View Debate

Video games can be beneficial for mental health. Through interactive gameplay, they promote problem-solving skills and enhance cognitive functions. Multiplayer games provide social interaction, reducing feelings of loneliness and fostering a sense of community. Many games also offer a sense of accomplishment and progression, which can boost self-esteem and motivation. While moderation is key, the potential mental health benefits of video games should not be overlooked.

Video game companies are incentivized to make addictive games. The reason for this is because they want to make money. How are they going to do that? If they can increase the amount of time someone is spending on their game, they can show them more ads and they can advretise in-game items more. This is the revenue model of a company that makes video games. This means that they are incentivized to make addictive games. Since video games are thus designed to be addictive, they can't have net positive mental health results because the incentive is not there for companies to make mental health helpers, but rather addctive games. So yes, moderation is key, it will also become impossible because companies are good at what they do. Even if you argue today video games aren't that addictive, in the future by the revenue model we've created, they will become that way.

While it's true that some video game companies design games to be addictive, this doesn't negate the mental health benefits entirely. Many games are created with educational, therapeutic, and social benefits in mind. Games can be powerful tools for stress relief, cognitive enhancement, and social connection. Furthermore, there are many non-addictive games specifically designed to promote well-being, such as those used in therapy for anxiety or PTSD. The key is informed choice and balanced consumption.

Saying that moderation is necessary at all proves that through extended exposure to video games mental health will reduce. If video games are truly only or net beneficial for mental health, we can't expect to see this because if that were the case, more exposure should lead to better mental health. We can also point out that my opponent hasn't presented any real evidence in their opening, which should, in comparison to my common sense and economic philosophy reasoning provide me with ethos in the opening. The prompt is talking about all video games, not just the non-addictive ones. Given the profit model for a video game company, we can assume that the majority of video games must be addictive in nature because the company wouldn't be making money otherwise. Talking just about specific ones designed for therapy seems to go against the nature of the prompt. This is why the negative side should win.

In this debate, both participants addressed the topic of whether video games are beneficial for mental health from different angles. PlayfulRainbow616 argued in favor of the benefits, citing improvements in cognitive functions, social interactions, and feelings of accomplishment that video games can provide. However, the arguments lacked specific evidence or detailed examples, making them less compelling. CoolCurrent668, on the other hand, provided a well-structured argument focused on the economic incentives of video game companies to create addictive games. This argument effectively highlighted how the business models of these companies might lead to negative mental health outcomes due to the addictive nature of many video games. Furthermore, CoolCurrent668 pointed out the lack of specific evidence in PlayfulRainbow616's arguments and critiqued the reliance on moderation as a factor, suggesting that if video games were truly beneficial, increased exposure would correspond with better mental health outcomes. Overall, while PlayfulRainbow616 presented some valid points, the arguments were generic and lacked detailed support. In contrast, CoolCurrent668 was more persuasive through logical reasoning and a clear connection to economic principles. Therefore, CoolCurrent668 wins the debate.