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.
Um.. I don't get what was so controversial about that, Undefeatable obviously won that.... in my opinion at least. No offence Intelligence, I just find your impacts lacking, and that Conduct point you lost didn't help.
If you have to ask, and if you have to nitpick, it is nuanced enough to not be "blatant lying." Accusing a debater of lying about the contents of their source should not be done lightly, and should only be done when the proposed discrepancy is largely unambiguous . Using semantics to twist meanings and fluff votes is something I was highly concerned with when helping draft that part of the voting policy, hence the qualifications that the lying must be "blatant" and that implicit warrants are not included. One thing I'd like to refine about the policy already is that we have not distinguished between unintentional discrepancies and intentional discrepancies, although I think they are both equally applicable to this policy (the only difference being that in the case of a clearly intentional discrepancy, a conduct penalty may also be appropriate, while in a case where it isn't clear that the debater intentionally lied, the voter should refrain from giving conduct penalties for that reason).
Anyway, for the first example, it isn't abundantly clear that the contents of PRO's source is in any conflict with PRO's claim at all. PRO in that scenario never claimed that other things weren't included in the virtual experience, only that video games certainly were. The literal title of the study includes video games by name. Even if a discrepancy were verified to be there, I believe it would be much too nitpicky of the voter to penalize PRO for this. It's not blatant, it's too nuanced and relies on semantic reasoning.
For the second, PRO never lied, he used an implied warrant.
"Note that this does not include implied warrants (For example, Debater A gives a statistic of rising temperatures and says “this source supports my argument that people will be eating more ice cream in the years to come”... The warrant here is implied, not explicitly stated. The voter should not use this as an excuse to say Debater A lied about the contents of the source)."
In this case, the warrant was that because it worked well with adult students, it would also work well in K-12 environments. This wasn't explicitly stated, but it's fairly obvious with the correlation he was trying to paint. Again, penalizing PRO would be too nitpicky on the part of the voter. Criticisms like this are the job of the debaters, not the voter.
Hope this answers your questions
even though the article doesn't mention explicitly if it's college students or K-12, it's still debatable if the arguments are non-unique/unique to adults...
"Video games have always been popular with adolescents and young adults, and recent technologies such as the Nintendo Wii and the Microsoft Xbox Kinect have opened the market for those of all ages to use and enjoy video games. Despite the down-turn in the country’s economy, consumer video game expenditures now account for one-third of monthly entertainment spending with the trend continuing to rise (The NPD Group 2009). Despite the prominence and popularity of video games and the potential of video games to support substantive learning, these media forms have not been successfully integrated in classrooms, and science classrooms more specifically, on a broad scale. In the sections below, we review possible explanations for this trend including two arguments that have been articulated elsewhere and a third related to the question of the nature of learning in classrooms that are increasingly becoming virtualized. We will then look deeper into the issues of virtualization and what they mean for both video game learning and educational practice."
Since you seem to have taken such issue with my vote, perhaps you could answer the two situational questions I asked in comment #42. How do my justifications violate the stated voting policy?
to be fair, I'm mostly posing a problematic vote because I think this debate is a tie due to unclear information and contested ideas, but the source point not 100% justified by Fruit. Moderators can remove it in time and vote to make a decision, but the time pressure of three days makes it difficult to know for sure. It's a little bit of a cop out, but I hesitate to let Undefeatable lose since Whiteflame is a renowned voter on DDO who has never selected the loser when he was chosen as Judge. Hence I am drawing more attention and sacrificing personal credibility in order to prevent another potential Imminent Downfall debate.
here's the full R2 source if it helps: https://docs.google.com/document/d/10UPz5MnDdqJNSc4Fd3HDhhy59zaMgVr4xeCXsFw4VxU/edit?usp=sharing
You should not base your votes on other people's votes guys, that's being unbiased 101. Not to say I disagree with Fruit's vote, I might actually agree, but you should definitely not be reading them to inform your decision regarding the debate.
I think that is a philosophical question and the mods won't be able to offer anything other than personal opinion
Thanks for the feedback. If you (or any mod who sees this) would be willing to, could I get some clarification as to how to apply the voting standard to two specific situation? It would just be helpful for future votes.
The first, CON argues there is a distinction between "video games" and "virtual workspaces." PRO counters by saying:
"Next, Con critiques that the study titled "Practicality in Virtuality: Finding Student Meaning in Video Game Education" Is somehow not about video games at all. Despite the similar setting provided by the DNA Lab and the Study itself calling it "video game education", Con decides that he is more credible than experts. I await his reasoning why the experts' own decision on their naming of study is incorrect. The only requirement for video game from MW is "an electronic game in which players control images on a video screen" [1]. Even simulations or sandboxes are popular genres within video games, and this is no different."
When I went to the source PRO cited, there was only a one-paragraph abstract, but it included the statement, "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." This explicitly contradicted what PRO claimed his source was saying. If CON doesn't explicitly say that, am I allowed to factor that into my source vote?
The second, PRO cited a source to support the following claim, "It's clear that incorporating video games would actually help them in their learning." This is referring to K-12 students. If I see that the source is only including video game users 18 years or older, can I consider that in my sources vote about relevance K-12 education?
Thanks.
"Practicality in Virtuality (source 2) was available in full, as was Effects of Game (source 3). Only Source 1 and 4 were behind a pay wall,"
I found 3/4 sources behind paywall except for the "abstract" portions, as the voter said. Again, whether this is enough to warrant source point allocation is unclear, but there was a comparison between the two of you given and there was elaboration as to how this damaged your case... hence the borderline decision. If you want to appeal the decision you may.
"I reposted Source 1's full link here."
Really it's irrelevant to my decision on the vote whether you provided sources to him after the fact or not. He didn't have that source at the time he voted. If he wants to retract the source point now that's one thing. But I won't delete the vote because you provided your source after the debate time elapsed.
"He also said source 4 wasn't really relevant since con's arg wasn't based on that."
I made sure to criticize him for the use of outside content. But that isn't in of itself enough to warrant vote removal if he pairs it with valid justifications also.
hmm? Fruit inspector messed it up. Practicality in Virtuality (source 2) was available in full, as was Effects of Game (source 3). Only Source 1 and 4 were behind a pay wall, and I reposted Source 1's full link here. He also said source 4 wasn't really relevant since con's arg wasn't based on that.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Fruit_Inspector // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:5 (5 points awarded to CON)
>Reason for Decision: See Vote Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
This vote came dangerously close to removal due to the following excerpt from the new voting policy (https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy):
"While a voter may choose to, there is no requirement to study any source beyond the precise part(s) quoted or paraphrased by either debater (and even then, within reason). Further, overly studying a source beyond what was presented, risks basing a vote upon the outside content of your own analysis instead of that offered by the debaters. If neither debater even alluded to details from a source a voter mentions, the vote has probably crossed this line. The one exception where it is acceptable to do this would be a situation in which the voter notices one side blatantly lying about what is present in their source (even if that criticism wasn’t brought up by the opponent). Note that this does not include implied warrants (For example, Debater A gives a statistic of rising temperatures and says “this source supports my argument that people will be eating more ice cream in the years to come”... The warrant here is implied, not explicitly stated. The voter should not use this as an excuse to say Debater A lied about the contents of the source)."
The voter violated this voting standard throughout much of his justifications, clearly reading into the source and basing his decision on his own analysis that CON never echoed nor even alluded to. In sum: much of this was based on outside content.
All the same, the voter made valid points regarding PRO's inaccessibility of sources... (This criticism is fair play, although I wouldn't want to make this criticism common place as many debaters like to cite books). This makes things tougher. While it isn't clear if enough of PRO's case was riding on the inaccessible sources to warrant source point allocation without reading the debate in detail, the voter does say: "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." This gives a direct comparison between the two and shows a pretty stark contrast, it also shows that PRO used a large volume of these inaccessible sources instead of just one or two.
Ultimately then, I'm judging this vote as borderline (which is automatically ruled sufficient per moderation policy). While much of the source point allocation was based on fluff outside content, the voter also included valid justifications that prevent this vote from removal.
For future reference, please keep outside analysis out of your source point allocation.
Reading some of this, I've got to say that con missed a huge opening pro left with this statement: "Con also claims that the video playing devices would be expensive and not many schools would afford it, but remember this is a state's law, so the money is out of the government, not out of the school. There's no statement on how detrimental this cost is."
With any source showing schools having bad computers or such from funding issues, this would have majorly hurt pro. As is, it seems to favor pro. Still, con was able to leverage the implemented as law point to box pro in.
I see. I figured I would use that guide since the mods would likely use that as a standard. Though it seems to have raised quite a controversy...
I was referencing source votes in general, because I saw people talking about source points. I disagree with bsh1's guide.
My philosophy is make debaters earn source votes by making arguments for the source vote themselves. I think it is more inline with tabula Rasa judging.
I think I am probably in the minority with how stingy I will be with source points. My point is that controversy over the allocation of source points would be minimized if everyone was as stingy as me.
I am not attacking your vote, just laying out my philosophy for discussion because it seems relevant to what is being discussed.
From bsh1's Guide to Voting Using the 7-point System:
"Oftentimes sources points are awarded based on quantity alone, but more bad sources is not a good thing. Quantity may inform a decision, but it should not be the only factor assessed. Relevance, credibility, and accessibility are all very important factors that go into awarding sources points.
Standard: To assign justifiable sources points, one must illustrate that there was a significant difference between the two sets of sources AND one must show that this significant impact had a substantial effect on the round or on the voter's ability to assess the round. A voter must also explain (to show demonstrable analysis) why this standard for sources points was met."
Assuming you are referencing my vote, how did I not fulfill my responsibility to award the sources point?
Honestly this is why votes on sources should be extremely rare. They really only should be awarded based on the arguments the debaters give on whether they deserve them or not. When people do award them they often do it incorrectly, for example by trying to analyze whether the sources came from a biased source.
I will review the source to see if it sways my decision by having access to it. And to be fair, you did set the character limit, though I know you can't exhaustively cover every detail.
But the part of the price issue was not just that video games were too expensive, but also that virtual workspaces could still be used without requiring the increased cost of video games specifically. So it wasn't so much a dollar amount, but that schools have budgets and his option was less expensive.
In your defense though, you handled the competition argument particularly well. So it's not that I think you did a horrible job or anything.
And I maybe wasn't explicitly clear in my vote. My thought was more that I didn't consider a claim to be validated by a source if I couldn't access it without a paid subscription. Even free subscriptions wouldn't be a problem. But my penalization was more based on the fact that his sources contradicted his claims. Had they not been contradictory, I probably would have just disregarded the source and treated it like he had not even cited anything.
For instance, PRO claimed in Round 3 that the study "Practicality in Virtuality:..." had the name video games in the title, so CON's critique that video games and virtual workspaces could be distinguished was incorrect. Had the abstract of the article cited not explicitly stated that virtual experiences were not limited to video games and thus distinguishing them, I probably would have called it a tie. So my penalization was ultimately for the contradictions, but the accessibility issue forced me to look at the abstracts and did not help win sources points for PRO.
But I can understand the somewhat unorthodox nature of the vote, which is why I spent so much space explaining why I could justify it in my mind.
I can understand sources being an important factor in this debate, so I don't fault you there.
However, I will say (and this is just my opinion) that I often find it difficult to use something not discussed in the debate as a means to determine the outcome. Part of the problem is that in the absence of any discussion over the contents of those sources, Pro/Con doesn't have an opportunity to address any conflicting evidence therein. I appreciate holding them accountable for missing critical parts of their evidence, but I don't think that's part of the duty of a judge, partially because they don't get the chance to address a point you make. I can completely understand saying that it didn't convince you for that reason, but also penalizing them in source points seems excessive to me when they have no opportunity to address those issues.
As for the point about only having access to the abstract, I find that very understandable as well, though again, the issue there seems to be penalizing for a choice of sources. I've seen many on this site and elsewhere cite books that we clearly don't have easy access to, and while I'm not particularly fond of that, I also don't feel that it's my prerogative as a voter to penalize them for selecting such a source. Pro may have access to these papers that we do not, and while his opponent would have been perfectly justified in demanding that Pro provide quotes from the paper to support his claims about what they say, the absence of such an effort makes it difficult for me to hold it against Pro.
All this being said, I can understand where you're coming from, and I'm not saying that your vote should be removed or altered, just that I personally disagree with the bases for how you're awarding source points.
here's source 1 if you need to access it: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41408678
The hard part of the debate was not having enough characters to analyze them all. I understand there are some flaws with the ideas, but the core theme around gaming is not contested by Con, not to mention he didn't say how costly this was actually going to be. He mentions it but doesn't tell us why this is a significant problem in my opinion. (Is the cost not worth it? Etc.)
I see the point of sources is to back one's claim and should be evaluated as such. While my vote was heavily swayed by sources in this debate, I based it on their usage within the arguments presented.
For example, if PRO cites a source claiming that it proves video games greatly benefit learning, but the source itself says that the results of surveyed literature produce conflicting results, I do not see that as giving any credibility or basis for PRO's argument.
Or, if PRO states that a study greatly benefits learning, but all I can see is the abstract that makes no such claim, I see no reason to consider that claim valid. Now if PRO had explained the content of the study and how they arrived at their conclusion, I think that would have been fine even if I couldn't access it. So accessibility was not ultimately the issue. But as I said, even the abstracts contradicted PRO's claims and hurt his arguments.
It seems reasonable to evaluate a source based on the claim the debate participant is making. If the source contradicts the point the the participant is making, that hurts both his argument and his use of sources. But my decision was ultimately based on the arguments and not the sources. I think CON successfully showed that price is an important factor, and that using cheaper alternative virtual workspaces (as opposed to the actual video games which was the topic of the resolution) is a viable option; that was his argument, not mine. But, CON also argued that it is reasonable that schools should have the option to do so rather than it being mandatory. I was not convinced by all of CON's arguments, and PRO countered some of them quite well. If the mods think I overstepped my evaluation of the sources within the context of the arguments made, that is up to them.
probably need more skilled voters to decide on this one. Seems difficult since Con didn't point out problems with sources, despite them being present... (I myself have problem deciding, so abstain for now)
I mean, he certainly gives a lot of feedback on sources. It's unusual for someone to give sources to one side on the basis of accessibility, and the mods may see that as problematic, though I'm not certain myself. As for having contradictory claims, I guess if they're demonstrated within the debate, I could see that as a valid reason to have problems with them. I do generally have a problem with voters pointing out problems with sources that aren't presented in the debate.
Pro's R2 source admits that some gaming can be costly, and thus gamification is also an alternative solution, but didn't you read the passage above it?
"When providing a personalized learning experience for students, considering the budget and versatility of the game, the adaptive game system is the direction that scholars are actively exploring. For example, some researchers have developed adaptive educational games based on learning style or player performance, which can dynamically and continuously adjust learning content according to students' interaction with the game. The adaptive educational games can effectively enable students to maximize understanding and mastering of knowledge content and reduce the cognitive load of students (Clark et al., 2016; Soflano, Connolly, & Hainey, 2015). Torrente, Freire, Moreno‐Ger, and Fernández‐Manjón (2015) focused on special groups and developed a (semi) adaptive educational game “My First Day at Work” based on the player community. The game configures the user interface through the initial role selection, including the blind character, the wheelchair character, the hearing impaired character, and the fourth character without obvious disability. For example, the scene adapted to the low vision crowd uses a high contrast rendering mode to darken the background and highlight interactive elements."
Hence, different adaptive measures can flexibly incorporate gaming or similar to video game ideas. The fact that Con didn't differentiate between non-video game "gamification" and Pro's video game stance means you can't exactly incorporate this idea in my opinion.
what do you think about Fruit's reading of the sources? It does seem Pro half stabbed himself in the foot, but Con never pointed out the inaccuracies. Do you think it's reasonable for voters to read into if the sources have contradictory claims?
I’m too busy to vote but on glance I think you missed out on what pro said. I agree with whiteflame’s decision
Vote plz
Vote?
Bump?
Done reading it, should have an RFD up sometime over the next day or so.
Got it, should start on this this weekend.
VR seems a bit longer and harder to vote on. I think this one would be nice to have extra feedback on.
Sure, should be able to get to this. Would you like me to prioritize this one or the Violent Revolution debate?
care to take a vote? I tried to make my point concise and to the point, though intelligence offered stiff competition here.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: gugigor // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 6:0 (6 points awarded to PRO)
>Reason for Decision:
"Since Mods are very slow, I am counter voting fauxlaw for conduct and source.
As for arguments, I believe Pro has won because he displayed it would increase performance of students and allow for greater flexibility not available in real life. This goes largely unaddressed. Con uses an "obligation" argument, but Pro's plan just seems to be a law helping instill funds necessary for more video games. There doesn't seem to be any requirements as far as I'm concerned. Pro is just suggesting that more games would be more helpful for the curriculum. I don't know whether to accept social skills rebuttal or not, since it's a new argument in the final round and Pro couldn't respond."
>Reason for Mod Action:
Awarding points based solely on other votes violates voting guidelines.
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: This factor goes to Con only because Pro's enforcement of his argument, by law, never is supported by scholastic defense of sourcing. No source stipulates that the play of video games as a school curriculum tool ought to be enforced by law. Con's sources limit their reach to defend Con's allegation that while video games may, in fact, have beneficial results, the introduction of them is not a necessity. Points to Con.
S&G: Tie
Conduct: Pro loses this point by his R2 claim that Con dropped the "argument" of Pro's R1 "pre-rebuttal." Being referenced by Pro as a rebuttal to an argument that Con never made does not turn it into an argument for Pro that Con ignores at that point in the debate. Bad form by Pro. Con wins the point.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Fauxlaw // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:6 (6 points awarded to CON)
>Reason for Decision: See Comments
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter did a good job handling arguments but the sources & conduct point is not adequately justified. The voter should revote with these point allocations either removed or more adequately substantiated.
Citing Ragnar here:
"Things not to award sources for (barring for exceptional cases):
- Common knowledge… E.g., that Wikipedia says JFK was the president of a country, is unlikely to enhance any impacts (unless the other side is denying that).
- The subject of the debate… E.g., in a biblical debate, preferring one side’s analysis of the bible itself already speaks directly to the argument points, not exceptional sourcing.
- A lead of only a couple sources, even if only one side had any. While quantity isn’t the standard, there is a minimal threshold for consideration.
- Source spam without relevant analysis by the presenter. Sources are awarded for quality, not mere quantity.
- The voter’s own research on the topic."
This justification plays to the final bullet: "This factor goes to Con only because Pro's enforcement of his argument, by law, never is supported by scholastic defense of sourcing. No source stipulates that the play of video games as a school curriculum tool ought to be enforced by law." This is essentially bringing in outside content into the debate.
Regarding conduct, citing Ragnar again:
"(Point is) Invalid if: Both sides had similar types and/or magnitude of misbehavior, or it is too minor for a reasonable person to be significantly distracted from the topic. Further, a conduct penalty is not warranted for mere dislike for the topical contentions, or for weak argumentation."
The voter has to demonstrate that this behavior from PRO is of sufficient magnitude to distract from the topic.
Read thrice. If you don't like the vote, appeal to a mod, but your sources, as voted, did not support your imperative that the law impose video games. Your argument; your choice to not choose supportable sourcing. That argument did not have to be made, but you made it and must live with it.
can you re-read the debate? I'm not certain the sources/conduct point was awarded correctly...
Bro... that’s an entirely new argument. And adding video games doesn’t mean you can’t have projects
Sources for R3:
[1]https://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/09/12/Yes-Video-Games-Really-Are-Ruining-Your-Kid-s-Social-Skills
[2]https://www.parentingscience.com/Effects-of-video-games-on-school.html
Last round source: merriam-webster.com/dictionary/video%20game
Sources for R2:
[1]https://www.parentingscience.com/Effects-of-video-games-on-school.html
[2]https://www.pblworks.org/why-project-based-learning
[3]https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incorporate
[4]https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/curriculum
Sources for R1:
[1]https://hechingerreport.org/is-making-a-game-out-of-learning-bad-for-learning/
[2]ibid
Y did u make it 3000 :(
sorry I meant "even if not science and math" for the first source. Bleh.
Let us begin.
You have proven to possess the power of a true hero. In the name of the Goddess Hylia... I offer this final trial.
If you have played “educational video games” I assure it is terrible unless it is about programming and computer science. I would rather listen to an Indian guy explaining stuff on YouTube.