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.
150th comment marking
I'm not saying that his vote seems legit. I'm saying that his vote is legit. If I had decided to let Con's framing of the resolution stand because Pro never meaningfully addressed it (something I absolutely considered) and chose to award conduct to Pro for Con's new arguments in the final round (I actually wrote that I was very close to doing this), then I would have posted the exact same point allocation. If MisterChris does the same thing because costs matter more to him than vague educational boosts, then that's his decision. You didn't make the same one. Neither did I. Doesn't make his any less valid.
What you seem most upset by is the fact that he's selective in choosing which points to award and that he split the points. I honestly think that happens too little. If the goal was to heap points on one side, as so many debaters do, then he would have done that. I don't know why you think he'd get something out of tying this debate (which appears as though it won't happen anyway, based on Bringerofrain), but your attempts to push a narrative of why MisterChris would do this are just absurd.
Read misterchris's RFD. He builds a good RFD to justify voting Pro then out of nowhere, ignores the sources point allocation, switches everything to Con because Con said the costs are too great and gives Conduct to Pro for Con posting too many new points in Round 3.
You tell me his vote seems legit? Read it.
Nice ideal, but I somewhat doubt that you can behave like a super computer, and even if you could, a super computer itself would come with biases. A person would have to program said super computer to favor certain points, otherwise the computer would simply state what was said happened and not award points.
I try to get as close to what a super computer would spit out as I can to determine winners. Assuming the computer is completely tabula Rasa
I mean... fine, I guess? Like I said, it's not really possible to set aside all your personal views, largely because there will always be points you prefer and points you don't, no matter how much personal knowledge you throw out. In the words of the Dread Pirate Roberts, anyone who tells you different is selling something.
I don't care how anyone else votes. I am not pushing any philosophy by explaining mine. In fact I am just inviting criticism of my philosophy by explaining it, so I can improve
I don't have much knowledge anyway, so it's not much to throw away. Barely an inconvenience.
There are very different understandings of what tabula rasa is depending on the style of debate. Ideally, we would all be able to set aside every bias and piece of information we have, but in practice, that’s impossible. In general, I’m not fond of pushing such an ideal among voters, nor am I supportive of everyone bringing everything they know to bear on a debate. Not sure where the line should be drawn, but I don’t think it’s reasonable to say that people should throw out any knowledge they have to determine the outcome.
I disagree with me chris. I think tabula Rasa does mean throwing away even 1st grade level reasoning. Reasonable minds can disagree though
Literally in 4 or 5 hours when I have alone time. The reason being is that it is all voice to text and I want to make it more comprehensible to people reading it. If I can't do that I will post as is.
Doesn't it make sense that if there is a cheaper technology alternative to video games that can provide the same level of benefit, that a school would choose that option?
Con never proves the costs are severe, let alone that his counter plan outweighs the benefits.
Tabula Rasa indeed means throwing any education out the window that isn't purely semantic and required to follow the debate.
any chance the MASTER OF 3,000 character arguments can give his stance on how the arguers did?
Do I need to explain the difference between an arg overview with some selective feedback and an RFD section? The purpose of one is to summarize with some select feedback, the purpose of the other is to show my view of how the args mesh together overall relative to the framework.
Also me assuming that there is an inherent cost isn't bias, it's common fucking sense, and Tabula Rasa doesn't mean throwing out literally 1st grade level reasoning skills. You're also totally ignoring that this was one of CON's main points... So it's not like I'm inventing the notion on my own...
You are correct that only the debate's contents should factor in. Therefore it should be absent from your mind how much video games cost, for instance.
I am only challenging you because you are a voting moderator mostly. I would simply wait until the debate is over for a normal situation, since then it isn't voter tampering. Everyone who voted Con in this debate doesn't understand Tabula Rasa but your RFD didn't even highlight why you thought Con won until the last sections of it, the complete opposite was signified until that point.
when are you planning to vote? I may be sleeping in 4~5 hours ...
clearly you can't read very well
For the fucking record I didn't even notice that my point allotment would result in a tie nor do I really care if it does. The purpose of voting isn't to throw as many points as justifiably possible towards your favored candidate to outweigh other voters, it's to give an opinion on the debate absent consideration of anything except what transpired in the debate itself.
Yes because you're abusing loopholes and technicalities. For instance, you correctly showed events in the debate then magically said the benefits are outweighed by the costs because Con says so.
No, more like I want them to review the vote like they would any other voter so I can prove to you people that it more than holds up to standard.
You are making both debaters owe you. This is the only sensible motive I can see.
You know deep down you voted wrong, to tie the points.
I am appealing to you and I know they will probably leave the vote up but this is a very unwise move by you because Ragnar will see your vote for what it is while not necessarily removing it. It shows lack of integrity and intentional abusing of loopholes in the rules, such as intentionally dodging the sources point because it's not mandatory.
He did, so I reported myself on your behalf and shared the vote to Ragnar and Blamonkey directly.
As I told Undefeatable, please don't ask voters to alter their votes based on other people.
This sucks. I did not want to be the deciding vote at like 3 am
it's possible my report didn't go through because ragnar removed my ability to report forum posts and comments.
I have read the debate. Both people seem friendly towards each other. I don't understand the conduct points LOL. I'm just voting argument points as usual
why would i 'justify conduct point' based on what others are voting?
I think Ragnar is too busy to make a proper decision, and Blamonkey is non-existent. It's all up to Bringerofrain now...
(unless you can also justify conduct point lol)
I did report his vote, he is lying.
I have an RFD written. Will break the tie later if somebody does not beat me to it
"It is not poor conduct for Pro to introduce new arguments in the last round unless explicitly stated otherwise. Con can respond to Pro's points. In fact, it is risky for Pro to introduce new arguments in the last round because they won't be able to reply to Con's rebuttal. But there is nothing on DART or even within formal debating that makes it poor conduct for Pro to introduce a new argument in the last around when Con has the opportunity to not only reply but give the last word."
Gugigor is correct. I gave PRO conduct points and penalized CON for the new args, not the other way around.
"I would actually argue that you can't really do that... unless Con specifically layed out how the harms compared to the benefits, which is why I ruled Con losing."
What do you mean? CON dedicated a subpoint to the idea and cross-applied this point to counter much of PRO's case.
other way around. Mr chris voted conduct for pro because of con's new arguments
It is not poor conduct for Pro to introduce new arguments in the last round unless explicitly stated otherwise. Con can respond to Pro's points. In fact, it is risky for Pro to introduce new arguments in the last round because they won't be able to reply to Con's rebuttal. But there is nothing on DART or even within formal debating that makes it poor conduct for Pro to introduce a new argument in the last around when Con has the opportunity to not only reply but give the last word.
I would actually argue that you can't really do that... unless Con specifically layed out how the harms compared to the benefits, which is why I ruled Con losing.
Pro did point out the potential for video games in R1 which I noted in my RFD. But something having potential or even "unlimited possibilities" is not reason enough to mandate changes in a school curriculum. There should have been a more expansive and/or specific explanation as to how and why those possibilities create a unique experience that justifies a state mandate. It was Pro's burden to convince the audience that the educational benefits don't just exist (like Con acknowledges), but make it worthwhile to apply to everyone in public school. For instance Pro notes teachers can evaluate teamwork, game spirit, and motivation with video games and that is true. But a teacher can do the same by mandating their students play kickball. I don't think there was enough attention paid to the benefits of video games or again what makes video games superior to alternative methods.
CON never specified the costs but he showed that we can assume them to be significant through several lines of reasoning. PRO never specified just how great the educational benefits were and we have little indication of whether they are significant. CON also gave the counterplan of cheaper means of education (stealing some impacts from PRO)
but... but Con also never showed how big the costs were. That's why Whiteflame + RM judged the argument to become a big fat zero. There's a clear benefit, but it's unclear how big the harms compare to it.
RM never reported my vote so I'm reporting it myself. The rest of the mods can rule my vote however they deem fit.
"Yes, I am accusing you of intentional corrupt voting. No, I do not care if this is against the CoC to accuse in the comments. I will explain more later after the verdict on your vote is given."
Anndddd this is why I was reluctant to vote at all. I thought with such a close debate people would appreciate my vote but I was worried something like this would happen.
"as a voting mod, how the fuck do you justify not giving sources to Pro?"
They are optional points. I don't typically choose to award sources unless I felt that one debater did significantly more/better research than the other. And while we had one turn from PRO, that was mostly a consequence of debating skills, not better sourcing.
You are completely wrong but you don't understand Tabula Rasa, I have reported your vote anyway and am curious how Ragnar or blamonkey will justify you keeping it up.
If they do, I will explain more absurdity in the turnaround at the end as well as the way you dodge giving Pro sources YET GIVE PRO CONDUCT.
You have a loaded vote intended to tie the points, for reasons that are strange to me.
Yes, I am accusing you of intentional corrupt voting. No, I do not care if this is against the CoC to accuse in the comments. I will explain more later after the verdict on your vote is given.
CON lost most of his point by the end, but the one point he had that really mattered (cost) stood.
PRO never got down and dirty and told us why exactly the educational benefit would outweigh this cost, only that there WAS one.
as a voting mod, how the fuck do you justify not giving sources to Pro?
that was a ridiculous vote, your RFD clearly showed all the flaws in Con's case and strength in Pro's. Your vote makes NO sense, the turnaround at the end doesn't add up at all.
Good job to both debaters. Hopefully my vote was satisfactory
No, you can't vote on other people's behalf. That's not a good precedent to set. I voted instead.
By the definition, a virtual lab is no game.