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.

200th comment. Tough luck in hall of fame, hah.

-->
@Sum1hugme

That is true, but I say that based on what I experienced from the Canadian school system (that I imagine would have similar or better funding than American schools). The highschool I'm in now, for example, would only have enough laptops/computers for about 60-120 students out of 1000.

As well, I don't think the point of "this costs so much money" is sufficient; I've never won a single debate tournament match where I made that argument lmao. Rather, in con's position, I would've argued that the cost could have greater benefit to society if spent elsewhere.

-->
@Sum1hugme

I don't know if it is related, but there are gaming schools all across the world. They bring benefits either way.

1. If they get good, they will be able to earn money to degrees in which their parents won't complain
2. If they don't get good, they will turn away from their internet addiction which exposes them to more available traditional learning methods.

The downside is that such types of institutions are rare.

-->
@Nyxified

Maybe, games arent really expensive, and lots of schools already have laptops, tablets, or computer labs.

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

I agree. Con would've easily won had they developed their argument around the cost. As mentioned in the doc I linked, pro never actually firmly establishes that the large cost would be worth it for the benefit it would bring.

-->
@FourTrouble

CON did agree that "video games can be beneficial, but not necessary" in Round 3, but that is not a concession. Just because something is beneficial does not mean it should be incorporated at a policy level by lawmakers.

Honestly though, CON wouldn't even have to show that virtual workspaces are the specific alternative, but I believe that point was made. If CON adequately argued that ANY alternative is both cheaper and provides a similar benefit, that would be sufficient to fulfill his side of the debate. I believe he did so. But I can also see valid justification for those who disagree. Both sides could have argued better, which is why the voting was somewhat controversial.

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

You wrote: "Price was clearly a part of his argument, specifically that there are cheaper alternatives to video games and that schools have limited funding. And he showed that virtual workspaces (see the DNA example) provide a cheaper alternative to video games."

This is a distortion of what Con actually argued. In R1, Con argued that video-playing devices cost money, so it would be cheaper to have "teachers" do their job without video devices. By R2 & R3, however, Con drops this argument, conceding that video-playing devices could play a beneficial role in education.

I asked you to point me to specific language in the debate where Con makes the argument that "virtual workspaces" are "cheaper than video games." You're unable to do so precisely because Con didn't make that argument.

-->
@Undefeatable

I would give arguments to pro.

-->
@Intelligence_06

You mentioned Hall of Fame, so I was curious what the new influential members thought of this debate, as it is very controversial and a teaching moment for both of us.

How are we still on this after like half of a year after this debate was made?

-->
@Undefeatable

In typical Nyxified fashion, I have elected to do this in the longest and most complex way humanly possible: writing an analysis of the debate that has more characters in it than the entire debate does! https://docs.google.com/document/d/1a3gH1_4gr7KGLNp6PTHNLpl5XOCVnTuf1icReBbgsZs/edit?usp=sharing (dm me if the link doesn't work).

TL;DR con won in terms of arguments, imo, because they just gave more reasons to believe their position. While pro gave better reasons, especially in the earlier rounds, both sides failed to adequately refute each other, especially so for pro. I threw this whole thing together fairly quickly so don't expect it to be very objective or anything lmao. It's very hard to work with a 3,000 character debate is all I have to say.

-->
@FourTrouble

Price was clearly a part of his argument, specifically that there are cheaper alternatives to video games and that schools have limited funding. And he showed that virtual workspaces (see the DNA example) provide a cheaper alternative to video games.

The argument wasn't perfect, but it was definitely there.

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

Let's say Con establishes that there's a difference between video games & virtual workspaces.

So what?

Con never offers any reason to exclusively implement virtual workspaces. The "less government spending" argument isn't made. Yet somehow that was the basis of your decision...

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

Con didn't argue that virtual workspaces provide same results with less government spending.

Con argued that virtual workspaces render video games unnecessary, without any reason to prefer virtual workspaces or exclude video games, all while admitting that video games are beneficial.

-->
@FourTrouble

"In this case, the virtual workspace isn't necessarily a video game"

How does this not make the argument that there is a distinction between virtual workspaces and video games?

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

The language you cite does not make the argument you claim it makes.

Maybe the argument could be made based on sources. But it wasn't here.

Debates should be judged based on arguments in the debate, not based on arguments that could have been made but weren't.

I think education should be faster in elementary, middle, and highschool so you have more time to learn the hard stuff in college. I found highschool easy, but college is much harder.

-->
@FourTrouble

Comments like this from Round 2 made the point:

"Then onto the DNA argument. In this case, the virtual workspace isn't necessarily a video game, likewise you don't call Autocad with Tutorials a video game. We are talking with video games, not anything digital that aren't traditional text stuff."

The price point was also made in Round 1. Admittedly, this argument could have been much stronger. But it was definitely there and it was also supported by sources from both PRO and CON.

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

I cannot find where Con argued that virtual workspace leads requires less government spending to achieve the same results as video games.

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

Your RFD relies on arguments that weren't made in the debate.

Please direct me to Con's specific language in the debate showing that virtual workspaces provide the same benefits & results as video games at a lower cost.

-->
@FourTrouble

The debate that just won't die.

The resolution and description make clear that PRO is not just arguing that video games can be beneficial, but that they should be implemented by lawmakers on a policy level.

CON argued, in agreement with PRO's own sources, that "virtual workspaces" can provide similar benefits as "video games," but at a much lower cost. You can have a different opinion, but the reasoning is sound to vote CON.

Honestly, I think it comes down to one's approach to government spending. I am all for lower spending, so the cheaper option with similar results was more favorable.

I eat variety of foods. If truffles are healthy, it's probably a good idea to eat them sometimes, even if doing so is unnecessary. Variety is best.

Variety of learning methods outperforms singular method.

Video games aren't necessary; they add variety, with proven benefit. This is reason to include, not exclude.

-->
@Intelligence_06

The comparison is a bit off. If truffles provided a nutritious net benefit for its cost I’m sure you could argue for incorporating truffles in your breakfast. With no alternatives you clearly offer, the video game benefits are crushing here in coal and fourtrouble’s view points.

-->
@FourTrouble

Truffles are good for you. Do you incorporate it into your everyday breakfast?

Con states: "Video games can be beneficial, but not necessary." Yet somehow gets votes? Absurd.

Con's necessity argument is one of the worst arguments I've seen in a long time. No idea how anyone voted Con here.

Win for Pro.

-->
@Undefeatable

I'm flattered, I'll read it after work.

-->
@Undefeatable

I would have given you the win here. This was better than the last debate of yours I read, though it's been a while.

Independently from this debate, I think there's pretty clear evidence out there that boys would benefit from video games being incorporated into K12 curriculum. The evidence is less clear for girls. Some might speculate that's because of biological differences in boys, who tend to be interested in things, and girls, who tend to be interested in people.

-->
@Undefeatable

I'm honoured to have been one of the first to come to mind! I'll check this out tomorrow if I have time.

-->
@coal
@oromagi
@Sum1hugme
@Nyxified
@FourTrouble

Now I know this is an odd ping but hall of fame is coming up and I’m betting intelligence hasn’t forgotten this lost. I’m really curious about your thought on this very controversial debate if you have time. I was losing in terms of argument votes but winning overall in points thanks to weirdness in sourcing and conduct. You are the first users to come to mind when I think “who could have really made a difference and I wouldn’t have minded”?

Who do you think won this debate? What are your thoughts on the polarizing opinions?

-->
@MisterChris

I misread that, oops. Definitely poor conduct for Con to introduce new args in the final round. I'm surprised I missed that if true.

-->
@gugigor

That is a very bad RFD by Roy. YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO INSERT YOUR OWN ARGUMENTS INTO THE RFD. I've explained why I agree with Pro and thought he failed to include several good points. Roy's RFD is littered with his own rebuttals. He said things like "Saying that games are not necessary is not a good argument. Books, computers, videos, schools, and professional teachers are not necessary for learning"-- and-- "Con's argument that special equipment is required is not a strong one, because games can be done on computers and that's pretty standard these days." But UNLESS PRO MADE THAT POINT HIMSELF, HE SHOULD NOT BE AWARDED POINTS FOR IT. Roy responded to the debater's points in his RFD rather than judge solely based on what THEY themselves articulated. That is bad judging and you should not be able to vote in other people's place anyway.

-->
@Intelligence_06
@Undefeatable

Roy Latham says: "I was away for most of the day today and just got to look at the debate. It's interesting. I spent most of my career in training simulation, so my prejudice is in favor of "games" since any realistic simulation can be viewed as a game in which accomplishing the task is winning.

I think Pro had the better of the debate, with the advantage in better references supporting his arguments.

Saying that games are not necessary is not a good argument. Books, computers, videos, schools, and professional teachers are not necessary for learning. Up to age five, children learn a lot without any of those things. The issue is whether students learn more or learn more quickly with games than without. Since, I gather, games are not used very much in current education, it's only necessary to show that there are at least a few examples where learning is enhanced to show more use should be made of them. One example is learning involving drills: simple math problems used to advance in game; written conversation in foreign languages in various situations; spelling and grammar exercises. Games provide rewards for learning through advancement in the game.

Con argues that individual games detract from reading skills and learning team play. those arguments depend upon a certain idea of how games are constructed. Before computer graphics became standard, role-playing games were done entirely by writing. Multi-player games are now common, so the adaptation to project skills is straightforward. Using computers has the advantage that the players need not all be together; they might be in different schools or in different countries. The argument is only that some parts of education are enhanced, not that every part of education must be subsumed.

Con's argument that special equipment is required is not a strong one, because games can be done on computers and that's pretty standard these days.

I'll mention an argument not used in the debate. Simulations are used whenever training in the real world is too expensive, too hard to set up, or too dangerous. For high schools, such situations might occur for running machine tools, driving or repairing cars, or maybe some things related to music.

I thought Pro did well in presenting the case. He could have been more concise; it's a little wordy."

So if you're curious if you truly won or not, even arguments alone, it's not 100% clear. The experienced debater here with age advantage seems to agree with the majority points' decisions.

-->
@MisterChris

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: MisterChris // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro, 3 to con.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:

The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.

Obviously the voter goes into detail on different contentions to warrant arguments, before mitigating them with conduct.

The voting policy gives the specific example of misconduct of a final round blitzkrieg, to which the debate did not suffer that level of sin, but a voter having a problem with lesser form of it (new contentions, as opposed to a whole new debate as some try) is a sound criticism. It is even better when able to be cast against the voter's majority awardee.
**************************************************

Bringer's vote is fine, especially since as Ragnar said, he reserves throwing extra points at people.

Good debate. Sort of glad the voting hysteria is over with though lol

-->
@Intelligence_06

I agree. I was aiming for whiteflame style of voter but didn’t think this Trent style debate (low character, obscure topic) would get votes from this many people. So I missed out on the unnecessary idea in the framework. I did mention dna lab but I probably could’ve pushed out more unique benefits

-->
@Undefeatable

GG, good debate.

I’m at work on a coffee break. At a curtesy glance the most recent vote looks ok... granted the main thing that makes votes problematic to me is when they slap on extra points (even while I defend the ability to do so when warranted).

At this point I am just trying for a win because I believe that I truly won. I am happy either way because this is gonna get into the fall of fame probably.

Undefeatable for HoF.

-->
@Theweakeredge
@Bringerofrain

Pro never even touched on that basically learning academic stuff from games is a pretty bad idea, and as a result, according to the definition of "curriculum", even if some games can boost grades(which only in some cases, not even close to "all"), it is extremely unlikely to be a part of the curriculum, especially what Pro offered in terms of evidence are either non-academic related or non-video games. Yes. A simulation ran in blender or Autocad can hardly be called a game at all.

What Pro argued is "Video games should be allowed in schools" not "Video games should be incorporated in the curriculum". There are little to no set of games that can fairly create a fun learning experience while making the students learn everything they would need to learn. Even if games does not make learning "harder", Pro has little to no arguments as to show that it makes learning better, in specifically the way the curriculum shows it. Just because 50 people who play Minecraft scores better at ELA than 50 people that do not play any games, so what? Should Minecraft be incorporated in the curriculum?

Either way, I have inspected the arguments carefully and all Pro did is to refute whatever I said, while not even remotely touching on that there are complete sets of games that can make you love it, can make you learn everything you would need to learn, and is better for learning as a mainframe compared to the traditional teacher-student-whiteboard solution. He never touched on that. Pro dropped that attention could be muddled by playing games and everything I said about why games are bad. I think I rightfully won this debate.

Even if you ignore the "PBL" stuff at R3, which is an extension to my r2 point, I have pointed out flaws in educational video games and why they are a bad idea, and Pro has not justified why games are needed. Case closed bah bah.

-->
@Intelligence_06
@gugigor

Intelligence: What about the vote isn't up to standard?

Gugigor: Perceived similarity to other votes is not a proper objection

I have a more complete RFD written out and the notes I took, but wanted to get the vote out sooner so just summarized them. I am partially paralyzed so when I edit the speech to text, I just chicken peck the keyboard.

I literally summarized both debaters arguments and summarized how I weighed them.

-->
@Intelligence_06

Lol... salty? It’s basically whiteflame’s vote, but with less words

-->
@Barney
@MisterChris

I don’t think Bringerofrain’s vote is up to standard.

-->
@Intelligence_06
@Undefeatable

congratulations guys, you got the most votes on DART out of any debate where:
- the debaters did not forfeit or concede any rounds
- the debaters were both of serious caliber
- voters voted both ways

well done. I may nominate this for Hall of Fame, despite its shortness. Surprised that Trent0405 never caught this much attention (his debate against RM had more votes, but RM gave up that one)

-->
@gugigor

That isn't proof of winner selection being better, it's proof that you should not be sloppy on sourcing.

-->
@Barney

you know what's funny? Tallying up the votes, we see that 5 people believe con won arguments, while only 3 people believe that Pro wins arguments. Under the non-7 point system where only arguments matters and not source nor conduct, Pro wouldn't even be saved by BringerofRain's vote. It's funny how different winner selection is. Unless I could get Roy's opinion and non-biasedly vote pro as well as Bringer, we'd still only have tied debate overall.

-->
@RationalMadman

he's got a point. If Mr. Chris truly believed that Con deserved to win, he could laugh at pro and use same reasoning as Fauxlaw + Fruit inspector, and then maybe even heap upon source points for similar reasons that Pro's ideas didn't address potential harms (only list benefits). The only reason he would "give the illusion of tying the debate" would be to prove that he is unbiased. But he has already has many other votes that proves he's not biased. Whiteflame's vote for pro is under his acceptance of the framework -- since he values impacts and benefits rather than something as vague as "unique benefits" (for necessary implementation). As such, both voting for pro and voting for con is acceptable, but Con's big flaw is that he didn't push forward exactly what harms there are, forcing Whiteflame to look at Pro's sheer impact with studies. That's the kind of person Whiteflame is.