The Instigator
ZdogDaBoss623
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
PassiveSquirrel
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Should video games be the future in warfare?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
PassiveSquirrel
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/13/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 598 times Debate No: 118961
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

ZdogDaBoss623

Pro

Yes, I believe that video games should be used in war. This would cause no actual deaths, And if you died, You wouldn't die in real life. But this warfare couldn't be on your TV, It should be virtual reality. You would have to show a judge all of the weapons you have so that it would not be overpowered, Like if you had everyone having flamethrowers. Having video games in warfare would also prevent PTSD, And then fewer veterans would be homeless. Video games are already used to help recruit soldiers, So why not just have them do it in the real thing? This is my argument, And I hope anyone will respond. Thank you.
PassiveSquirrel

Con

Hope your having a good day! :)

It would be great if their was not a single death because of war, But it will never work. If a dangerous person or group wants to make a point they will not do so through video games. After someone loses the game, They can still do whatever they were doing that started the war. The reason people have wars is to prevent the other side from doing something. You said, "video games in warfare would. . . Prevent PTSD, And fewer veterans would be homeless. " Veterans are homeless because the government doesn"t provide good services for them. In conclusion, The idea won"t work because dangerous people won"t prove their point through online games. Thank you for taking the time to read my argument.

Source: https://www. Wired. Com/story/even-realistic-videogames-like-call-of-duty-won't-help-us-win-wars/
Debate Round No. 1
ZdogDaBoss623

Pro

ZdogDaBoss623 forfeited this round.
PassiveSquirrel

Con

Sure, The idea sounds great but it"s not practical at all. If someone wants to prove their point they will not do so through online games. The point of war is to stop the other side from doing something. If the lose the video game, They can keep doing what started the war in the first place.
Debate Round No. 2
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by PassiveSquirrel 3 years ago
PassiveSquirrel
I totally forgot! I thought it was over.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
I have to wait until the debate is over to vote on it.
Posted by PassiveSquirrel 3 years ago
PassiveSquirrel
https://www. Debate. Org/debates/Should-video-games-be-in-the-next-olympics/1/

Same guy as this one!
Posted by PassiveSquirrel 3 years ago
PassiveSquirrel
I have one more, Hold on
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@PassiveSquirrel

Second debate I have voted on that you were in.

Your link didn't work but I already stated why it wasn't necessary.

If you want me to vote on any other debates you are apart of feel free to message me the link to said debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
ZdogDaBoss623PassiveSquirrelTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not forfeit but pro did. Pro said "After someone loses the game, They can still do whatever they were doing that started the war." which rebuts any claim he made in Round 1 since this was only 2 rounds and he forfeited 1 of them. I could give con reliable sources point but it was not needed to portray his side and the rebuttal he made was sufficient. His point remained as true without the source.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.