Instigator / Con
24
1469
rating
10
debates
40.0%
won
Topic
#3079

Debate With Friend: Video Games improve useful skills.

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
9
3
Better sources
8
0
Better legibility
4
1
Better conduct
3
1

After 4 votes and with 19 points ahead, the winner is...

DeadFire27
Tags
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
5
1500
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Description

Games: Online/Offline Activities that cause fun and happiness.
We're focusing on Online games, such as Fortnite, Minecraft, Overwatch, etc.
Little Private Debate for Fun.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Concession

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Argument - R1, Who came out better in R1 is "almost" a foregone conclusion. With Con opening out with a couple of good arguments about video gaming addiction and how too much gaming can be bad for the eyes.

Pro - Pro responds with: "ahh yes see games don't hurt you or anything playing Minecraft is just is to find a way to survive like how to survive and the same for other games.", which is a little insufficient. It lacks real argument. Rebuttal. Or any kind of effort. A special argument is required to bounce back from this.

R2 - In round 2 Con acknowledges my sentiments regarding Pros response precisely, writing: "PRO has posted an argument with no regard to the framework. As you can see from the framework, PRO's responsibility was to disprove my argument and set up his own."... In fact, Con appears to even begin to offer arguments on Pros behalf. Arguments which Pro barely brought up with what little he wrote. "PRO argues the fact that games, such as Minecraft, don't contain violence and teach you how to survive. ".. The one argument that Pro may have brought up was responded to by Con

Pro - In round 2 Pro thankfully avoids losing by foregone conclusion by providing a more thorough argument at last. In fact, he makes some very good arguments by producing a list of Pros for video gaming. The one I agree with most is "careeres", as it is true you can make a career out of video games and gaming. and this is very interesting "Video games can improve reaction time, attention, and short-term memory in older adults, research shows"... In fact, given Pros bad start, I am surprised just how interesting and good his R2 argument is. He has done enough to draw even at this point, though I would like to have seen some source and citation for those studies.

R3 - It seems that Con also shared my sentiments regarding Pros sudden whooping of Cons ass, by writing: "At first I admired the speed of PRO's ability to improve, but I realized it was a little TOO fast." But then Con accuses PRO of plagiarizing, writing: "I called PRO out on plagiarizing a web page for his argument, and PRO admitted to it!! This will definitely affect votes, but nevertheless, I will rebut this argument.". and Pro does appear to admit to it, writing: "ok I made a mistake", so before voting I will have to check the voting policy regarding plagiarizing. For the rest of the argument Con acknowledges the good that may come from video gaming, but wisely points out that there are other better activities available where those skills can also be honed, and ends it by pointing out the negatives.

Pro - Pro admits his plagiarism, and does partially agree with Con that playing video games for too long is not good. He also points out that kids that play violent video games may act aggressively. So Pro ends the debate admitting to Plagiarism and partially agreeing with Cons argument.

Here is the terms regarding Plagiarism.

https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
"Plagiarism is passing off the intellectual property of another as your own. Plagiarism poisons the very spirit of debate. Plagiarism is such an extreme offense, that even if identified outside the debate it may be voted with prejudice against the offender in all categories. While there exist minor cases that do not necessitate such grave sanctions, the determination of the degree of it generally rests with each voter.
An argument dependent upon plagiarized material lacks any leg to stand on once said material is dismissed.".

I have the option to view the plagiarism as serious, which means I can vote against Pro in all four categories. Or, if viewed as a minor case, I can use my discretion.

Argument - Plagiarism + ending the debate partially agreeing with Cons argument = Con

Sources - Pro produced "10 Negative Effects of Video Games | Healthy Gamer", and raised concerns about his opponents copy and psate tactics regarding source material - Con

S&G - I was able to get the gist of what Pro wrote - Tie

Conduct - Pro was courteous enough to admit to his plagiarism. And if we read the terms and conditions of just how big a violation plagiarism is, admitting to it is pretty much the equivalent of a concession. - Pro

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Conceded by Pro...

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Arguments: PRO's argument proves the resolution because he focuses on proving that video games help refine useful skills; CON's claim that video games affect health bad overall does not disprove the fact that some useful skills are caused by playing video games. The resolution was worded heavily in PRO's favour.

Sources: PRO plagiarized his entire argument, whilst CON used linked reliable sources, which he commented upon

Spelling and grammar: PRO claims in R2 that video games help gain reading ability. I should play more video games then because I could not understand a word of what he wrote. Wait actually, I did understand a word of what he said, but the lack of punctuation and proper syntax mean CON gets this point.

Conduct: CON gets this point because (1) CON was on point without waiving, (2) PRO plagiarized without a link, (3) CON was overbearing with PRO's "cheat" and expressed himself very diplomatically in R3