Instigator / Pro
44
1644
rating
64
debates
65.63%
won
Topic
#2765

U.S. K-12 Public Schools Should Incorporate More Video Games in Their Curriculum

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
12
15
Better sources
14
10
Better legibility
9
9
Better conduct
9
7

After 9 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Undefeatable
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
3,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
41
1731
rating
167
debates
73.05%
won
Description

US = United States

The resolution should be taken to be Merriam Webster definitions that makes the most sense given the context. No semantic arguments.

Burden of proof is shared.

Pro will argue that Kindergarten to 12th grade public schools in US should begin to, or continue, incorporate and approve video games into the academic curriculum -- thus encouraging students to play them, due to their benefits and educational value. Con will argue otherwise.

Who will implement this law? Local state representatives.

150th comment marking

-->
@RationalMadman

I'm not saying that his vote seems legit. I'm saying that his vote is legit. If I had decided to let Con's framing of the resolution stand because Pro never meaningfully addressed it (something I absolutely considered) and chose to award conduct to Pro for Con's new arguments in the final round (I actually wrote that I was very close to doing this), then I would have posted the exact same point allocation. If MisterChris does the same thing because costs matter more to him than vague educational boosts, then that's his decision. You didn't make the same one. Neither did I. Doesn't make his any less valid.

What you seem most upset by is the fact that he's selective in choosing which points to award and that he split the points. I honestly think that happens too little. If the goal was to heap points on one side, as so many debaters do, then he would have done that. I don't know why you think he'd get something out of tying this debate (which appears as though it won't happen anyway, based on Bringerofrain), but your attempts to push a narrative of why MisterChris would do this are just absurd.

-->
@whiteflame

Read misterchris's RFD. He builds a good RFD to justify voting Pro then out of nowhere, ignores the sources point allocation, switches everything to Con because Con said the costs are too great and gives Conduct to Pro for Con posting too many new points in Round 3.

You tell me his vote seems legit? Read it.

-->
@Bringerofrain

Nice ideal, but I somewhat doubt that you can behave like a super computer, and even if you could, a super computer itself would come with biases. A person would have to program said super computer to favor certain points, otherwise the computer would simply state what was said happened and not award points.

I try to get as close to what a super computer would spit out as I can to determine winners. Assuming the computer is completely tabula Rasa

-->
@Bringerofrain

I mean... fine, I guess? Like I said, it's not really possible to set aside all your personal views, largely because there will always be points you prefer and points you don't, no matter how much personal knowledge you throw out. In the words of the Dread Pirate Roberts, anyone who tells you different is selling something.

I don't care how anyone else votes. I am not pushing any philosophy by explaining mine. In fact I am just inviting criticism of my philosophy by explaining it, so I can improve

-->
@whiteflame

I don't have much knowledge anyway, so it's not much to throw away. Barely an inconvenience.

-->
@RationalMadman
@Bringerofrain

There are very different understandings of what tabula rasa is depending on the style of debate. Ideally, we would all be able to set aside every bias and piece of information we have, but in practice, that’s impossible. In general, I’m not fond of pushing such an ideal among voters, nor am I supportive of everyone bringing everything they know to bear on a debate. Not sure where the line should be drawn, but I don’t think it’s reasonable to say that people should throw out any knowledge they have to determine the outcome.

I disagree with me chris. I think tabula Rasa does mean throwing away even 1st grade level reasoning. Reasonable minds can disagree though

-->
@gugigor

Literally in 4 or 5 hours when I have alone time. The reason being is that it is all voice to text and I want to make it more comprehensible to people reading it. If I can't do that I will post as is.

-->
@RationalMadman

Doesn't it make sense that if there is a cheaper technology alternative to video games that can provide the same level of benefit, that a school would choose that option?

-->
@MisterChris

Con never proves the costs are severe, let alone that his counter plan outweighs the benefits.

Tabula Rasa indeed means throwing any education out the window that isn't purely semantic and required to follow the debate.

-->
@Trent0405

any chance the MASTER OF 3,000 character arguments can give his stance on how the arguers did?

-->
@RationalMadman

Do I need to explain the difference between an arg overview with some selective feedback and an RFD section? The purpose of one is to summarize with some select feedback, the purpose of the other is to show my view of how the args mesh together overall relative to the framework.

Also me assuming that there is an inherent cost isn't bias, it's common fucking sense, and Tabula Rasa doesn't mean throwing out literally 1st grade level reasoning skills. You're also totally ignoring that this was one of CON's main points... So it's not like I'm inventing the notion on my own...

-->
@MisterChris

You are correct that only the debate's contents should factor in. Therefore it should be absent from your mind how much video games cost, for instance.

I am only challenging you because you are a voting moderator mostly. I would simply wait until the debate is over for a normal situation, since then it isn't voter tampering. Everyone who voted Con in this debate doesn't understand Tabula Rasa but your RFD didn't even highlight why you thought Con won until the last sections of it, the complete opposite was signified until that point.

-->
@Bringerofrain

when are you planning to vote? I may be sleeping in 4~5 hours ...

-->
@RationalMadman

clearly you can't read very well

For the fucking record I didn't even notice that my point allotment would result in a tie nor do I really care if it does. The purpose of voting isn't to throw as many points as justifiably possible towards your favored candidate to outweigh other voters, it's to give an opinion on the debate absent consideration of anything except what transpired in the debate itself.

-->
@MisterChris

Yes because you're abusing loopholes and technicalities. For instance, you correctly showed events in the debate then magically said the benefits are outweighed by the costs because Con says so.

-->
@RationalMadman

No, more like I want them to review the vote like they would any other voter so I can prove to you people that it more than holds up to standard.

-->
@MisterChris

You are making both debaters owe you. This is the only sensible motive I can see.

-->
@MisterChris

You know deep down you voted wrong, to tie the points.

I am appealing to you and I know they will probably leave the vote up but this is a very unwise move by you because Ragnar will see your vote for what it is while not necessarily removing it. It shows lack of integrity and intentional abusing of loopholes in the rules, such as intentionally dodging the sources point because it's not mandatory.

-->
@RationalMadman

He did, so I reported myself on your behalf and shared the vote to Ragnar and Blamonkey directly.

-->
@gugigor

As I told Undefeatable, please don't ask voters to alter their votes based on other people.

This sucks. I did not want to be the deciding vote at like 3 am

it's possible my report didn't go through because ragnar removed my ability to report forum posts and comments.

I have read the debate. Both people seem friendly towards each other. I don't understand the conduct points LOL. I'm just voting argument points as usual

-->
@gugigor

why would i 'justify conduct point' based on what others are voting?

-->
@RationalMadman

I think Ragnar is too busy to make a proper decision, and Blamonkey is non-existent. It's all up to Bringerofrain now...

(unless you can also justify conduct point lol)

I did report his vote, he is lying.

I have an RFD written. Will break the tie later if somebody does not beat me to it

-->
@Danielle

"It is not poor conduct for Pro to introduce new arguments in the last round unless explicitly stated otherwise. Con can respond to Pro's points. In fact, it is risky for Pro to introduce new arguments in the last round because they won't be able to reply to Con's rebuttal. But there is nothing on DART or even within formal debating that makes it poor conduct for Pro to introduce a new argument in the last around when Con has the opportunity to not only reply but give the last word."

Gugigor is correct. I gave PRO conduct points and penalized CON for the new args, not the other way around.

-->
@Theweakeredge

"I would actually argue that you can't really do that... unless Con specifically layed out how the harms compared to the benefits, which is why I ruled Con losing."

What do you mean? CON dedicated a subpoint to the idea and cross-applied this point to counter much of PRO's case.

-->
@Danielle

other way around. Mr chris voted conduct for pro because of con's new arguments

-->
@MisterChris

It is not poor conduct for Pro to introduce new arguments in the last round unless explicitly stated otherwise. Con can respond to Pro's points. In fact, it is risky for Pro to introduce new arguments in the last round because they won't be able to reply to Con's rebuttal. But there is nothing on DART or even within formal debating that makes it poor conduct for Pro to introduce a new argument in the last around when Con has the opportunity to not only reply but give the last word.

-->
@MisterChris

I would actually argue that you can't really do that... unless Con specifically layed out how the harms compared to the benefits, which is why I ruled Con losing.

-->
@gugigor

Pro did point out the potential for video games in R1 which I noted in my RFD. But something having potential or even "unlimited possibilities" is not reason enough to mandate changes in a school curriculum. There should have been a more expansive and/or specific explanation as to how and why those possibilities create a unique experience that justifies a state mandate. It was Pro's burden to convince the audience that the educational benefits don't just exist (like Con acknowledges), but make it worthwhile to apply to everyone in public school. For instance Pro notes teachers can evaluate teamwork, game spirit, and motivation with video games and that is true. But a teacher can do the same by mandating their students play kickball. I don't think there was enough attention paid to the benefits of video games or again what makes video games superior to alternative methods.

-->
@gugigor

CON never specified the costs but he showed that we can assume them to be significant through several lines of reasoning. PRO never specified just how great the educational benefits were and we have little indication of whether they are significant. CON also gave the counterplan of cheaper means of education (stealing some impacts from PRO)

-->
@MisterChris

but... but Con also never showed how big the costs were. That's why Whiteflame + RM judged the argument to become a big fat zero. There's a clear benefit, but it's unclear how big the harms compare to it.

RM never reported my vote so I'm reporting it myself. The rest of the mods can rule my vote however they deem fit.

-->
@RationalMadman

"Yes, I am accusing you of intentional corrupt voting. No, I do not care if this is against the CoC to accuse in the comments. I will explain more later after the verdict on your vote is given."

Anndddd this is why I was reluctant to vote at all. I thought with such a close debate people would appreciate my vote but I was worried something like this would happen.

-->
@RationalMadman

"as a voting mod, how the fuck do you justify not giving sources to Pro?"

They are optional points. I don't typically choose to award sources unless I felt that one debater did significantly more/better research than the other. And while we had one turn from PRO, that was mostly a consequence of debating skills, not better sourcing.

-->
@MisterChris

You are completely wrong but you don't understand Tabula Rasa, I have reported your vote anyway and am curious how Ragnar or blamonkey will justify you keeping it up.

If they do, I will explain more absurdity in the turnaround at the end as well as the way you dodge giving Pro sources YET GIVE PRO CONDUCT.

You have a loaded vote intended to tie the points, for reasons that are strange to me.

Yes, I am accusing you of intentional corrupt voting. No, I do not care if this is against the CoC to accuse in the comments. I will explain more later after the verdict on your vote is given.

-->
@RationalMadman

CON lost most of his point by the end, but the one point he had that really mattered (cost) stood.

PRO never got down and dirty and told us why exactly the educational benefit would outweigh this cost, only that there WAS one.

-->
@MisterChris

as a voting mod, how the fuck do you justify not giving sources to Pro?

-->
@MisterChris

that was a ridiculous vote, your RFD clearly showed all the flaws in Con's case and strength in Pro's. Your vote makes NO sense, the turnaround at the end doesn't add up at all.

-->
@Intelligence_06
@Undefeatable

Good job to both debaters. Hopefully my vote was satisfactory

-->
@gugigor

No, you can't vote on other people's behalf. That's not a good precedent to set. I voted instead.

-->
@gugigor

By the definition, a virtual lab is no game.