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.
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.
I don't care if I win or lose this one anymore. Obviously I want to win, but it is to almost zero likelihood that I will win. The moment I lose this, is the moment I will start a new one. With the same topic.
Not saying my argument is HoF worthy though, as some extremely good debaters have themselves against a no-show or a concede. Based on your skill, I believe this debate could be worth a shot to HoF.
It may be possible that said education would be less effective than not teaching at all. The teachers say it as a taboo thing, and when we are teenagers, aren’t we all interested in things that would be forbidden? Now they knew something called “sex” and would suppress the urge of doing it now, instead of? Discovering and doing it later?
If you have no biology in sex Ed, then it is not that useful.
Is he arguing that There is always socialism in liberalism or if there is always liberalism in socialism? I can argue both, but I want to prioritize the correct interpretation.
I would probably edit this to “enter this debate for a discussion about Taiwan’s political status”. The network wasn’t good at all when I instigated this so I keyboard-mashed in disbelief and anger, totally unaware that my cursor was hovering on the short descriptions section.
Alright, I am starting a topic called "Iron man can defeat the entire US army and Chinese army combined" and put "Chinese and US army cannot use any weapons" in the description. How absurd is this.
Neither of us is being homophobic. I think you are misinterpreting the topic or my arguments.
Maybe User_2006 vs CaptainSceptic could give you some ideas.
GG, good debate.
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.
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.
I don’t think Bringerofrain’s vote is up to standard.
You don't say?
150th comment marking
By the definition, a virtual lab is no game.
Almost had it...
I don't care if I win or lose this one anymore. Obviously I want to win, but it is to almost zero likelihood that I will win. The moment I lose this, is the moment I will start a new one. With the same topic.
No vote?
Give me a day and I will accept this. 30,000? Why fill all 30,000 when you can do the job in 10,000?
Vote?
More voters?
Please define terms to prevent anyone from exploiting them.
I mean, if a princess kissing a frog can be included, then there is nothing wrong with a man kissing another man.
Just saying, I am not homophobic of any sort.
Not saying my argument is HoF worthy though, as some extremely good debaters have themselves against a no-show or a concede. Based on your skill, I believe this debate could be worth a shot to HoF.
Looks like this is gonna be HoF worthy. I spent 3 nights drafting an over-10000 argument for this.
Vote plz
wha-
Yes.
It may be possible that said education would be less effective than not teaching at all. The teachers say it as a taboo thing, and when we are teenagers, aren’t we all interested in things that would be forbidden? Now they knew something called “sex” and would suppress the urge of doing it now, instead of? Discovering and doing it later?
If you have no biology in sex Ed, then it is not that useful.
Vote?
Bump?
What is going on here?
Sure you can prove that the game doesn’t exist, but why is Trump of all things?
Sorry, in r2 I was meant to say that Stalinism is communisT and communism is socialisT, not M. Typo.
Define a lot
...LibreOffice is still janky, but at least it is better.
Is he arguing that There is always socialism in liberalism or if there is always liberalism in socialism? I can argue both, but I want to prioritize the correct interpretation.
As a Chinese citizen and long-time Reddit Dweller, I disagree fully.
I mean, they could just link articles abotu the definitions of Egyptians and usee evidence that are self-explanatory to make an argument.
Define build and Egyptians. With a lack of definition posted in the description, a mighty save of a kritik might let you win.
I did. I said I defined Taiwan as a piece of land, not ROC.
Do you mean both female and male schools or just encouraging female schools is enough?
Do you believe that Young earth creationism is true to the world objectively or if it is just true to the bible itself?
Bump
Aren't you advocating for the opposite of whatever your username would say?
Bump
Song battles or these types of things should be in select winner format, there is literally no way to award s$g in this.
I would probably edit this to “enter this debate for a discussion about Taiwan’s political status”. The network wasn’t good at all when I instigated this so I keyboard-mashed in disbelief and anger, totally unaware that my cursor was hovering on the short descriptions section.
Now? Or in a parallel universe?
"No force users allowed"
Alright, I am starting a topic called "Iron man can defeat the entire US army and Chinese army combined" and put "Chinese and US army cannot use any weapons" in the description. How absurd is this.
People won't take kritiks because it felt weird to them. I learned it the hard way.
Wanna take it?
Sure, you can accept it if you want
dude, why are you even accepting this debate? You could have just defined "Quantum science" since Con didn't define it, then use it to your advantage.
Vote pro
If the US is nuked to ashes, then I doubt that the US can even retaliate.