actually cite a reasonable source: https://web.archive.org...

Chess is a rare occurrence of a game being made into a sport. Why is that? Because of the mental abilities are absolutely ridiculous in it. The difference between video games and chess is that chess has a lot more strategy. It's a mind sport.

How would you quantify the amount of strategy required? FPS and MOBA games require vast amounts of tactical and strategical knowledge - there are actually strategy theory books published on those video games. Chess has a larger library of tactics & strategy theory, but it might be just because chess is an ancient game.

Chess can be made into a sport because it encourages competition by its very nature, rules and goals. Similarly, video games can be made into sports for exactly the same reasons.

If you would accept chess as a sport, then you should accept video games as sports. The amount of strategy is not what promotes something into a sport, and this criterion of yours doesn't seem reasonable.

The "have you actually tried" point is not a valid point. I too could say "have you actually tried to play Fantaisie Impromptu?" As for FPS games, they take relatively little skill. You have a dot in the middle of your screen even when your not looking in your scope, the aim assist is absolutely ridiculous in some of those games. Round a corner and see an enemy, no need to even actually aim because of aim assist. Do basket ball players have a little dot in their vision that helps them aim?

This is a ridiculous oversimplification. It seems evident to me that you don't actually know what you're talking about. A "dot in the middle of your screen" might be sufficient for a casual player, having fun with friends at home, but it's nowhere near what is expected of professional players. Hell, they even undergo real-world military tactics and strategy training to apply this knowledge in their games.

This discussion of ours is getting pretty extensive. Would you be interested in doing an actual debate on some of the points that we've disagreed on?
"Bonjour" -Feu

Diqiu: "Asian men are generally perceived as more feminine..."
Me: "Are you feminine?"
Diqiu: "Hey, no!"

"Do really really really good pens turn you on?" -Hayd

"bsh1's profile pic is what the snapchat filter would look like on steroids"- VOT

"let's keep it simple and traditional :D" -Biodome
Biodome
Posts: 138
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2016 9:21:42 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/15/2016 8:46:13 PM, HeavenlyPanda wrote:
I see now that we are only talking about professional gaming now. So you concede that gaming that is not professional is not a sport right?

We were never in a disagreement about that, so there is nothing to concede. From my very first post on this thread I was clearly talking about official competitions and entertainment for large audiences as some of the criteria for recognizing something as a sport. Casual video-gaming never met those criteria.

Therefore piano could be a sport by your definition.

No. Your application of the definition is incorrect.

The Frederic Chopin International Piano Competition is one of the most important piano competitions in the world. This piano competition is for the greatest pianists all around the world. There are several levels that pianists need to pass to go on to the final round. This is extremely competitive since it is the best pianists from all around the world. [1] And that is just one out of many piano competitions.

Who is the best current piano player in the world? You should be able to find a player that is official, undisputed and universally recognized as the best piano player in the world.

See, it doesn't really makes sense. You can select winners from games and sports, because there are exact goals and rules. In soccer, you need to score more goals than your opponent, which can be achieved by physical and mental skill, and by avoiding harmful things like yellow/red cards, offsides or other fouls. In basketball, similar things apply - there is a scoring system, there are concrete rules. In chess, similar things apply - there is always a clearly defined winner, and there are the FIDE Laws of Chess that players have to follow.

Point is, you can quantify the results from competitive sports and games, you can make objective decisions about who is a winner, and no one will dispute that, since everyone is familiar with the same rules of those games, which are universally recognized. In the case of piano competitions, no such universal rules exist. Each competition thinks of its own subjective criteria, and set goals for the competitors, because piano players don't have any universal rules or goals. Playing the piano isn't a sport, because it was never really intended to be competitive. It was intended to be an instrument for creating and playing music, and while you can certainly try and compare the skill of different players, I hope you can see that there are fundamental differences from sports and games.

Of course you can improvise on the piano but usually there are rules
Such as?

A quarter note is only played for so many beats in a measure.
That's not a rule. This is just musical notation, which is really an arbitrary yet convenient way for composers and players to communicate and exchange information, but it is not strictly related to the piano itself. In fact, there are different ways of notating music. Nothing stops you from thinking of your own definition of what notes, pitches and beats are; you can literally play the piano in any way you want, and you can write music in any way you want.

It's like saying that the algebraic notation in chess is a rule of chess. It isn't. There are different notation systems for recording moves.

If there were no rules music sheets would just have a bunch of dots strung onto one line.
If musical notation had no rules, then, yes. But, again, it's not related in any way to how a piano can be used to play music. You do not have to follow musical notation or its conventions to play a piano. Kids can learn to play melodies on their own, without ever knowing what a quarter note is.

As for piano having no goals, then what's the point of playing piano.
Every player has their own reasons, but they are not universal or official.

Of course piano has goals. To complete a song, to become the best, to be a professional pianist, to perform, these are examples of goals.
These are not officially recognized goals. Moreover, if they were, how would these goals help you determine a piano champion? A goal should directly let you examine an outcome, quantify a concrete numerical score, and objectively determine the winner, if there are several competitors. If a player sets his goal to "I have to play this Sonata as good as I possibly can" that will get you nowhere to objectivity.

The World Federation of International Music Competitions organizes over 120 music competitions. [2] This shows that piano competitions are just as organized as sports competitions.
Maybe they are as organized, but they are not organized as sports competitions. Why do you keep failing to address the inherent and fundamental differences between competitive games and sports events, and competitions involving music and art?

And Beethoven could technically be the no. 1 pianist.
How would you be able to determine that objectively when there is no actual way to quantify such things? First, you need official rules and goals, and you need them to be universally accepted by all piano players.

Stamina is technically endurance. I don't see how video games improve your endurance. I will await your explanation on that.
Look up the definition of stamina. You will see what I have in mind.

As we both know, the Oxford Dictionary is more of a reliable source than Wikipedia.

Dictionaries do not determine what words mean. They only record what the most common usage of certain words is. The people determine the meaning of words.
The reason why this is relevant, is because the frequently used meanings of words change with time, and sometimes dictionaries lag behind with their definitions. This is the case for "sport", since competitive video gaming is still in its infancy. This is why competitive video gaming is still a gray area with regards to the current definition of sports. It should be recognized eventually, though, as I have shown through the many arguments in this thread.

So what, Minecraft has published books about it, does that make playing Minecraft a sport?
No, but Minecraft isn't a sport for other reasons than this.

Give me examples of strategies that people use in those first person shooter games. Are they really as complex as chess?

I cannot compare complexity, unless you find a good way to quantify it, but I can support the case that strategy in FPS games is of uttermost importance.

Some FPS shooters have various character classes for players to choose from, each of them designed to perform certain duties within the battlefield, including offence, defense and support roles. For a team to do well in such a game, the team has to coordinate these roles to its full potential, and it also has to be able to adapt to changing locations, maps and the structures of the opponents' team. This is not a trivial task, and it qualifies as advanced strategy. (e.g. Team Fortress 2)

Prove to me that professional video gamers go to study military strategy tactics.
It depends on the video game, but certain video games encourage the use of advanced military strategy. This is especially true for military campaign simulators, such as Arma 3. They accurately simulate many aspects of modern warfare, including weapons and scopes, so these "dots" that you are constantly referring to are no different than the real "dots" that real-world military personnel use.

In Arma 3 and similar games, these warfare systems are no longer simplified like we see in many other FPS games, thus, real military strategy becomes important for successful competition. I could go on talking about the concrete strategies and tactics involved, but my space is running out, and I don't think you'd be interested in that anyway, since it's not really important to the topic we are discussing right now.
Biodome
Posts: 138
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2016 9:25:34 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/16/2016 7:47:38 AM, missmozart wrote:
At 7/15/2016 12:28:44 PM, Biodome wrote:
You're confusing arts & musical competitions with sports competitions. Sports, by their very nature (i.e. clear and defined rules & goals) promote competition between people. People do sports because they look for competition, and people watch sports because they enjoy watching such competition. Playing piano is an art, and there are no rules or goals. You can play as you like.
What???

I assume you disagree with the underlined part. If yes, could you provide counterexamples to my claim by naming a rule or a goal for playing a piano, that would be analogous to the rules and goals observed in conventional sports?
HeavenlyPanda
Posts: 819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2016 3:16:44 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
Casual video-gaming never met those criteria.

Therefore you said it yourself, casual gaming does not fit the criteria to be a sport. Therefore it isn't a sport.

No. Your application of the definition is incorrect.

Why is it wrong? You said it yourself, that competition is practically what makes a sport. Therefore by your definition piano is a sport. Or we can use my definition.

Who is the best current piano player in the world?

Who is the best diver in the world? Who is the best gymnast in the world? You seem to have completely skipped over the fact that I mentioned that gymnastics and diving which are both sports are judged by a jury. I could say that Grisha Sokolov is the best pianist currently but there is nothing wrong with saying Beethoven is no. 1. Was not Wayne Gretzky no. 1? And is he still playing hockey?

You can select winners from games and sports, because there are exact goals and rules.

Well what about gymnastics? Or dance, or diving? Those are a sport and each of those have a routine that has to be done perfectly. Just like piano has music that has to be played perfectly. The judges pick who is the winner in all these examples. That doesn't make gymnastics any less of a sport.

In the case of piano competitions, no such universal rules exist

You really think there are no rules to piano competitions. So you seriously believe someone like Grisha Sokolov could be allowed to play against seven year olds? You really believe that the repertoire can be chosen from any book? Do you really think that someone could walk up on stage, sit down and start to play from the grade 1 book at the Frederic Chopin Competition? Do you really believe that there's absolutely no educate when you are on the stage? I've provided a link [1] at the bottom which gives the repertoire and age rules for one competition. It's universal knowledge at a piano competition that you shouldn't slump on the piano bench. It's bad educate. And no, Grisha Sokolov would not be allowed to play against a seven year old. You see here that there are universal rules to piano competitions. Yes each competition has different criteria to be met. You really think that everyone just plays Mozart at every competition? Just like a little a little league baseball game is significantly different from a Major League Baseball. Piano competitions have more variety which in fact makes them more entertaining, which just aides in the fact that by your definition they could be a sport.

piano players don't have any universal rules or goals.

This is absolutely ridiculous. I have to ask, do you play an instrument? Especially piano? Scales have rules. Arpeggios have rules. Four note chords have rules. Dominant seventh chords have rules. Diminished seventh chords have rules. Harmonic and melodic scales have rules. Chromatic scales have rules. Songs have finger rules. Learning notes and for how many beats they last is part of the rules. You can't just play in 4/4 timing and suddenly say that you're going to play all your quarter notes as half notes. It's a rule, for how long you play each note according to its value and time measure. Scales have rules. Otherwise they would be sloppy and messy.

And how is wanting to finish a song not a goal? Wanting to play a sonatina perfectly is a goal. Here is the definition of a goal. "the object of a person's ambition or effort; an aim or desired result." [2] Isn't wanting to finish a song a desired result? Therefore all my examples are official real goals. Piano had goals and rules. It is practically more of a sport than video games are. Anyways, goals and rules are a tiny part in the categories qualify as a sport. Skill, competition, entertainment and physical exertion. You should be focusing on why piano is less of a sport than video games before we compare piano to sports.

Here is the definition of rule. "one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere." [3] Therefore a quarter note being played for a certain amount of beats in a measure is a rule. Otherwise people could hold the note for as long as they wanted. Saying that musical notations have nothing to do with music is like saying the football has nothing to do with football.

Then you say that a goal should predict the outcome of the future. A goal is there for a persons aim or desired result. Therefore wanting to play a sonata perfectly is a desired result. That's like saying a sports player wanting to get a touchdown is not a goal. Of course it is, it's a desired result.

Point me out the difference between sporting competitions and piano competitions that make piano less qualified to be a sport. After that, point out why video game competitions are more qualified to be a sport than piano.

Look up the definition of stamina. You will see what I have in mind.

Here is the definition of stamina. "the ability to sustain prolonged physical or mental effort." [4] Considering that video games have no physical effort and most of them do not have prolonged mental effort, I do not see how this relates to video games. Please explain.

Dictionaries do not determine what words mean.

The definition of define is "state or describe exactly the nature, scope, or meaning of." [5] Considering that dictionaries define words, therefore as the definition, which I got from a dictionary, states that dictionary's say the meanings of words. When you say that dictionary's lag behind is the reason why video games are not a sport, are you implying that we should change the definition. Here is the definition of sport. "an activity involving ~physical exertion and~ skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment." The words in the symbols are what would have to be go to qualify video games for a sport. Then technically that definition would pretty much be the exact same as game. And by this definition piano could qualify to be a sport. Taking away the physical exertion in the definition makes the definition of sport too generic.

The strategy that you provide is the most simple strategy that is in FPS games. I wouldn't even call it a strategy if the game already pre makes the combinations. Actually describe the strategies that teams or people use when in the game. Coordinating roles is a basic strategy not even worth making video games into a sport.

The "dots" in the middle of the screen are different from the real world because they are always constantly there even when you're not in scope mode. I am interested in these concrete strategies that you say happen. Could you please give some examples. Anyways, having games that could use military strategies is very different than video gamers that actually study military tactics, which I doubt they do. Right now strategy, skill and physical exertion are really lacking. Could you please prove I me that video games have these. Maybe compare video games to piano before we compare piano to sports.

[1] http://www.propiano.org...
[2] https://www.google.ca...
[3] https://www.google.ca...
[4] https://www.google.ca...
[5] https://www.google.ca...
HeavenlyPanda. The most heavenly of all heavenly creatures.
Biodome
Posts: 138
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2016 8:57:20 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/16/2016 3:16:44 PM, HeavenlyPanda wrote:

These sentence-by-sentence rebuttals are getting pretty tiresome, so I will just summarize my position as clearly as I can, in order to wrap up this discussion, which has become a cat and mouse scenario - you think of certain examples of non-sports or sports, I try to explain my reasoning regarding them, then you think of yet another lot of examples... Rinse and repeat. This is why I usually prefer a debate with limited rounds and arguments, instead of never-ending back-and-forths in the forums.

The Definition of Sport

Your definition of a sport

You have made it clear that you consider physical exertion as the primary criterion for what constitutes a sport, using Oxford Dictionaries as a source of this definition.

My definition of a sport

I have made it clear that physical exertion is not necessary, and that there are more criteria to take into account. Firstly, there is the competitive nature that all sports exhibit and are based on - they wouldn't be sports if that competitive element were to be taken away. Secondly, the international federations, defining the rules and goals of those sports, and promoting these sports around the globe, using international competitions and tournaments. If these elements weren't part of those activities, it would be difficult to categorize them as sports.

Assessment of those definitions

I would say that neither your definition, nor mine, is perfect. Your definition is too narrow, and fails to include things like chess, even though you consider it a sport (your argument would actually be more consistent if you didn't do that). It also doesn't take into account new forms of competitive activities (e.g. competitive video gaming), which showcase both physical and mental skills of the competitors (e.g. awareness and reaction time; planning and strategy; constant concentration for long periods of time, stamina)

My definition has problems due to all of the gray areas. The lack of public consensus on what makes an activity a sport makes the whole issue quite complicated. It would be certainly good if there was a clear dictionary definition, but there isn't, and we currently have to live with that.

Ultimately, the whole argument boils down to a semantic dispute, which can be fun, but not necessarily productive in the long run. A pragmatic decision has to be eventually taken, and I think that eSports being treated as sports is the best and the most reasonable course of action.

Piano as a Sport

HeavenlyPanda and I treat piano players and competitions completely differently. I don't see any inherent competitiveness in playing the piano, and, to me, all of the piano competitions are merely arbitrary and subjective ways of measuring musical prowess. HeavenlyPanda, on the other hand, thinks that piano competitions are something that would fall under my definition of sports, but I have argued in several ways why that this isn't the case.

I thought that the non-existence of universal rules or goals for playing the piano is obvious, which is really a specific case of the more general claim that "Music has no rules". However, HeavenlyPanda thinks that the existence of music theory and musical notation means that there are certain rules. This thinking is incorrect, because neither music theory, nor musical notation are universal. They are not embedded in the piano itself, they are not required for someone to play the piano.

Music theory and musical notation stem from the legacy of western music, but there are other cultures in the world where music takes completely different shapes and forms. HeavenlyPanda talks about scales and chords, but it is necessary to recognize that these concepts are ultimately arbitrary paradigms of thinking about music and in no way necessary to produce music. If you would listen to non-western music you would know what I am talking about - the harmonic concepts that are so familiar to us are simply replaced by completely different harmonies and melodies that can't even be properly notated using modern traditional notation.

Even if we consider western music and the piano, there are many composers who have throughout their careers ignored those "rules" which you are talking about, which didn't stop them from becoming accomplished pianists. An example of such would be Igor Stravinsky, who adopted the use of the twelve-tone technique, polytonality and atonality in his works. This demonstrates that one should think about music not as some sort of collection of rules that have to be followed, but rather as a collection of subjective opinions or guidelines, that can either be adopted or dismissed at the whim of the composer.

I must once again repeat that music has no rules, and that is because music is too broad of a concept to be bound by rules. Piano, similarly, doesn't have any rules. As I've mentioned in a previous post, any kid that is ignorant about music theory could very well sit down on a piano and play a sequence of notes. He would not be abiding by any rules, yet he would be playing the piano. This alone is sufficient to demonstrate that no rules are necessary to play the piano, and, therefore, any "rule" that you may see is really just something that is commonly practiced within the western music tradition.

Now that we have established that piano players do not abide by any universal rules, we can see how there is really no objectively "correct" or "wrong" way to play a piano. Any competitions that you see merely think of their own criteria and goals for judging, but they are not binding or anything like that when someone is actually playing the piano outside the context of that competition. That is not true for things we consider as competitive sports. Competitive sports have concrete rules and goals, and those rules and goals are standardized & independent from the tournaments and competitions themselves. All sports matches (e.g. soccer, basketball, tennis) follow the exact same standardized and official rules, independent of location or tournament organizer. Whereas you will find that no such constant rules exist for piano competitions.

I think I've made my points clear, and I'd like to see HeavenlyPanda's perspective on these matters, but I feel that we'll just have to remain in disagreement regarding many of these things. That is usually what happens when we are arguing semantics (e.g. the differences in how we understand what a "sport" is; what constitutes a "rule" or a "goal")
HeavenlyPanda
Posts: 819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2016 10:02:14 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
Oxford Dictionary Definition

An activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment:

HeavenlyPanda's Definition

An activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment:

Biodome's Definition

An activity involving clearly defined rules and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment:

Do you agree that this is accurate to what you described? If not, please feel free to change it.

My definition is rigid and only for those activities that have physical exertion whereas yours is a bit broad.

Chess

I never claimed that chess was a sport. I said that it was a rare occurrence that a game would be a made into a sport. Then I said chess is a mind sport. Chess is not a sport but more of a mind sport. A mind sport relies more on mind skills rather than physical skills. There is a category that chess falls into in the category of sports and that is mind sports. The link explains about chess being a mind sport. [1] Therefore there is no need to change my definition to accommodate for chess. A mind sport required a lot more strategy than the average sport and lots of mental skill. Could video games be a mind sport? I don't know. I'm not sure whether video games have enough mental skills or strategies to be a mind sport. eSports are called eSports because they are electronic sports. I think that video games should just stay as they are, they clearly don't have enough physical exertion to be an actual sport and they might not have enough to apply to be a mind sport. Are video games on par with chess mentally?

Piano Being A Sport

I personally would not want piano to be a sport because that's just weird. But piano can qualify to be a sport. Yes, piano is judged subjectively but so is diving and gymnastics. Dance too. Music theory is universal for all instruments. Whether you want to play casually or be a professional, all musicians have to have some knowledge of music theory. Yes, music theory isn't needed to play a piano. But neither is the knowledge of the rules of football needed to be able to throw a football. Just plinking on a piano is playing the piano basically. We are talking about professional pianists, just like we are talking about professional gamers. Therefore music theory is universal to professional pianists.

Music theory is a guideline for how to play music. It doesn't always have to be followed. But here is the definition of guideline. "A general rule, principle, or piece of advice:" [2] Therefore it is a rule, therefore piano becoming a sport fits both our definitions. Music theory is the guideline for most instruments, therefore most instruments have rules.

Piano competitions are there to narrow the broad music theory. Just like sports competitions are there to narrow or choose only one sport out of the many out there. My opponent again says that the difference between the two is that sports had a rigid set of rules. But as I have proved, music theory is the guidelines and piano competitions narrow and set those guidelines in concrete. Therefore there is not much of a difference between sporting competitions and piano competitions.

I do not believe that piano should be a sport, I'm just pointing out how much more likely it is that piano is a sport than video games.

[1] http://www.mindsportsinternational.com...
[2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
HeavenlyPanda. The most heavenly of all heavenly creatures.
Agent_Orange
Posts: 2,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2016 2:00:46 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
Words change. People use to kick around decapitated heads and that was considered a sport.

If chess is considered a sport why not StarCraft? It's much more complex and much more strategical.

NASCAR is considered a sport and you're just driving. If I'm playing Forza aren't I pretty much doing the exact same thing?
#BlackLivesMatter
HeavenlyPanda
Posts: 819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2016 3:35:06 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/17/2016 2:00:46 AM, Agent_Orange wrote:
Words change. People use to kick around decapitated heads and that was considered a sport.

If chess is considered a sport why not StarCraft? It's much more complex and much more strategical.

NASCAR is considered a sport and you're just driving. If I'm playing Forza aren't I pretty much doing the exact same thing?

What is so complex about StarCraft? Is it really actually complex or is that an empty statement? Prove to me StarCraft has strategy, that it is complex.
If NASCAR was just driving, why isn't everyone a NASCAR racer? Flicking a joystick is very different from actually driving as fast as you can around a track. It's much different than just pulling the RT to accelerate.
Words change, yes but are you implying like Biodome that we should get rid of the physical exertion? If so, like I said before, then piano could qualify to be a sport and do you really count piano as a sport? Like I said before piano is more qualified to be a sport than video games with mine and Biodomes definition. Prove me wrong.
HeavenlyPanda. The most heavenly of all heavenly creatures.
Torton
Posts: 988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2016 3:58:00 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/17/2016 3:35:06 AM, HeavenlyPanda wrote:
What do you think of this?
I think people really need context for things like this, or else they're think it's just pressing keys quickly. It else, but it's more than that. A lot of it is thinking on the fly and reaction, but it's definitely skill.
missmozart
Posts: 306
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2016 6:53:33 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/16/2016 9:25:34 AM, Biodome wrote:
At 7/16/2016 7:47:38 AM, missmozart wrote:
At 7/15/2016 12:28:44 PM, Biodome wrote:
You're confusing arts & musical competitions with sports competitions. Sports, by their very nature (i.e. clear and defined rules & goals) promote competition between people. People do sports because they look for competition, and people watch sports because they enjoy watching such competition. Playing piano is an art, and there are no rules or goals. You can play as you like.
What???

I assume you disagree with the underlined part. If yes, could you provide counterexamples to my claim by naming a rule or a goal for playing a piano, that would be analogous to the rules and goals observed in conventional sports?

First, I don't think piano playing is a sport (or that would be absolutely absurd considering that I'm a pianist). It's not so much specific rules but the way you worded the underlined part above. You probably meant that art is a way of expressing emotions, stories etc. where interpretation and performance is up to the performer but if you read your sentence again, I'm sure you can see clearly how that could be easily misinterpreted. (Btw, you can only play as you like after you make sure you're in time, playing the correct style, work on technique etc. That's where the sort of 'rules' apply. I don't think anyone would enjoy listening to something where every third note is wrong or rushed!)
"Bonjour" -Feu

Diqiu: "Asian men are generally perceived as more feminine..."
Me: "Are you feminine?"
Diqiu: "Hey, no!"

"Do really really really good pens turn you on?" -Hayd

"bsh1's profile pic is what the snapchat filter would look like on steroids"- VOT

"let's keep it simple and traditional :D" -Biodome
missmozart
Posts: 306
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2016 7:08:59 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/15/2016 4:52:35 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 7/15/2016 8:01:54 AM, missmozart wrote:
At 7/15/2016 2:41:08 AM, HeavenlyPanda wrote:
At 7/14/2016 11:34:24 PM, Biodome wrote:
At 7/14/2016 11:06:29 PM, HeavenlyPanda wrote:
I HeavenlyPanda will try to refute any reasons as to why video games could be a sport.
Post your reason and I will refute it.
I am for video games not being a sport.

There exist competitive team events, where professional video gamers face against each other. These events are broadcast just like any other sports event, providing entertainment to huge audiences.

Note that because of this, professional video gaming falls under the definition of a sport.

So technically by your logic, anything that is entertainment, competitive and is pre-organized can be a sport. Therefore piano can be a sport by your logic. Therefore science competitions can be a sport, etc. You see what I mean here? If it was just competition and entertainment practically anything could be a sport as long as its competitive. Entertainment is purely subjective. A sport has to have physical exertion which you just happened to leave out. Plus it has to have skill and right now I'm not really convinced there are many skills in video games.

It's the difference between subjectivity (to some extent) and objectivity that differentiates art and sport.
One could say that's problematic though. It's rare to hear chess or solving mathematical problems being called a sport (except the Mathematics Olympiad), while most people would consider figure skating to be one.

It's certainly not rare to call chess a sport.

I think 'sport' is, like 'game', a pretty good example of Wittgenstein's idea of family resemblance. Most of them are competitive, have objective standards, involve significant physical activity, etc. The more criteria something satisfies, the more likely one is to consider it a sport, but there are many borderline cases.
"Bonjour" -Feu

Diqiu: "Asian men are generally perceived as more feminine..."
Me: "Are you feminine?"
Diqiu: "Hey, no!"

"Do really really really good pens turn you on?" -Hayd

"bsh1's profile pic is what the snapchat filter would look like on steroids"- VOT

"let's keep it simple and traditional :D" -Biodome
HeavenlyPanda
Posts: 819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2016 11:49:34 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/17/2016 3:58:00 AM, Torton wrote:
At 7/17/2016 3:35:06 AM, HeavenlyPanda wrote:
What do you think of this?
I think people really need context for things like this, or else they're think it's just pressing keys quickly. It else, but it's more than that. A lot of it is thinking on the fly and reaction, but it's definitely skill.

I think that's the very reason why video games shouldn't be a sport. Look at him. All he was doing was pressing buttons faster than the average gamer. So what. That doesn't mean anything. Sure there might be skill but that is definetly not a sport.
Watch this video. Compare it to your one. Do you really think that video games are on par with this sport? Funny thing is people sometimes don't even think of it as being a sport but here it proves its place. Do you really think that video games is better than this?
https://m.youtube.com...
HeavenlyPanda. The most heavenly of all heavenly creatures.
Torton
Posts: 988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2016 10:28:44 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/17/2016 11:49:34 AM, HeavenlyPanda wrote:
At 7/17/2016 3:58:00 AM, Torton wrote:
At 7/17/2016 3:35:06 AM, HeavenlyPanda wrote:
What do you think of this?
I think people really need context for things like this, or else they're think it's just pressing keys quickly. It else, but it's more than that. A lot of it is thinking on the fly and reaction, but it's definitely skill.

I think that's the very reason why video games shouldn't be a sport. Look at him. All he was doing was pressing buttons faster than the average gamer. So what. That doesn't mean anything. Sure there might be skill but that is definetly not a sport.
Watch this video. Compare it to your one. Do you really think that video games are on par with this sport? Funny thing is people sometimes don't even think of it as being a sport but here it proves its place. Do you really think that video games is better than this?
https://m.youtube.com...
By definition, competitive starcraft and others are e-sports.
HeavenlyPanda
Posts: 819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2016 10:56:30 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/17/2016 10:28:44 PM, Torton wrote:
At 7/17/2016 11:49:34 AM, HeavenlyPanda wrote:
At 7/17/2016 3:58:00 AM, Torton wrote:
At 7/17/2016 3:35:06 AM, HeavenlyPanda wrote:
What do you think of this?
I think people really need context for things like this, or else they're think it's just pressing keys quickly. It else, but it's more than that. A lot of it is thinking on the fly and reaction, but it's definitely skill.

I think that's the very reason why video games shouldn't be a sport. Look at him. All he was doing was pressing buttons faster than the average gamer. So what. That doesn't mean anything. Sure there might be skill but that is definetly not a sport.
Watch this video. Compare it to your one. Do you really think that video games are on par with this sport? Funny thing is people sometimes don't even think of it as being a sport but here it proves its place. Do you really think that video games is better than this?
https://m.youtube.com...
By definition, competitive starcraft and others are e-sports.

Yes they are an eSport, not an actual sport.
HeavenlyPanda. The most heavenly of all heavenly creatures.