U.S. K-12 Public Schools Should Incorporate More Video Games in Their Curriculum
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 9 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- 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
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.
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.
- 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.
- 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
- Playing games could make you better at learning
- Playing games isn't necessarily bad
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.
- 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
- 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
Let me start this by talking about source points. I am not awarding them because debaters need to convince me why they deserve them, and nobody really has.
Conduct points here would also be silly. New arguments in the final round is not a conduct violation, it is just pointless because judges will disregard new arguments anyway. It only harms the debaters because it distracts them from framing the debate by giving an impact analysis that favors them.
I also wanted to point out something funny that happened to be in the debate as well. The beginning of round 2, pro claimed there was dropped arguments. It's the rebuttal round, con hadn't even got to rebuttals yet so he was incapable of dropping arguments at that point.
However there were arguments dropped. I'll get into that, because I am basically going to be weighing the impacts of dropped arguments for the most part.
The first argument pro makes is about a 300 study/article review of gaming's effect on education, showing improved scores for students. This really was dropped by con. Though the 3rd argument by pro on videogame workspaces (DNA argument) was disproven by con based on him pointing out it referred more to virtual spaces than on actual videogames.
I have to accept this evidence as true that the meta like study proved games beneficial to academic performance.
Con offered an argument that games made children overly focused on competition, but didn't really explain how this was a bad thing.
Con argued that it could prove cost prohibitive and put some schools at a disadvantage, and gave some very good reasons for why that would be the case. I found pro's rebuttal that the government would just pay for it, to be pointless. Like no shit. People pay taxes to the government and the government gives funding to schools. It doesn't change that some schools have better funding than others. However con fails to explain why no kids receiving this academic help is better than some schools receiving it.
Con's best argent doesn't receive a rebuttal. Con argued that students would become dependent on the games for learning and that they may stead away from the classes that don't have the games, and as pro's meta study pointed out, the games are useless for mostly stem related things.
I understand I left some things out of this analysis but I considered them. The final impacts are basically the costs and dependency that con mentions that don't have adequate rebuttals or the meta study pro mentions proving academic improvement that doesn't have a rebuttal.
I feel like the problem academic performance in some areas mixed with the fact that some students as opposed to none would benefit from pro's plan, makes me think the benefits outweigh the cons of putting video games in school, so I award arguments to pro.
Framework:
I'm simply judging this as a cost-benefit debate. For PRO to win, the inherent cost necessary to implement this policy must be outweighed by the benefits. For CON to win, he must demonstrate that the cost is at least equal to or outweighs the benefits.
PRO Args:
1. Academic Benefit
This point is pretty straightforward: a correlation between video games and enhanced learning has been established. To what extent video games help learning is unknown, but it is certainly measurable in some capacity.
CON essentially cross-applies his 1st point to address this, saying that if the same educational benefit can be accomplished through cheaper means, we should prefer his case. Further, he argues that PRO's plan backfires because a fun game system would cause students to work less on homework and assignments. He also sorta kinda cross applies his competition point, saying most students will care about completion and racking up points rather than actually learning.
Regarding CON's point on reduced time management, PRO actually turns the source against him saying the study found no evidence of reduced achievement among habitual gamers, and in fact found the opposite effect. Addressing the completion thing, PRO points out that regardless of whether students cared about learning, they learned more effectively with video games. If it works, who cares?
In response CON basically drops his args and concedes that video games have benefits. Still, he argues, these benefits do not outweigh the costs.
2. Pre-Rebuttal
Dropped by both sides.
CON Args:
1. Unnecessary
CON attacks the arg of making learning more fun, saying there is no need to do so because
a. learning is already fun (I don't really like this point, this largely depends on preferences and personality)
b. even if it isn't, video games in this instance wouldn't help because they'd simply be the same boring material repackaged into a different format. Kids would see video games as boring because of their new status in the curriculum.
PRO largely drops this point in R2 except for CON's point on students expecting too much from games (which frankly doesn't hurt PRO much... His point is less about video games making things fun and more about it enhancing learning. While he does add on the point of learning being enhanced because it is fun in R2, the reason WHY it is enhanced matters little when we know for sure that it IS enhanced. Further, there really is no impact to CON's point here. Why do we care if students expect more? What's the impact?)
2. Problems
a. CON argues that competition between students would drive students to farm points instead of actually learn (this point can be turned rather easily- incentivizing students to learn with points and competition is exactly what makes them effective learning tools. We'll see if PRO does this though)
PRO counters that there is no evidence this would be done to the point it becomes counter-productive (which is true but I was hoping for a more blistering response from PRO).
b. CON gives his most potent points: this costs money. You need to provide devices and games for all students at a high cost for an unknown amount of educational benefit compared to other, cheaper means.
PRO says that this would be paid for by the state government, not the schools, which frankly I don't buy. Passing a law doesn't mean you are the one that pays for it necessarily, we can't really assume who is paying for this even with PRO's specification in the description. Even if we could, I'm not sure it harms CON's impact much.
3. Social Skills
I am not weighing this point as it was introduced last round with no warning. This also results in PRO being awarded conduct, as new arguments in last rounds are slimy and unfair.
RFD:
So this really comes down to: did PRO demonstrate that the educational benefit outweighs the cost?
And the answer is really no. While both PRO and CON end up conceding that there are educational benefits to video games, no one actually quantifies how much benefit there would be, and PRO never really challenges CON's point that the same benefit can be achieved through cheaper means. Regarding PRO's deflection that this would be paid for by big daddy state government, I was never given a good reason to assume that. Implementation of a new law =/= paying out of pocket necessarily, and even if it did, how exactly does this harm CON's arg? There is not an endless money pit for governments to use, and if a method is inefficient and wastes money, is that not a bad thing?
So ultimately, while I'm buying there is a benefit, it's not clear to me that that benefit outweighs the cost. This inherently favors the CON position under the framework.
Args to CON.
RFD in comments: https://www.debateart.com/debates/2765/comment-links/35312
RFD in comments. https://www.debateart.com/debates/2765/comment-links/35305
Argument: Pro's resolution, description, and argument, call for mandatory [by law, at state level] implementation of video games in school curricula, and offers several sources of studies to demonstrate that video game play can be educationally enhancing. However, Pro does not demonstrate the point that education will be negatively impacted if video games are not part of the curriculum, and this secondary point is Con's major thrust. Video games can be helpful, but they are not a necessity enforced by legal mandate. Pro's argument never successfully overwhelm's the lack of necessity as Con's argument alleges. Pro's BoP was that video game play must be a necessity in school. His "should" argument fails, because he makes it a matter of imposed law to accomplish it. That carries the "should" argument into enforced school administration behavior; that video games must be implemented in the school curriculum. Pro, in effect, bit off more than could be chewed, and would likely have won these points, and the debate as a whole, had he avoided the matter of necessity by law. The Pro suggestion alone, leaving the matter to school districts to decide without the imprimatur of legal requirement would have carried the day. Therefore, Con's rebuttal succeeds. points to Con.
Sources: Pro fails to provide a source to support the argument that video games in a K-12 educational nevironment are necessary by enforcement of law, which is a key factor in Pro's argument, needing scholastic justitification. The argument alone, offered by Pro, does not stand up to Con's R1 sourced rebuttal argument that if a law is required to enforce video game use, it looses its own standing as being "fun" without being a mandatory curriculum feature. Further, while Pro's sources explain the benefits of a video game curricula, Con's rebuttal sourcing demonstrates there is no convincing loss of educational mastery if video games are lacking in the curriculum, because students have availability of video games on their own time. Points to Con.
Legibility: Both competitors offer adequate argument with full understanding.
Conduct: Both competitors demonstrated proper conduct in their arguments.
In round 2 Con summed up how I frame this debate: "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"
Arguments:
The core argument starts off as follows: Pro claims and successfully substantiates that video games show academic benefit to students, Con counters that video games are either unfun and thus not conducive to learning or fun which would increase competition, and therefore also not being conducive to learning. The problem here is that neither argument is sourced, this is not very convincing. Con does have a second point however, that video games are not necessary. I don't really see the relevance. The resolution is whether we should include video games into school systems, not if school systems need video games.
In the second round we see Pro mostly rest on his laurels, pointing out that Con's claims are not sourced and logically dismantling the claims of Con, however, Con himself introduces some new arguments into the fold here. That Video Games are more likely to cause kids to care less for homework if they get a game system immediately, next that games will not stress learning, third that video games are more likely to go out of hand. I don't see the relevance of the first claim - if video games were implemented in school, they would be using the systems for homework. The second one isn't sourced, and the third one is a single example - in other words - it doesn't lend much impact to his claims.
For the final round Pro tidies everything up, rebuking a claim from last round that an example he cited was a video game, and generally rebuked the points - Pro essentially claims that with guidance from teachers the problems that Con points out would be mitigated. The problem really comes with Con's response, while he does briefly touch on Pro's arguments he spends most of the last round establishing a new argument. Con uses two sources to substantiate their claims, though one doesn't work, and the other one was referring to video games implemented specifically at home. I don't factor this into the impacts either. Ultimately Con never demonstrated that something as effective and cheaper than Video Games are or could be added to school, especially considering Con never sourced that Video Games were uniquely expensive or that they are harmful.
A comparison of the impacts: Pro has a solid foundation of video games being beneficial to a wide array of subjects, in contrast Con has a lot of assertions and irrelevant arguments. The arguments easily goes to Pro.
Sources:
Though Con had some interesting sources and claims, I think overall Pro had sources that were more relevant not only to the resolution at hand, so topicality apriority, but also to his argument. In contrast, Con uses several arguments that barely relate to the resolution, some sources not even being available. Not only that but the quality of Pro's sources was superior to Con's - with half of Con's being newspapers with no studies behind them, and Pro's being journals with hundreds of studies. Pro wins this one too.
Conduct:
Con introduced a brand new argument in the last round, giving Pro no room to rebuke them or even answer them at all, the new argument being an argument regarding a loss of social skills, this was not mentioned nor prepped in any of the round before - Con should therefore be penalized for such an action, I give it to Pro.
Arguments:
The resolution of the debate places PRO in the position of having to present a convincing argument that lawmakers should change the current laws to include more video games in the K-12 curriculum. I do not believe PRO fulfilled this burden. PRO's sources really ended up working against him as I will detail in the sources point. Nearly every source from both sides agreed that there may be benefits to video games, but results are conflicted due to variables and lack of empirical data. Thus, I believe the following points placed the debate in CON's favor:
Difference Between "Virtual Workspace" and "Video Games" - Though CON could have hit this point harder, he did point out in Round 2 that video games are not the same as, nor are they necessary to create, virtual workspaces. PRO tries to rebut this in Round 3 by quoting from the "Practicality in Virtuality" study. While the study is inaccessible, the abstract clearly states, "When considered conceptually, the notion of virtual experience is not limited to those experiences generated by computer aided technology, as with a video game or computer simulation." PRO's source agrees with CON's point that video games, which are what the resolution is specifically about, are not necessary for any benefit gained from virtual workspaces.
Price - I think this is another point CON could have hit harder, but PRO did nearly nothing to counter it. PRO argued in Round 2, "the money is out of the government, not out of the school." While schools are funded by the government, they each operate on an individual budget. As CON stated in Round 1, "Not all schools could afford those, and if we specifically put fundings out for it, it would be a waste of money". Since CON distinguishes between the higher cost of video games specifically and the lower cost of other virtual workspaces, the cost factor works in CON's favor.
Conclusion - As stated, PRO's sources really worked against him by not supporting his argument and even contradicting it at times. I do not believe he made a meaningful case that lawmakers should be compelled to make changes to the curriculum to include more video games. I also believe CON's argument that there is a distinction between virtual workspaces and video games, as well as the cost factor involved, adequately show that video games are not a necessary change and can be freely adopted if schools wish to do so.
Sources:
I gave this point to CON because his sources were all accessible and were related to his arguments. However, PRO's sources were not used well. In Round 1, only one source was accessible without a paid subscription of some sort. While this does not necessarily eliminate a source's validity in my mind, we also did not receive any type of analysis other than basically taking a single sentence from the abstract and making an argument of it. This leads me to believe that PRO also did not actually read anything from his sources other than the abstracts, because even these summaries did not support his argument.
-Source 1's abstract stated, "Many educationally interesting games exist, yet evidence for their impact on student achievement is slim." This hurts PRO's case that video games have been proven to be beneficial. The abstract also made a distinction between video games and simulations, which hurts PRO's Round 3 rebuttal.
-Source 2's abstract also states that virtual experience is not limited to video games but can apply to the traditional classroom experience, which again hurts PRO's case in Round 3. Source 2's abstract also did not make any indication as to whether the virtual experience was actually beneficial or not, nor was I able to draw that conclusion without access to the study.
-Source 3 is accessible, but the parameters clearly state that it only applies to participants 18 years or older. This debate is about K-12, making this source irrelevant to nearly all of the K-12 population.
-Source 4 was inaccessible, but did not end up being relevant since CON did not make this argument. I placed no weight on this source.
-In Round 2, PRO's source also helped CON's argument that virtual workspaces can be made without video games (quote from source: "Compared to complex and costly educational games, using gaming elements and mechanics in non‐game environments for a light gamification design can easily provide students with a gaming experience that is highly portable and reduces technical threshold for teachers and students.")
For these reasons, I award the point to CON for better use of sources.
Spelling and Grammar:
No significant issues from either side.
Conduct:
No issues from either side.
I'll keep this one short.
The resolution is: U.S. K-12 Public Schools Should Incorporate More Video Games in Their Curriculum
It doesn't say that video games must be proven to be necessary to the curriculum. It doesn't insinuate that there should be any kind of legal change. It says what should happen, without any clear means of implementation. While I would have appreciated Pro directly addressing these claims from Con, and while I think Pro should have absolutely specified what he means by "should" in this instance, neither of Con's attempts to frame this debate apply to the resolution, nor to any position that Pro took. I might have been willing to at least consider these claims if they came up in R1, but Con waits til R2 to try to frame the debate this way. That leaves me with little choice but to dismiss this characterization.
That leaves a lot of Con's points in limbo. His arguments about what is necessary have me scratching my head because he basically just asserts that other methods are more effective as teaching tools without providing any sources that directly compare them. This mostly strikes me as mitigation because games being boring just reduces potential benefits and games not covering the whole curriculum does the same. Meanwhile, Pro has a number of sources pointing to the benefits of video games used in school. You need to either challenge those sources or provide competing evidence to the contrary. The only real negative impact here just seems blatantly non-unique: competition- and completion-focused concerns in classrooms is an issue whether video games are there or not. Pro doesn't give that response, so I'm forced to accept that that is a factor, but Pro does point out that there are multiple ways in which video game play can be evaluated. That tells me that it's a matter of application, not method, and that makes it hard to buy that video games as a tool are ineffective or harmful.
Really, the only point that Con presents that has any heft is the price factor, and I'm not really sure what that issue means. Does it mean that teachers are going to apply video games to their lesson plans and poorer students are basically just going to be left out in the cold? How does that affect their educations? Why does that kind of classism matter? I need to see reasons to care a lot about this, but Con doesn't give me much to work with. Without it, I have Pro pointing out that Con's own source says that controlling for socioeconomic status still yields the same beneficial impacts.
And I have a lot from Pro that just goes straight dropped in terms of academic benefit. You can't just quibble about what's a game and what isn't and hope to get much of anywhere. It also really doesn't help when Con decides to throw out two new arguments in his final round, including the Project-Based Learning alternative and reducing social skills. Setting aside that the alternative isn't mutually exclusive, presenting brand new arguments like this in the final round makes me seriously consider giving Pro a conduct point, though I end up just dismissing all those points instead, largely because I don't like giving this point out unless the problems are egregious.
Anyway, arguments to Pro. Much as I do think Pro better utilized sources, I don't think the difference was so dramatic that I'd award those points, either.
Arguments:
Pro made some valid arguments such as video games being more fun. However, con made more convincing arguments. His point that video games aren't necessary - alone is enough to win him the debate. Pro could maybe win a debate named "teachers should use more video games". Pros preemptive rebuttals were effective, but later his entire argument fell apart when Con pointed out that video games are easily exploited or make students focus on the objective rather than the process.
Sources:
Pro's sources were better at supporting his argument and he successfully defended them and used them effectively to support his argument. For example, con tried to invalidate the DNA experiment - but Cons source declares it to be "a video game", effectively making Cons accusation a subjective argument, based on your opinion about what a video game is. Con rebutted by calling it "appeal to authority" - which is exactly what the source point is meant to be granted upon.
Congratulations both of you - this debate is the most interesting I have ever read, and the short length made it an enjoyable and easy experience.
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.