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.
I'm going to try to get Roy to get his opinion. Though he probably can't vote on time (100 forum posts oof), I hope moderators will accept I vote in his place (if he makes a decision on Facebook). That way I minimize my personal bias for pro.
Nice analysis, though... didn’t pro point out there is unlimited possibilities to video games in r1? (DNA lab can make things easier than irl) The virtual experience separation does slightly blur the line, but you don’t seem to have the same issue as fruit inspector with regards to this
I think the question is if you accept con’s “is pro benefits unique?” Or if pro’s “con did not show harms”... very tricky argument wise. Still, source points are up in the air.
Was the debate really this close? I can't wait to read it
In Round 1, Pro argues that various research proves video games have an educational benefit. Con does not respond directly to this point. Instead, he argues that video games are not necessary. He also argues that video games will drive harmful competition, and the cost to introduce video games to the classroom would be too expensive.
In R2, Pro notes that problems with competitiveness among students are not limited to video games, and that teachers walking kids through a gaming experience may foster positive aspects of competition or growth. He also explains why video games are particularly useful. Con responds that if the positive aspects of video games can be replicated without them, we should pursue that to mitigate costs. Con also suggests that video games are more about competition than learning, and students distracted by video games after school will not focus on their studies. He concludes that video materials are acceptable in the classroom, but should not be a mandatory part of the state curriculum.
In the final round, the argument about harmful competition is dropped. Pro points out that Con's source bolsters Pro's argument about the educational utility of video games. He reiterates that teachers may evaluate teamwork, game spirit, and motivation. Con responds by accepting Pro's contention that video games have educational utility. However, his rebuttal is premised on the fact that just because video games can be useful does not mean they should be mandatory. He argues that the negatives (i.e. decreased social interaction) could outweigh the benefits. However, Con does not elaborate on how and why we should assume his position is the right one on a cost-benefit analysis. He did not expand on potential harms which could have really helped his case. Instead Con argues "My opponent [has] yet to give ONE example of games that trains our social skills at the same time learning without losing other aspects of learning." But I would venture to say Pro addressed this when he said twice that teachers can evaluate students on their teamwork among other capabilities.
In conclusion, Con states that "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." First, let's note that Con has already conceded academic benefits to video games. This forces us to consider his other point: that video games should not be mandated by the state as part of the curriculum, because there is nothing specifically "necessary" or significantly important kids need to learn via video games that they aren't learning now. He claims Pro therefore has to explain why video games teach something specific or in a specific way that cannot be achieved through other means (without state mandates), and I agree this is a fair way to see if Pro has fulfilled his burden.
Pro has proven the utility of video games, but I don't think he fulfilled the burden of explaining why they should be put into the curriculum -- as in why video games provide specific value that cannot be replicated by other means. There are a lot of arguments I think Pro could have made and should have made. 1) Video games or other forms of AI are likely going to be an integral part of the future; 2) video games teach specific skill sets you can't replicate through other means; 3) virtual tools could be used in place of humans or rather out-dated other tools to mitigate the cost of introducing new tech, etc. 4) Video games can measure things that traditional forms of learning cannot, such as XYZ.
I am voting for Con's arguments due to Pro not meeting his burden. To be clear I think Con missed some good arguments and rebuttals as well.
I am voting for Pro's sources because Con did not utilize sources as effectively, and included a source that discounted his own position.
Almost had it...
Hottest debate we’ve had in awhile!
I am very reticent to award source points in instances like these. Always feels like double-dipping to me - I’m already treating his new arguments from that round as entirely forfeit. It’s my standard, regardless of the context of other votes on the debate.
I don't care if I win or lose this one anymore. Obviously I want to win, but it is to almost zero likelihood that I will win. The moment I lose this, is the moment I will start a new one. With the same topic.
(RFD 1/3)
I have already achieved the gold 'medal' (site achievement) of voting and don't care about being 'the most overall voter' so I generally opt to vote minimalistically, as it also helps avoid grudges but more importantly saves me effort that will potentially piss someone off (the loser) or corrupt the system (if the winner begins to repay me). Regardless, the reason I am voting on this debate is because it is so close and with so many voters that I feel it is net-detrimental to opt out, as I am capable and (after reading) I do see a winner, though the other put up a decent fight.
Tied points: S&G and Conduct.
The S&G point is easy to justify, both sides presented their arguments in clear English and decent enough formatting that neither side can be justified to lose the point.
The Conduct point is more a case of both sides being sassy enough with each other and 'declaring' what the other side had failed to address in later Rounds. Con also did something that I do personally factor into my Conduct voting; bypassed character limitations by pasting URLs in the comments, despite his opponent remaining limited by several sentences in Round 1 due to pasting full URLs. Since Con only uses one source in Round 1 and Pro never brings up the issue, I will dismiss this as being mild even though in a 3k-only debate, that's actually not 'mild' per se, had Con used many more sources in his first Round and Pro raised the issue, I may have honestly voted differently here.
(RFD 2/3)
The (3) Arguments point(s) (go)es to Pro, as (do)es the (2) Sources point(s):
Let's skip to the juiciest issue of the debate; is 'should' based on necessity or seeking the most benefit for students? In reality, these are two extremes (minimalism vs maximal-gain ethos) while the true answer lies in the pragmatic justification for benefits being outweighed by costs or vice versa. There is also one further way this debate can go differently and in policy debates it's more common to see; Con could suggest a counterplan or alternative thing to video games that give the same benefits for less cost (or more benefits that are worth the higher cost or whatever). Con does try this by merely mentioning project-based learning but doesn't even begin to explain the benefits of it nor how they outweigh those of video games. Furthermore, cost becomes a very big issue for Con as it was his best point made in the whole debate and yet he provides 0 sourcing or evidence to back it up.
It is clear that to Con, a pillar of this debate was the necessity of implementing the plan, which Con felt was a huge portion of Pro's Burden of Proof (BoP), whereas Pro weakly pushes back on it in Round 2 but comes in much stronger in Round 3, which is where the source vote comes in but I'll explain that in the Sources section of my RFD. The problem, which is perhaps again linked to how well or poorly Con used sources, is that Con didn't use sources, let alone strong ones, for the hugest points that he was making:
1) Con says this (which is an EXCELLENT rebuttal even though it should have been a contention):
"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."
He doesn't use a single source in THIS ENTIRE brilliant rebuttal and so everything he is saying becomes (within the debate) baseless assertion. This complete lack of backing it up with data or research is why the rebuttal is then able to be easily handled by Pro in Round 3 (though Pro could have done much more to take it more Head-on already in Round 2, Pro should have been ready).
Con doesn't prove that conventional teaching methods are capable of equalling the benefits of a new teaching system that incorporates video games. Furthermore, he doesn't give a single hint, let alone clarified stat or sale price, budget or anything, to indicate the 'costs much more and isn't worth it' angle of this rebuttal. This means that Con has effectively said nothing because both of these points required some solid research or source to make them become more than baseless assertion. Con clearly feels both angles are 'obviously true' but that is not how I approach judging debates and is correct of me not to do.
Pro tackles the necessity angle with turning Con's source 1 (which is the same as Con's source 2, literally) against him. Now, I also don't believe in me as the judge reading the source itself and voting this way or that based on it, but Pro explicitly turns the source against Con in the final Round and I must admit that not only did Pro excellently do this, in terms of precision, but the entire message being conveyed in Con's source is supportive of incorporating games and recreation into learning, it merely posits that this shouldn't be the only way that the subjects are made more fun. I am aware that this is me 'reading the source' but Pro explicitly attacked Con's source, so to judge if this was disingenuous nitpicking and overall anti-gaming source by Pro or Con's foul use of a source, I then had to read it.
Now, moving away from the 'necessity' angle, we come into the benefits aspect of the debate (since the 'costs' angle is baselessly asserted by Con foremost in Round 2 but again in Round 3, without concrete stats or research to back it up). The 'benefits' essentially became the entire debate due to necessity and costs being zero-sum angles.
(RFD 3/3)
This is where Pro wins the debate. You see, Con is correct in his Round 3, Pro did basically have only 2 core points:
"Playing games could make you better at learning
Playing games isn't necessarily bad"
However, Con agrees to point 2 wholeheartedly, not just his source, since he himself agreed to this several times because his entire angle was that while there undoubtedly are benefits, it's not essential enough to be worth the cost. As for point 1, 'could' is an unfair exaggeration, 'would' and 'already can be demonstrated to, depending on game format' is a better way to explain Pro's actual angle in that regard.
Con's only hope to win the debate, if we eliminate everything else already mentioned, would be to BUILD his case on project-based learning (PBL) as a counterplan rather than keep trying to tear down the necessity of video games, which he keeps conceding will be beneficial. Con clearly is stating that in his eyes, PBL gives more benefits, less drawbacks (competition and cost) and... I'm not sure but it seems that in Round 2 Con hints at the legal complications and unfeasibility of getting this to pass as legally being an approved and enforced part of all public education curriculums and teaching methods, with there being an implicit hint from him that PBL is going to be much easier to enforce.
Pro completely neglects addressing PBL as a valid alternative, however as I said, Con never built a case for it. In fact, the sources 3 and 4 both were merely definitions of 'incorporate' and 'curriculum' so Con again fails to properly build a backed-up case for his counterplan.
Throughout the debate, Con states no concrete data, statistics or research regarding the benefits vs cost analysis of video games and/or PBL (nor comparing the two in any direct sense UNTIL THE LAST ROUND when Pro can't reply to any of it and actually many brand new points were made by Con in the final Round but it seems more out of not appreciating the debate structure and thinking he was merely explaining his points in-depth, whereas he was genuinely making brand new points and comparisons). We have quite literally got no way to believe what Con says, regarding benefits vs cost as well as feasibility of getting this legally enforced in public education curriculums is valid. Con had to back this up with sources, Pro meanwhile backs up things that are even somewhat absurd, such as that heavy gamers OUTPERFORM non-gamers at school? I'm skeptical about this being a rule, rather than that exceptions exist, but Pro uses scientific journals, concrete research and statistics to back it up.
In summary, Pro wins because when it comes to benefits vs costs, we have both sides agree on benefits and Con keeps saying there are drawbacks and expensive costs, without backing it up.
That video games come at a cost, and that multiple copies of same may be prohibitively costly to a public-supported institution is common knowledge. By policy, sources not needed for common knowledge.
Well, my vote stands. Thank you, MisterChris.
Please don't ask voters to alter their votes based on other votes.
the sources points seems to be the most contentious here. Would you care to elaborate on your decision on that? Seems like it could swing the debate back around into a tie, if you decide to weigh them as heavily as fauxlaw/fruit inspector
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Fauxlaw // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 to CON
>Reason for Decision: See Vote Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The point allocation being contested here is the source points.
Citing Ragnar:
"Sources are optional and if awarded require a strong quality lead. Sources go to the side that better supported their case with relevant outside evidence and/or analysis thereof. If both sides have done their research due diligence, these points are usually tied.
A side with unreliable sources may be penalized, but the voter must specify why the sources were unreliable enough to diminish their own case (such as if the other side called attention to the flaws, thereby engaging with sources in a more effective manner with impacts to arguments; thereby flipping the source and harming the opposing argument)."
Despite the controversial reasoning, the voter justified his point allocations in this manner. Again: users are allowed to assign points in any way they see fit as long as they adhere to DART voting guidelines. There are some exceptions, such as cases that are so blatantly unfair no rational person can approve of it, but otherwise the interpretive ability of moderation is severely handicapped.
Fauxlaw's vote is being reviewed. I would appreciate if voters stopped with the trigger-happy countervoting.
Thanks.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: gugigor // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 2 to PRO
>Reason for Decision:
"Counter-voting fauxlaw in case Moderators do not get around to contesting his vote. (Remove this if his vote is found up to standard.)
Fauxlaw states: gave source to con saying: " 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."
But con also gave no source that the video games would cost severe amounts of money, particularly in that it would be detrimental to poor schools, or detrimental to the government. So why does source points go to con?
In addition, Pro does not suggest this is a mandatory curriculum or addition at all. He just says there will be some kind of law implemented to help introduce these video games to schools. He doesn't outright say "they can choose to do it or not", but he seems to lean towards "do it because it's net beneficial". I don't buy Fauxlaw's framework around necessity at all."
>Reason for Mod Action:
Voting solely based on opinion towards other votes is prohibited.
I gave the nod to Con because Con dismantled your primary justification chosen to highlight your debate, given in the description that video games be imposed as a matter of law, rather than a choice by school boards. You went the all or nothing argument, and could not support it.
oh my, I hope your vote wasn't slanted in the same way as Imminent Downfall's debate (if Bringer of Rain and gugigor's conclusion was correct). I hope you'll give another close look into Con's sources as well as I did not think he completely refuted my sources.
any of you guys up to the challenge in such short notice?
calling in all last day potential voters. I'm not sure who's winning here, but I'm certain that Fauxlaw's vote is not 100% justified. More votes please!
you gave source to con saying: " 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."
But con also gave no source that the video games would cost severe amounts of money, particularly in that it would be detrimental to poor schools, or detrimental to the government. So why does source points go to con?
I work 12 hour days, so will probably not get around to voting in time.
That said, I'll get around to giving some feedback (I already know that I would leave everything but arguments tied, even while I consider sources worth discussing... I just don't think either side came out that much ahead on them).
I would of course like to see you two tackle this subject again sometime, with more rounds. If doing so, I advise some statement of the current level of video games in schools as a basis to better understand the competing proposals. While I would not want 10k characters, I am really curious what this as a law would look like (a debate specifically on the utility of that could be cool).
To show I'm a man of my word, I did review the sources you provided in the comments after my vote. Thanks for taking the time to do that. Let me note that from the beginning, the reason I gave a more thorough review of all sources was because I actually found your debate topic quite interesting, so good job on that.
Your argument was that a study "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." The source you used to support that claim (Round 1 source #1) essentially made the conclusion that there is not enough empirical data to make any meaningful conclusion about the benefit of video games in K-12 education. This is not surprising since the abstract did say, "Many educationally interesting games exist, yet evidence for their impact on student achievement is slim." Admittedly, the study did say, "we can report finding evidence only for language learning and, to a lesser degree, physical education," but I saw nothing significant that really changed the justification given in my vote. Nor was this the example that ultimately swayed my source vote.
Per comment #45, I was actually able to access your Round 2 source in full during my original vote.
I will apologize however since I feel that in defending my vote justification, I had to give excessive scrutiny and criticism to your arguments. While I recognize the immense value of criticism, I also realize it's not the most enjoyable feedback to receive, especially if you disagree with it. But as I said, I thought the topic was quite interesting and the arguments vote was actually a close call for me. Had CON argued against both video games and virtual workspaces without making a distinction, my vote probably would have gone in your favor. I also thought you aptly countered his arguments about competition, fun games vs games that "suck," and learning outcomes vs learning processes.
No vote?
Vote?
More voters?
But the context was CON's argument that other virtual experiences could be used as a cheaper alternative to video games in particular with the same benefit. CON even mentioned that the debate was about "video games" specifically to bolster his point. In that context, the very source PRO uses in his rebuttal against that argument says that the concept of virtual experiences are not limited to "video games". So PRO's source not only explicitly contradicts what he says (that the source does not make a distinction), but it actually supports CON's argument PRO is trying to defend against that cheaper alternatives can achieve the same benefit of virtual workspaces.
I think even if you disagree about my awarding source points to CON, we can at least agree that was a poor use of a source by PRO.
The source does admit that there is no significant difference, hence Con could've made the point that there was no unique benefit, and maybe even wasted money. But he never brought that point, and therefore the idea that the "meaningful experiences apply for both classrooms and video games" makes video games seem at least on par with other learning resources. Pro only had to prove it was equally worth investing as with normal classroom material, in my opinion.
You realize you can specify what "new point" you meant and revote, right?
No, I want to know about this question in particular from my post:
"But more importantly, if PRO states that
source #2 from Round 1 makes no distinction between video games and virtual experiences, but then I see that the one-paragraph abstract explicitly makes a distinction between video games and virtual experiences, isn't that a bad use of a source?"
even though his source was limited, it didn't explicitly contradict in the form. Unless Con pointed this out or showed why children won't enjoy adult's games, I don't think pro can be penalized for the source point. Remember how I said that Australia's gun control policy is excellent, but pointed out it was an outlier that didn't detract from my gun control argument? Even if I had not mentioned Australia at all, if a source admits that some countries have good gun control policies, but mostly focuses on gun control's flaws, then I think it would still support my ideas.
Your evidence that I did not read it, is that I did an analysis on a key part of it... By that logic you clearly did not read the debate, as you analysed key parts of it... Please tell me you see in retrospect how comical that statement is?
Of course as the vote is available below (#55), if you said you gave conduct for the "social deductions" argument in R3, please indicate which paragraph this was in? Because I admittedly did not read that within the conduct summary.
I'm still waiting on a response to my post #53. If you're going to criticize my ability to evaluate a debate based upon voting guidelines, the least you can do is justify it. I honestly want to hear why you think citing a source that explicitly contradicts the very claim a debater says it supports is not a bad use of sources.
I can still vote fairly even if I think con's profile picture is racist. Just as a heads up
Kind of want to vote on this. I think the guy who has the picture of Goebbels as his profile did a good job as well as pro did a good job
Whiteflame himself nearly gave conduct point to pro, saying " 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."
"Con introduced a brand new argument in the last round, giving Pro no room to rebuke them or even answer them at all - Con should therefore be penalized for such an action, I give it to Pro."
It seems as if you didn't even read the vote, just copied and pasted it
> "it makes zero sense to delete it."
You did not cite in the vote what the extremely offending conduct was, beyond a vague reference to where (imagine a vote grading arguments without ever naming them specifically: 'that first argument held up, that second one did not, and that third WOW!'). My guess as to "projects" instead of "social deductions," doesn't change that key issue.
That was clearly a new argument regarding social deductions, it was entirely newly supported with no chance for Pro to respond, it makes zero sense to delete it.
I think penalizing intelligence for conduct is difficult, but I think your sauce and argument points are solid. Try revoting.
Got to say, this debate is exemplifying a good reason to post sources within the debate itself, as yours are becoming less accessible the more the debate is discussed. Also of note is that embedding links does not add to the character count of the text. So [1] could contain a link, as could [2], etc. Granted, I do like the presentation of a source list at the end of rounds, but the lack of it is not something I would outright penalize.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Theweakeredge // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6 to pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Simply put: The conduct allocation is troubling. First, it does not list what the brand new argument was (I can guess projects, which was actually expanded from a previous round); which in the only other vote to find conduct noteworthy was fine as it ultimately did not score the point. Second, it honestly feels tacked on to try to score more points than the previous voter.
To cast a sufficient vote, for each category awarded, a voter must explicitly perform the following tasks:
(1) Provide specific references to each side’s utilization within the said category.
(2) Weigh the impacts against each other, including if any precluded others.
(3) Explain the decision within the greater context of the debate.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#casting-votes
Conduct is an optional award as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, such as extreme unsportsmanlike or outright toxic behavior which distracted from the topical debate.
**************************************************
Theweakeredge
Added: 22 hours ago
#4
Reason:
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 - Con should therefore be penalized for such an action, I give it to Pro.
Gugigor's vote has been deleted at his own private request.
Source #3 from Round 1 explicitly stated that participants in that study were 18 or older, making the study almost entirely irrelevant to a debate on K-12 except perhaps a small population of 12th graders.
But more importantly, if PRO states that
source #2 from Round 1 makes no distinction between video games and virtual experiences, but then I see that the one-paragraph abstract explicitly makes a distinction between video games and virtual experiences, isn't that a bad use of a source?
thanks for the vote. I think the main reason it's difficult for Benjamin, gugigor and even Fruit to analyze the arguments part is that Con's assertions are only hand swatted away. It's difficult to actually bring up how much the costs will be, both for me and for con, especially within 3,000 characters. And under my stricter framework of trying to implement as a law (otherwise, how would education systems afford it? That's a good question.) means Con's "necessary" argument may become ambiguous (as we naturally assume that laws would take much effort to pass, hence, "necessary" isn't completely out of the question, even if it raises eyebrows)
By the way, if anyone wants to claim, "AH you're biased!" I would like to remind you that Undefeatable delivered one of my only two losses in one of my "arenas" If I had a bias against anyone it would be him.