args

Video Games are the new art form

I'm not sure which comments to address so I will address all of them. "Answer those questions and you'll understand my argument." First, I will state your questions: "Does literature have a monopoly on expanding people's ideas? Is it the only way that people can learn something? And is it nearly half as effective to read something, as it is to live it?" Now, the title of this is "Video games are the new art" This isn't relevant to the title and to your introduction. Of course I brought it up and thereby you coming to ask these questions but, I don't think you could say I'll understand your entire argument from just those questions. As for each question: "Does literature have a monopoly on expanding people's ideas?" As of now, most people and teachers, will continue to express literature being the prime source of people's ideas. At least this is what they are trying to influence kids. When you read in school, often teachers will tell the kids look for a deeper meaning hence, expanding their ideas. When children play video games, no one influences them to think like that. Whether they should or shouldn't is a debate I would not like to get into. But this must be noted and is a fact for the majority of people. "Is it the only way that people can learn something?" What made you think I said that? Please quote where I said that. I don't think at all literature is the only way people can learn something. And most popular literature books do not possess academic benefit but more spiritual benefit and morals. If you would be able to say what you said above, I could ask you "Is video games the only way that people can learn something?" But of course you meant to say that sometimes you could learn something academically on the side although I disagree with you. "And is it nearly half as effective to read something, as it is to live it?" 1) You are still not living it by playing video games just because of good graphics. It's like saying you're living it because of good imagery. Of course people reading novels will often say, "It's like I'm living what happened" but it's just an expression. 2) That is an opinion and I agree with you but not in all cases. It's good to read about something or maybe even play a video game before you live it. I asked the same thing in my previous debate and opponent made a good point so I will quote him "you probably have never read the book "Desert Flower" but ill break it down for you to the basics. Its about a Somali girl dealing with her genital mutilation by her father who runs away from her home searching for truth. Now when you said 'experience helps you deal with it, not reading about it', tell me Pro, when was the last time you had to deal with your genitals being mutilated? Would reading about genital mutilation still have an impact on how you would deal with? Experiencing it first hand would be far more emotional but reading about it would still have an impact on your perception over the matter, and that cannot be denied..." "'living' it is entirely different." Okay and I will stress the answer to your point again: Playing video games is not living it. Playing video games is not living it I will say it in Spanish jugar juegos de video, no está viviendo get the picture. "when someone enjoys something, they're much more receptive to it." Name me common video games kids "enjoy". I bet you very few of them have academic benefit. No one is their to explain to them what academic topics come up in the video game if there is. The child might not be capable of understanding it. "The potential to teach people with video games is enormous and if ever harnessed effectively, could change how everyone learns on a day to day basis." I'm going to focus on the word "if". As of now they aren't. There are few like leap frog, or jump start but those aren't extremely popular nor do they have benefit for a little older kids over 8. "I challenge you to find a sport that is more strategic than games like Starcraft 2" This is off the top of my head. Basketball: I'll name you zones, which are strategies. 2-3 zone, 3-2 zone 1-3-1 zone, box-1 zone, diamond-1 zone... This is all strategic thinking. Football: The best quarter backs like Aaron Rogers (Best in the league) or Drew Breeze (Good luck on Sunday) are strategic thinkers. They have to think of hundreds of plays. The list goes on and on. "the website of a college only for video games" 1)Okay, there is a football school. Does that mean football has academic benefit? Of course not. 2) I meant in everyday classes. "The people who spend tons of time on video games would have probably been anti-social any way and this just selves as the best means of entertainment." So parents should just give up and not prevent it and try to help their children be more social? A good parent would not give up and I hope the majority of people disagree with you. "being online" dependent on if you're talking to your friends. "playing video games with someone else" In moderation I agree with you but, if you just play video games, that won't make you very social. "TONS of games have puzzle aspects to them," It might warm up your brain this is true, but it doesn't help you with everyday problems. "And this is much better than reading it in books" It's not because books make you think more. "and Don is much more powerful than just simply learning." Right there! Video games do not have "simply learning" Your point on video games helping one work toward and achieve a goal If you need to rescue someone, like you might in call of duty, playing the video game doesn't give you the military training or help you at all. (Aside from strategic thinking which is just a tiny head start in military training), "it will be widely accepted as the art that it is." They don't give as deep insights as the other things I have listed. Some video games give insight this is 100% true. But it is not a primary source of insights nor does it have as much insights as the things I mentioned. "Just because a game is popular don't mean it has to be deep." I said that because you said every game being great is like every song to win a grammy and a grammy is usually won from how good the song is not the insights. So that is why I asked my question. I didn't feel your simile was relevant. "don't really know what you're trying to say here" I'm trying to say that one of the reasons it's not taking over as the new art right now is because most people aren't looking for a deeper meaning thereby rejecting it as an art. The name of this argument is "Video Games are the new art form" meaning currently while you are saying it is going through its process of becoming a new art and you are changing your words at the end of the debate. Currently, it's not the new art. "Yes the majority of game developers..." That's why movies and tv aren't a prime source of insights and neither are video games. This went under the topic Video games give deep insights. "For something to be an art it doesn't take a majority to care about it." Well the majority of the world has to agree that it's an art for it to be an art so if they don't care about it, it can't be an art right now. "and that's enough for it to be considered art." Because the majority of the world agreed on it being an art which is why it is a mandatory class. I thank my opponent for an interesting debate and I hope the saints beat the 9ers. (Please don't not vote for me if you're a 9ers fan. Good look to them too.