Instigator / Pro
44
1644
rating
64
debates
65.63%
won
Topic
#2765
U.S. K-12 Public Schools Should Incorporate More Video Games in Their Curriculum
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 9 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
Undefeatable
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 3,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
41
1737
rating
172
debates
73.26%
won
Description
US = United States
The resolution should be taken to be Merriam Webster definitions that makes the most sense given the context. No semantic arguments.
Burden of proof is shared.
Pro will argue that Kindergarten to 12th grade public schools in US should begin to, or continue, incorporate and approve video games into the academic curriculum -- thus encouraging students to play them, due to their benefits and educational value. Con will argue otherwise.
Who will implement this law? Local state representatives.
Round 1
Academic Benefit
It has been proven in countless studies that video games can improve a student’s academic performance. Micheal Young, a Professor of Psychology performed a study on the past trends of video games used within an educational space. The results in “A Review of Trends In Serious Gaming for Education” [1] found that over 300+ studies done on the topic had positive shown evidence of positive impacts on a student’s academic performance in subjects such as History, Physical Education, and even Science and Math. If this wasn't enough, another systematic literature review comes up with the same conclusion, noting that overall "games and/or simulations have a positive impact on learning goals. The researchers identify three learning outcomes when integrating games into the learning process: cognitive, behavioral, and affective." [3] It's clear that incorporating video games would actually help them in their learning.
A game that can be used within the education curriculum will have different challenges and experiences. In Timothy Barko and Troy Sadler’s paper titled “Practicality in Virtuality” [2] they conducted a study comparing learning through a traditional classroom setting and learning through a video game based experience using a commonly found experiment in the classroom lab, extracting DNA. Video game workspaces can help expand the experiences gained through an exercise for example, when the students complete the DNA lab in person and have extracted the “DNA” -- which is difficult to add extensions to, due to nature of DNA -- the experience is over. But within the virtual space, that experience can be carried directly into new exercises using the results you got from the DNA lab. Experiments that are difficult to see or physically understand can be represented better using the virtual experience.
Pre-Rebuttal
Video Games are not inherently evil or unconsciously cause violence. In Cristina Cabras and Maria Cubbadas’s article “Relationships Among Violent and Non-Violent Video Games” [4], Cristina and Maria agree that aggression levels are also greatly affected by “peer pressure, depression, family violence, and antisocial personality”. It's too difficult to say that video games alone are dangerous for the students, especially with the professors monitoring the activity.
1. Video games aren't necessary
An educator once said: “If somebody comes to me and says, ‘Iwant to make math fun,’ I don’t want to work with that person, because theydon’t think math is already fun.”[1]
Here iswhere the problem begins: Why are video games needed in learning at all? The conceptof video games, for many kids all around the world, is that it is somethingoutside of school and learning, easing its pain, instead of integrating withinit.
Iflearning is already fun for the kids, then there is no need for video games inclass.
Iflearning is not fun for the kids, then don’t expect video games to solve theproblem, especially since most educating video games that teachers got theirhands on are just reinforcing learning[2], or in a more-to-the-ground manner,telling you to use stuff you would have learned anyways from your teachers tosolve problems that won’t even be realistic anyways(such as blasting asteroidsor spelling the witch by tapping the correct solution to a problem). That is useless!
If so, kids will either associate learning with video games, expecting fun games to cover all kinds of materials taught ever; or they will associate video games with learning, hating school because the games suck. All you are left with are basically kids that are supposed to be learning normally anyways, solving no problem.
If the games aren't fun, school sucks, if the games are fun, then it is extremely unlikely that fun games can cover all the curriculum, hence preferences of classes, there are ones that aren't fun, school still sucks. It would take a huge effort to even makefun games for all, and why that when all you need is talking and a marker?
2. The problems video games cause
Competition
Now we throw the not-fun games out of the window because the problem is obvious. We have the fun ones, and once we can play them, disaster stikes. Kids will probably grind scores in the night to get the teacher to like them or call them smart, inputting large amounts of information with little quality. Games only tells you to complete them instead of learning anything within. Humans do much better at this.
Essentially their mind is occupied by competition: Completing the level before your friend, regardless of whether you have learned anything at all. That is not what learning is about.
Price
What do we need to operate video games? Video-playing devices. Not all schools could afford those, and if we specifically put fundings out for it, it would be a waste of money as we know Indian guys on Youtube does the same thing with a marker and a board. If teachers do that instead of games, we would learn the same things, but cheaper.
Conclusions
- With realistic measurements of schools and games, most kids still won't be motivated to learn.
- Games, in many cases, incorporate competition that will decrease their ability to learn.
- Having game devices is much more expensive than just teaching in the way your kids would love, and humans can handle it better than machines.
I am done.
Round 2
1. Video games aren't necessary
Con notes a problem he has with my proposition: If so, kids will either associate learning with video games, expecting fun games to cover all kinds of materials taught ever; or they will associate video games with learning, hating school because the games suck.
While it is true that some kids may think the video games must be comprehensive and extraordinarily useful, with the instructor's warning beforehand, they may prevent such problems. In fact, I argue that it is actually better to necessarily incorporate these video games, even beyond academic reasons. Con's problems are non-unique even to gaming in general. Perhaps kids think Chess makes them a master strategist. Or that Call of Duty lets them be an expert fighter. But kids can be misled if they explore games on their own. In contrast, with the careful curated games and knowledgeable teachers, they will limit expectations and tell precisely what they need from the children. Remember how I said most educational games will focus only on specific subjects. This is key for focus, and key to improvement. If we just told the kids to play anything, then obviously this wouldn't work.
2. The problems video games cause
Con asserts that kids will be unnecessarily competitive, defeating his own claim that the game is unfun. He also uses no source to show that kids will actually do this in a significant amount that is counter-productive to their learning.
Con also claims that the video playing devices would be expensive and not many schools would afford it, but remember this is a state's law, so the money is out of the government, not out of the school. There's no statement on how detrimental this cost is.
Points dropped
- Con dropped that video games would greatly enhance learning and improve academic performance
- Con did not address pre-rebuttal, thereby agreeing that violence (and perhaps other negative effects) are not due to games alone, and may have other factors influencing them
Since I have space I will stack on another argument. There is intrinsic reason why games have educational value. As yet another expert analysis notes, students "can get rid of the limitations of the real‐life situation and give learners a more comprehensive and high‐quality experience." [1] Not only so, there are three ideas to help students become motivated: game spirit, game motivation, and game thinking. Through the emotional attitude of overcoming a challenge, they may apply similar ideas to their learning. The greater freedom can reduce the restrictions seemingly set with the originally mundane class time. With those bored with standard lectures and even Indians with white boards, games would surely offer a unique and enlightening them to a brand new way of learning.
1. Video games aren't necessary
The two arguments Pro has presented are both of that the correct video games will enhance the learning experience, but nowhere that they are essential. Bottom line: If the effects of video games in school can be replaced by something that can be accomplished by a teacher, a staple of paper, and a single screen, then there is no need for video games because obviously, the latter is MUCH more expensive, with devices minimum at the number of a single class.
Now, this is the rebuttal stage: What are Pro's two main arguments? In the words of mine, I shall:
- Playing games could make you better at learning
- Playing games isn't necessarily bad
The second one is obvious that it doesn't say that games SHOULD be in school, but why they shouldn't be banned. The first? Counter-evidence here[1]. Kids who get a game system immediately, should the games be fun, will play it in the sacrifice of homework, and as a result, lose points in tests and grades. It is only the kids who get a game system AFTERWARDS have better performances and become more goal-oriented. It is either games that suck or games that will make them worse if they are embedded in the curriculum.
We probably agree on that video games usually focuses on COMPLETION and not LEARNING, and as a result, video games, however educational and fun, usually will not teach them a lot about solving problems(otherwise, it would be a tutoring session, instead of a video game).
Telling them what to do means that there are things that aren't to be done, and that will make kids, which are kids, tempted to try them out, which brings unfairness as it could either be extracurriculars that will make the guy get 1st every test or some plothole glitch that can make the guy slack off for months. Essentially, video games are more likely to go out of hand, and projects would been off as fun(PBL, [2]).
Then onto the DNA argument. In this case, the virtual workspace isn't necessarily a video game, likewise you don't call Autocad with Tutorials a video game. We are talking with video games, not anything digital that aren't traditional text stuff.
2. Implement the Law
Definition of Incorporate[3] and Curriculum[4]. I believe teachers should have the freedom to use virtual tutorials to teach students, but to let the state add video games into the curriculum? And let the government implement this LAW? I essentially have disproved that games are any necessary in learning, and even if it isn't harmful, games themselves aren't that much helpful either. Adding video games TO THE CURRICULUM is generally a waste as games, no matter what kind, focuses on the goal, not the process. If we learn in the gaming mode, we would expect an outcome from an input and care nothing within because all they want would be an answer and at most how you did it, which is also just an answer. Your mode of learning could get stale and stiff, which isn't good in life. In reality, the process matters more than games teaches us.
Round 3
Video Games Necessary
Notice how Con's source defeats himself. It claims " a larger, correlational study of more than 3,100 school children found no evidence for reduced achievement among habitual gamers. On the contrary, video game playing in this study was actually linked with higher academic achievement -- even after the researchers controlled for socio-economic status and other relevant factors (Kovess-Masfety et al 2016). Other studies hint that it's the kind of game play that matters."
As you can see, his studies only bolster my own sources that academic performance is increased. Extend this argument as Con completely drops it. Next, Con claims that the educational video games will only focus on completion rather than learning, but ignores my significant studies where results were achieved in an empirical basis. So his claim is completely unfounded.
Next, Con critiques that the study titled "Practicality in Virtuality: Finding Student Meaning in Video Game Education" Is somehow not about video games at all. Despite the similar setting provided by the DNA Lab and the Study itself calling it "video game education", Con decides that he is more credible than experts. I await his reasoning why the experts' own decision on their naming of study is incorrect. The only requirement for video game from MW is "an electronic game in which players control images on a video screen" [1]. Even simulations or sandboxes are popular genres within video games, and this is no different.
Con criticizes my policy by repeating himself and saying: " If we learn in the gaming mode, we would expect an outcome from an input and care nothing within because all they want would be an answer and at most how you did it, which is also just an answer. Your mode of learning could get stale and stiff, which isn't good in life. In reality, the process matters more than games teaches us."
Con ignores my entire argument stacked upon last turn. He ignores that teachers may evaluate teamwork, game spirit, and motivation. He ignores that the gaming process itself cares about your intrinsic feelings. Recall:
There are three ideas to help students become motivated: game spirit, game motivation, and game thinking. Through the emotional attitude of overcoming a challenge, they may apply similar ideas to their learning. The greater freedom can reduce the restrictions seemingly set with the originally mundane class time. With those bored with standard lectures and even Indians with white boards, games would surely offer a unique and enlightening them to a brand new way of learning.
Conclusion: Con has failed to bat away my arguments, and his sources agree with mine. If we include Video Games in education, then we will help invigorate students, and boost their performance. Under watch of educators, children will better be able to focus their love of fun, and learn the same thing a different way. Vote for pro.
What I agree: Video games can be beneficial, but not necessary
I have seen the benefits of video games, but at the same time, there are losses within it. What does it mean to incorporate video games into the curriculum? It means, from the definitions of an authentic source, necessary.
DNA "Video Game"
The learning of DNAs requires no video game, and making it that would be unnecessary considering all you need is a 3D-model software and a few tutorials. Saying that it is a video game regardless would be an appeal to authority.
3rd Round
I hold my position. All learning should nevertheless mainly be in the form of tutorials, as:
- Games feel stiff when it's got too much control, school still sucks
- Games may not even teach you in an organized manner if they are too sandbox
- Controlling between them is hard, especially since students vary from each other
- Many games decrease social skills[1], and using them in a place that prepares us for a social environment is not a good idea
- Unless you work at Microsoft, most of your job won't arrive in the form of video games
- Most of what you learn are through lectures, tutorials, and projects(common sense), and there are PBL learning with projects that are as active and fun as video games, while increasing social activity
We have established that the world is social, and using singleplayer games does not help them with that. Then we switch to multiplayer games, which, according to a sourced source, may decrease our skill in reading[2]. School grades OR social skills, and both are needed preparing for life, and games with both are extremely lacking. My opponent have yet to give ONE example of games that trains our social skills at the same time learning without losing other aspects of learning. How does a proposal do anything when the proposer proposes no viable solution for it?
The learning of DNAs only involve a tutorial and not a video game and saying it is a video is a stretch. The rest? Not a trace. My opponent, in order to prove why games should be in the curriculum, might as well prove what ACADEMIC benefits it has, compared to that it just helps kids learn while having nothing crucial that it is worth being included into the curriculum, the same analogy of that just because Oxygen can make fire larger, it is not worth to be a fire fuel of itself.
Since games may decrease social interactions, my idea is to do projects instead(PBL), since projects:
- increase social interactions and bond between students easily
- Can BECOME the MAIN form of learning, instead of just encouraging to learn
- Deal with physical things, as opposed to just a keyboard
- Are goal-oriented
- Are fun
- Require thinking, motivation and spirit
Considering programming a game that can actually make kids learn as well as be fun and can increase social activity is incredibly difficult(and after that there is some, it would cause preference), harder than projects(just a thought-out plan) yet projects does much more, I would say that Proects, instead of games, are the way.
.
200th comment. Tough luck in hall of fame, hah.
That is true, but I say that based on what I experienced from the Canadian school system (that I imagine would have similar or better funding than American schools). The highschool I'm in now, for example, would only have enough laptops/computers for about 60-120 students out of 1000.
As well, I don't think the point of "this costs so much money" is sufficient; I've never won a single debate tournament match where I made that argument lmao. Rather, in con's position, I would've argued that the cost could have greater benefit to society if spent elsewhere.
I don't know if it is related, but there are gaming schools all across the world. They bring benefits either way.
1. If they get good, they will be able to earn money to degrees in which their parents won't complain
2. If they don't get good, they will turn away from their internet addiction which exposes them to more available traditional learning methods.
The downside is that such types of institutions are rare.
Maybe, games arent really expensive, and lots of schools already have laptops, tablets, or computer labs.
I agree. Con would've easily won had they developed their argument around the cost. As mentioned in the doc I linked, pro never actually firmly establishes that the large cost would be worth it for the benefit it would bring.
CON did agree that "video games can be beneficial, but not necessary" in Round 3, but that is not a concession. Just because something is beneficial does not mean it should be incorporated at a policy level by lawmakers.
Honestly though, CON wouldn't even have to show that virtual workspaces are the specific alternative, but I believe that point was made. If CON adequately argued that ANY alternative is both cheaper and provides a similar benefit, that would be sufficient to fulfill his side of the debate. I believe he did so. But I can also see valid justification for those who disagree. Both sides could have argued better, which is why the voting was somewhat controversial.
You wrote: "Price was clearly a part of his argument, specifically that there are cheaper alternatives to video games and that schools have limited funding. And he showed that virtual workspaces (see the DNA example) provide a cheaper alternative to video games."
This is a distortion of what Con actually argued. In R1, Con argued that video-playing devices cost money, so it would be cheaper to have "teachers" do their job without video devices. By R2 & R3, however, Con drops this argument, conceding that video-playing devices could play a beneficial role in education.
I asked you to point me to specific language in the debate where Con makes the argument that "virtual workspaces" are "cheaper than video games." You're unable to do so precisely because Con didn't make that argument.
I would give arguments to pro.
You mentioned Hall of Fame, so I was curious what the new influential members thought of this debate, as it is very controversial and a teaching moment for both of us.
How are we still on this after like half of a year after this debate was made?
In typical Nyxified fashion, I have elected to do this in the longest and most complex way humanly possible: writing an analysis of the debate that has more characters in it than the entire debate does! https://docs.google.com/document/d/1a3gH1_4gr7KGLNp6PTHNLpl5XOCVnTuf1icReBbgsZs/edit?usp=sharing (dm me if the link doesn't work).
TL;DR con won in terms of arguments, imo, because they just gave more reasons to believe their position. While pro gave better reasons, especially in the earlier rounds, both sides failed to adequately refute each other, especially so for pro. I threw this whole thing together fairly quickly so don't expect it to be very objective or anything lmao. It's very hard to work with a 3,000 character debate is all I have to say.
Price was clearly a part of his argument, specifically that there are cheaper alternatives to video games and that schools have limited funding. And he showed that virtual workspaces (see the DNA example) provide a cheaper alternative to video games.
The argument wasn't perfect, but it was definitely there.
Let's say Con establishes that there's a difference between video games & virtual workspaces.
So what?
Con never offers any reason to exclusively implement virtual workspaces. The "less government spending" argument isn't made. Yet somehow that was the basis of your decision...
Con didn't argue that virtual workspaces provide same results with less government spending.
Con argued that virtual workspaces render video games unnecessary, without any reason to prefer virtual workspaces or exclude video games, all while admitting that video games are beneficial.
"In this case, the virtual workspace isn't necessarily a video game"
How does this not make the argument that there is a distinction between virtual workspaces and video games?
The language you cite does not make the argument you claim it makes.
Maybe the argument could be made based on sources. But it wasn't here.
Debates should be judged based on arguments in the debate, not based on arguments that could have been made but weren't.
I think education should be faster in elementary, middle, and highschool so you have more time to learn the hard stuff in college. I found highschool easy, but college is much harder.
Comments like this from Round 2 made the point:
"Then onto the DNA argument. In this case, the virtual workspace isn't necessarily a video game, likewise you don't call Autocad with Tutorials a video game. We are talking with video games, not anything digital that aren't traditional text stuff."
The price point was also made in Round 1. Admittedly, this argument could have been much stronger. But it was definitely there and it was also supported by sources from both PRO and CON.
I cannot find where Con argued that virtual workspace leads requires less government spending to achieve the same results as video games.
Your RFD relies on arguments that weren't made in the debate.
Please direct me to Con's specific language in the debate showing that virtual workspaces provide the same benefits & results as video games at a lower cost.
The debate that just won't die.
The resolution and description make clear that PRO is not just arguing that video games can be beneficial, but that they should be implemented by lawmakers on a policy level.
CON argued, in agreement with PRO's own sources, that "virtual workspaces" can provide similar benefits as "video games," but at a much lower cost. You can have a different opinion, but the reasoning is sound to vote CON.
Honestly, I think it comes down to one's approach to government spending. I am all for lower spending, so the cheaper option with similar results was more favorable.
I eat variety of foods. If truffles are healthy, it's probably a good idea to eat them sometimes, even if doing so is unnecessary. Variety is best.
Variety of learning methods outperforms singular method.
Video games aren't necessary; they add variety, with proven benefit. This is reason to include, not exclude.
The comparison is a bit off. If truffles provided a nutritious net benefit for its cost I’m sure you could argue for incorporating truffles in your breakfast. With no alternatives you clearly offer, the video game benefits are crushing here in coal and fourtrouble’s view points.
Truffles are good for you. Do you incorporate it into your everyday breakfast?
Con states: "Video games can be beneficial, but not necessary." Yet somehow gets votes? Absurd.
Con's necessity argument is one of the worst arguments I've seen in a long time. No idea how anyone voted Con here.
Win for Pro.
I'm flattered, I'll read it after work.
I would have given you the win here. This was better than the last debate of yours I read, though it's been a while.
Independently from this debate, I think there's pretty clear evidence out there that boys would benefit from video games being incorporated into K12 curriculum. The evidence is less clear for girls. Some might speculate that's because of biological differences in boys, who tend to be interested in things, and girls, who tend to be interested in people.
I'm honoured to have been one of the first to come to mind! I'll check this out tomorrow if I have time.
Now I know this is an odd ping but hall of fame is coming up and I’m betting intelligence hasn’t forgotten this lost. I’m really curious about your thought on this very controversial debate if you have time. I was losing in terms of argument votes but winning overall in points thanks to weirdness in sourcing and conduct. You are the first users to come to mind when I think “who could have really made a difference and I wouldn’t have minded”?
Who do you think won this debate? What are your thoughts on the polarizing opinions?
I misread that, oops. Definitely poor conduct for Con to introduce new args in the final round. I'm surprised I missed that if true.
That is a very bad RFD by Roy. YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO INSERT YOUR OWN ARGUMENTS INTO THE RFD. I've explained why I agree with Pro and thought he failed to include several good points. Roy's RFD is littered with his own rebuttals. He said things like "Saying that games are not necessary is not a good argument. Books, computers, videos, schools, and professional teachers are not necessary for learning"-- and-- "Con's argument that special equipment is required is not a strong one, because games can be done on computers and that's pretty standard these days." But UNLESS PRO MADE THAT POINT HIMSELF, HE SHOULD NOT BE AWARDED POINTS FOR IT. Roy responded to the debater's points in his RFD rather than judge solely based on what THEY themselves articulated. That is bad judging and you should not be able to vote in other people's place anyway.
Roy Latham says: "I was away for most of the day today and just got to look at the debate. It's interesting. I spent most of my career in training simulation, so my prejudice is in favor of "games" since any realistic simulation can be viewed as a game in which accomplishing the task is winning.
I think Pro had the better of the debate, with the advantage in better references supporting his arguments.
Saying that games are not necessary is not a good argument. Books, computers, videos, schools, and professional teachers are not necessary for learning. Up to age five, children learn a lot without any of those things. The issue is whether students learn more or learn more quickly with games than without. Since, I gather, games are not used very much in current education, it's only necessary to show that there are at least a few examples where learning is enhanced to show more use should be made of them. One example is learning involving drills: simple math problems used to advance in game; written conversation in foreign languages in various situations; spelling and grammar exercises. Games provide rewards for learning through advancement in the game.
Con argues that individual games detract from reading skills and learning team play. those arguments depend upon a certain idea of how games are constructed. Before computer graphics became standard, role-playing games were done entirely by writing. Multi-player games are now common, so the adaptation to project skills is straightforward. Using computers has the advantage that the players need not all be together; they might be in different schools or in different countries. The argument is only that some parts of education are enhanced, not that every part of education must be subsumed.
Con's argument that special equipment is required is not a strong one, because games can be done on computers and that's pretty standard these days.
I'll mention an argument not used in the debate. Simulations are used whenever training in the real world is too expensive, too hard to set up, or too dangerous. For high schools, such situations might occur for running machine tools, driving or repairing cars, or maybe some things related to music.
I thought Pro did well in presenting the case. He could have been more concise; it's a little wordy."
So if you're curious if you truly won or not, even arguments alone, it's not 100% clear. The experienced debater here with age advantage seems to agree with the majority points' decisions.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: MisterChris // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro, 3 to con.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
Obviously the voter goes into detail on different contentions to warrant arguments, before mitigating them with conduct.
The voting policy gives the specific example of misconduct of a final round blitzkrieg, to which the debate did not suffer that level of sin, but a voter having a problem with lesser form of it (new contentions, as opposed to a whole new debate as some try) is a sound criticism. It is even better when able to be cast against the voter's majority awardee.
**************************************************
Bringer's vote is fine, especially since as Ragnar said, he reserves throwing extra points at people.
Good debate. Sort of glad the voting hysteria is over with though lol
I agree. I was aiming for whiteflame style of voter but didn’t think this Trent style debate (low character, obscure topic) would get votes from this many people. So I missed out on the unnecessary idea in the framework. I did mention dna lab but I probably could’ve pushed out more unique benefits
GG, good debate.
I’m at work on a coffee break. At a curtesy glance the most recent vote looks ok... granted the main thing that makes votes problematic to me is when they slap on extra points (even while I defend the ability to do so when warranted).
At this point I am just trying for a win because I believe that I truly won. I am happy either way because this is gonna get into the fall of fame probably.
Undefeatable for HoF.
Pro never even touched on that basically learning academic stuff from games is a pretty bad idea, and as a result, according to the definition of "curriculum", even if some games can boost grades(which only in some cases, not even close to "all"), it is extremely unlikely to be a part of the curriculum, especially what Pro offered in terms of evidence are either non-academic related or non-video games. Yes. A simulation ran in blender or Autocad can hardly be called a game at all.
What Pro argued is "Video games should be allowed in schools" not "Video games should be incorporated in the curriculum". There are little to no set of games that can fairly create a fun learning experience while making the students learn everything they would need to learn. Even if games does not make learning "harder", Pro has little to no arguments as to show that it makes learning better, in specifically the way the curriculum shows it. Just because 50 people who play Minecraft scores better at ELA than 50 people that do not play any games, so what? Should Minecraft be incorporated in the curriculum?
Either way, I have inspected the arguments carefully and all Pro did is to refute whatever I said, while not even remotely touching on that there are complete sets of games that can make you love it, can make you learn everything you would need to learn, and is better for learning as a mainframe compared to the traditional teacher-student-whiteboard solution. He never touched on that. Pro dropped that attention could be muddled by playing games and everything I said about why games are bad. I think I rightfully won this debate.
Even if you ignore the "PBL" stuff at R3, which is an extension to my r2 point, I have pointed out flaws in educational video games and why they are a bad idea, and Pro has not justified why games are needed. Case closed bah bah.
Intelligence: What about the vote isn't up to standard?
Gugigor: Perceived similarity to other votes is not a proper objection
I have a more complete RFD written out and the notes I took, but wanted to get the vote out sooner so just summarized them. I am partially paralyzed so when I edit the speech to text, I just chicken peck the keyboard.
I literally summarized both debaters arguments and summarized how I weighed them.
Lol... salty? It’s basically whiteflame’s vote, but with less words
I don’t think Bringerofrain’s vote is up to standard.
congratulations guys, you got the most votes on DART out of any debate where:
- the debaters did not forfeit or concede any rounds
- the debaters were both of serious caliber
- voters voted both ways
well done. I may nominate this for Hall of Fame, despite its shortness. Surprised that Trent0405 never caught this much attention (his debate against RM had more votes, but RM gave up that one)
That isn't proof of winner selection being better, it's proof that you should not be sloppy on sourcing.
you know what's funny? Tallying up the votes, we see that 5 people believe con won arguments, while only 3 people believe that Pro wins arguments. Under the non-7 point system where only arguments matters and not source nor conduct, Pro wouldn't even be saved by BringerofRain's vote. It's funny how different winner selection is. Unless I could get Roy's opinion and non-biasedly vote pro as well as Bringer, we'd still only have tied debate overall.
he's got a point. If Mr. Chris truly believed that Con deserved to win, he could laugh at pro and use same reasoning as Fauxlaw + Fruit inspector, and then maybe even heap upon source points for similar reasons that Pro's ideas didn't address potential harms (only list benefits). The only reason he would "give the illusion of tying the debate" would be to prove that he is unbiased. But he has already has many other votes that proves he's not biased. Whiteflame's vote for pro is under his acceptance of the framework -- since he values impacts and benefits rather than something as vague as "unique benefits" (for necessary implementation). As such, both voting for pro and voting for con is acceptable, but Con's big flaw is that he didn't push forward exactly what harms there are, forcing Whiteflame to look at Pro's sheer impact with studies. That's the kind of person Whiteflame is.