surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
send message
follow
followers
CaptainBus
mrandydixon
rexwolf2
AwesomeExMachina
JT Murphy
Corduroy Turtle
Andrew Kauz
Nihil
Ali D
SuperMonk4Ever
ImMatureTony
falsenipple
Handy
LawofThermalDynamics
Eprahim
SteezyXL
Sexualchocolate (PS3)
VenusInFurs
Byronic Man
garethxxgod
GoofierBrute
Wolfy-Boey
Malik
Sean Daisy
Keelut2012
Batthink
ManWithNoName
Caiters
Elsa
ManWithNoName
Ugh, in the past 15 minutes I tried to write a response, but couldn't. I'll write one later. I need to collect my thoughts.
Ugh, in the past 15 minutes I tried to write a response, but couldn't. I'll write one later. I need to collect my thoughts.
MANWITH
I think they are addictive. Wanting to keep playing them more and more makes it so. Of course that addictiveness isn't to the point where you "for most people" die, or anywhere near there.
I think they are addictive. Wanting to keep playing them more and more makes it so. Of course that addictiveness isn't to the point where you "for most people" die, or anywhere near there.
MANWITH
Before I forget, I must say that is it somewhat absurd of Caiters to assert that behavioural addiction - or addiction of any kind - is a matter of choice. Is that not an outright contradiction in terms?
Well, on reading both arguments, I found myself hard pressed to decide which is more convincing. After a spell of research, however, it seems that there is a wealth of evidence suggesting that video games are addictive (through exploitation of endorphin release, etc.) in addition to that saying otherwise. It doesn't seem appropriate to only appeal to the authority of one side, as if that refutes the other.
At any rate, it doesn't do to assert that because I am not addicted to gambling, it is therefore not addictive. Nor is alcohol, nor is sex, and so on. The distinction is quite a pedantic one - we know that gambling can be addictive, does that mean gambling is addictive? Surely anything can be addictive, by that measure. Add the condition that only those which display the typical traits of addictiveness qualify, and video games surely still count.
Before I forget, I must say that is it somewhat absurd of Caiters to assert that behavioural addiction - or addiction of any kind - is a matter of choice. Is that not an outright contradiction in terms?
Well, on reading both arguments, I found myself hard pressed to decide which is more convincing. After a spell of research, however, it seems that there is a wealth of evidence suggesting that video games are addictive (through exploitation of endorphin release, etc.) in addition to that saying otherwise. It doesn't seem appropriate to only appeal to the authority of one side, as if that refutes the other.
At any rate, it doesn't do to assert that because I am not addicted to gambling, it is therefore not addictive. Nor is alcohol, nor is sex, and so on. The distinction is quite a pedantic one - we know that gambling can be addictive, does that mean gambling is addictive? Surely anything can be addictive, by that measure. Add the condition that only those which display the typical traits of addictiveness qualify, and video games surely still count.
MANWITH
As much as I believe people who claim to be addicted to games are just weak-minded fools with an absurdly out of touch understanding of what a true "problem" is, I can see how the characteristics of addiction are identical to many effects gamers (including myself) feel when playing.
Especially this part:
"The addiction is characterized by impairment in behavioral control, craving, inability to consistently abstain, and diminished recognition of significant problems with one’s behaviors and interpersonal relationships."
The main thing is to recognize that not ALL games have this effect, and the effects may not be harmful or even noticed in many cases. Unfortunately, there's a couple times a year when someone dies or tries to sell their children in order to maintain their gaming habit, and it's hard to argue that such people are not addicted to their game. And ManWith did a good job of showing how these games use reward/motivation to keep you playing.
As much as I believe people who claim to be addicted to games are just weak-minded fools with an absurdly out of touch understanding of what a true "problem" is, I can see how the characteristics of addiction are identical to many effects gamers (including myself) feel when playing.
Especially this part:
"The addiction is characterized by impairment in behavioral control, craving, inability to consistently abstain, and diminished recognition of significant problems with one’s behaviors and interpersonal relationships."
The main thing is to recognize that not ALL games have this effect, and the effects may not be harmful or even noticed in many cases. Unfortunately, there's a couple times a year when someone dies or tries to sell their children in order to maintain their gaming habit, and it's hard to argue that such people are not addicted to their game. And ManWith did a good job of showing how these games use reward/motivation to keep you playing.
CAITERS
i was all but ready to agree that gaming was an addiction until i read Caiters side, which i totally agree with. Addiction also implies being hooked and unable to break away when people who play video games mostly have varying play levels.
Using ManWithNoName's example of "new guns means people are addicted to CoD" idea would mean every person who even spent a fraction of a time playing would eventually double, then triple. Sadly this is not the case for everyone. Sure those people who play almost nothing but CoD exist but its not everyone. As someone who actually does play CoD I honestly never play for the guns or to Prestige. Its always about the challenge. Even then its usually for an hour or 2 before I'm onto something else.
i was all but ready to agree that gaming was an addiction until i read Caiters side, which i totally agree with. Addiction also implies being hooked and unable to break away when people who play video games mostly have varying play levels.
Using ManWithNoName's example of "new guns means people are addicted to CoD" idea would mean every person who even spent a fraction of a time playing would eventually double, then triple. Sadly this is not the case for everyone. Sure those people who play almost nothing but CoD exist but its not everyone. As someone who actually does play CoD I honestly never play for the guns or to Prestige. Its always about the challenge. Even then its usually for an hour or 2 before I'm onto something else.
@gareth: I never said that all COD players are addicted, but that COD use mechanism that trigger addiction. As Caiters said, not everyone will get addicted. Instead, what I am saying is that videogames have several mechanics made with the intend of keeping players... playing.
CAITERS
ManWith makes a good case, and his points are valid. However, I view the proposition as towards a general application - i.e., that videogames themselves are addictive; that anyone who plays a video game has a reasonable chance of developing that addiction. And while I agree that individuals have become addicted, and some designers are actively trying to addict players, I also draw a distinction between the games themselves addicting people or being used as a conduit for addictive behaviour.
Look at cigarettes versus chewing gum. Both activities can be considered addictions, but typically gum (unless laced with addictive substances) becomes only the aforementioned behavioural addicition. Even gambling addiction, which is extremely debilitating, only affects a relatively small proportion of those who try it.
In essence, I don't see that video games are generally addictive. They certainly can produce addicts, and certain games are geared more towards addictive behaviour, but due to the fact that most people have played games and show at best low-level signs of addiction, I cannot support the proposition.
For a further comparison, many people get highly involved in sporting events (playing and specatating), board and strategy games, and other forms of entertainment (reading, collecting, etc.). While these individuals may be addicts, again I would hesiitate to call these activities addictive when applied to the general populace.
ManWith makes a good case, and his points are valid. However, I view the proposition as towards a general application - i.e., that videogames themselves are addictive; that anyone who plays a video game has a reasonable chance of developing that addiction. And while I agree that individuals have become addicted, and some designers are actively trying to addict players, I also draw a distinction between the games themselves addicting people or being used as a conduit for addictive behaviour.
Look at cigarettes versus chewing gum. Both activities can be considered addictions, but typically gum (unless laced with addictive substances) becomes only the aforementioned behavioural addicition. Even gambling addiction, which is extremely debilitating, only affects a relatively small proportion of those who try it.
In essence, I don't see that video games are generally addictive. They certainly can produce addicts, and certain games are geared more towards addictive behaviour, but due to the fact that most people have played games and show at best low-level signs of addiction, I cannot support the proposition.
For a further comparison, many people get highly involved in sporting events (playing and specatating), board and strategy games, and other forms of entertainment (reading, collecting, etc.). While these individuals may be addicts, again I would hesiitate to call these activities addictive when applied to the general populace.
CAITERS
There is objectivity to be had here, by definition they are addictive. Just like how the sky is objectively blue, however, the colour blind would subjectively tell you different. Video games are no where near a hardcore drug, or pot or even caffiene in terms of an addictive substance, And since I cannot group them all in one group of 'addictive substance' I can't agree with Manwith.
There is objectivity to be had here, by definition they are addictive. Just like how the sky is objectively blue, however, the colour blind would subjectively tell you different. Video games are no where near a hardcore drug, or pot or even caffiene in terms of an addictive substance, And since I cannot group them all in one group of 'addictive substance' I can't agree with Manwith.
I can't honestly vote either way on this. Videogames are addictive, like anything can be if a person enjoys it. The question is a fallacy and should be thrown out of the Dtoid court room! A more appropriate question would be whether or not they are dangerously addictive, and even then only few (specifically MMO games) are.
CAITERS
I don't think video games are inherently addictive. There may be some cases of people that do become addicted to them, but like Caiters said, that could happen with just about anything.
I don't think video games are inherently addictive. There may be some cases of people that do become addicted to them, but like Caiters said, that could happen with just about anything.
Byronic - I'm not stating that behavioral or any kind of addiction is merely a choice. I'm saying that becoming addicted in a behavioral manner CAN be a choice. I can choose to be addicted to video games if I'm not predisposed to it already based on my background and personality. In fact, I have on many occasions. But serious addiction issues are not a choice in most cases, and nothing to laugh at.
Tarvu - It is a loaded question honestly. But one worth debating!
Wrench - I blame it on all that darn liberal college brainwashing.
Tarvu - It is a loaded question honestly. But one worth debating!
Wrench - I blame it on all that darn liberal college brainwashing.
CAITERS wins for me. I know a ton of gamers, and I simply have not come across many (or any) who I'd say are addicted, at least in a way that requires some kind of external impetus (as opposed to just a bit of willpower) to break the addiction.
CAITERS
I remember watching an episode of a show called My Strange Addiction in which a woman was addicted to eating the foam out of couch cushions. Yeah. I agree that addiction can manifest itself in many situations but lets not slap that label on anything just because of a few glaring exceptions.
I remember watching an episode of a show called My Strange Addiction in which a woman was addicted to eating the foam out of couch cushions. Yeah. I agree that addiction can manifest itself in many situations but lets not slap that label on anything just because of a few glaring exceptions.
CAITERS
ANY vice, ritual, stress relief be it drugs, alcohol, rageohol, workohol, etc. can cross over into addicition if one allows it to.
ANY vice, ritual, stress relief be it drugs, alcohol, rageohol, workohol, etc. can cross over into addicition if one allows it to.
CAITERS
Ignoring the fact that anything and everything can be considered addictive to someone at some level, I think in general video games themselves are not addictive. They're fun, easily accessible and require very little effort to play. In most instances, I'll only end up playing video games because I have nothing else to do. Nothing on tv? Video games. Too hot outside? Video games. Bored? Video games. If I'm able to do something else like go biking, go out for drinks or watch the game, that's usually what I'll do. Of course there are the games that really pull you in which you end up going on binges and playing for hours on end but I'd attribute that more to how fun or captivating the game is. There are other video games that I can barely stomach for 30 seconds.
Whether video games are an addiction or not, as long as you play in moderation and don't let them have a negative effect on your life it doesn't matter what you call the degree of your obsession.
Ignoring the fact that anything and everything can be considered addictive to someone at some level, I think in general video games themselves are not addictive. They're fun, easily accessible and require very little effort to play. In most instances, I'll only end up playing video games because I have nothing else to do. Nothing on tv? Video games. Too hot outside? Video games. Bored? Video games. If I'm able to do something else like go biking, go out for drinks or watch the game, that's usually what I'll do. Of course there are the games that really pull you in which you end up going on binges and playing for hours on end but I'd attribute that more to how fun or captivating the game is. There are other video games that I can barely stomach for 30 seconds.
Whether video games are an addiction or not, as long as you play in moderation and don't let them have a negative effect on your life it doesn't matter what you call the degree of your obsession.
@Caiters
In so far as that's the case, there is little difference between choosing to become addicted to crystal meth (while knowing beforehand that it is addictive) and choosing to become addicted to games. An initial willingness does not lessen the fact of the addiction, nor does the fact or the possibility of a willingness nullify the possible addictive traits inherent in the thing in question. In other words, that people can choose to become addicted to games does not imply that games have no addictive characteristics.
In so far as that's the case, there is little difference between choosing to become addicted to crystal meth (while knowing beforehand that it is addictive) and choosing to become addicted to games. An initial willingness does not lessen the fact of the addiction, nor does the fact or the possibility of a willingness nullify the possible addictive traits inherent in the thing in question. In other words, that people can choose to become addicted to games does not imply that games have no addictive characteristics.
CAITERS
This was a hard one, as both sides gave a convincing argument. However, we're talking about addiction as a pleasurable activity that interferes with normal functions, health, or responsibilities. This could include anything from gambling to eating - and others have pointed the same thing out. You can't point at food and say it causes addiction just because there are a handful of people who excessively eat. So in the same case you can't point at video games as being addictive.
This was a hard one, as both sides gave a convincing argument. However, we're talking about addiction as a pleasurable activity that interferes with normal functions, health, or responsibilities. This could include anything from gambling to eating - and others have pointed the same thing out. You can't point at food and say it causes addiction just because there are a handful of people who excessively eat. So in the same case you can't point at video games as being addictive.
CAITERS
We all play games, lots of them, but we are not all addicts. I look at games an object that can be abused to the point of addiction rather than an addictive substance most of us choose to use in moderation. ManWithNoName presents a good argument that games are designed and marketed to exploit our naturally compulsive behavior. However I don't think participating in systems designed to keep us playing force us to abuse them to the point of having a psychological dependency. Labeling games as addictive just doesn't quite seem right.
We all play games, lots of them, but we are not all addicts. I look at games an object that can be abused to the point of addiction rather than an addictive substance most of us choose to use in moderation. ManWithNoName presents a good argument that games are designed and marketed to exploit our naturally compulsive behavior. However I don't think participating in systems designed to keep us playing force us to abuse them to the point of having a psychological dependency. Labeling games as addictive just doesn't quite seem right.
CAITERS
What Gnarlythotep and kidplus said. I did find myself swayed by both sides - it's a difficult decision to make. I do know, though, that if I - personally - stop playing a game for a couple of days, its hold over me is broken, and it can be months or even years until I remember it exists and go back and finish it.
We've all had that experience of deciding to play games over all else for a little while, or play one particular game above all others. Well, if you have leisure time and you really enjoy (say) WoW, then why not play WoW? It's more rewarding than camping on Facebook, at least. Likewise, on those (rare) occasions where I play games instead of working, it's not because I'm addicted to the game, it's because I don't want to work. Personally, at least. I find the internet is much more likely to jump me and sequester away my time.
What Gnarlythotep and kidplus said. I did find myself swayed by both sides - it's a difficult decision to make. I do know, though, that if I - personally - stop playing a game for a couple of days, its hold over me is broken, and it can be months or even years until I remember it exists and go back and finish it.
We've all had that experience of deciding to play games over all else for a little while, or play one particular game above all others. Well, if you have leisure time and you really enjoy (say) WoW, then why not play WoW? It's more rewarding than camping on Facebook, at least. Likewise, on those (rare) occasions where I play games instead of working, it's not because I'm addicted to the game, it's because I don't want to work. Personally, at least. I find the internet is much more likely to jump me and sequester away my time.
CAITERS - I love how you used the example of sitting in a rocking chair, I lol'd , great debate guys!
MANWITH
Sure games can be addictive, but no more so than most forms of media whether it be a book, movie, tv series, etc. All forms of entertainment can be addictive to people in some certain measure, its just important that you should have all good things in moderation.
Sure games can be addictive, but no more so than most forms of media whether it be a book, movie, tv series, etc. All forms of entertainment can be addictive to people in some certain measure, its just important that you should have all good things in moderation.
MANWITH
Ouch... this is an incredibly tough one and both sides made EXCELLENT arguments, however I do think that behavioral addictions can be just as strong as drug addictions.
When any activity begins to have a financial impact (spending money people don't have), when it starts to affect a person's relationships, when it has an impact on their ability to hold down a job or go to school... it's an addiction and a problem. Drugs create a physical addiction that can be self-destructive, but I do think that mental addictions can be just as self-destructive, though with proper counselling they may be easier to resolve than physical/drug addictions where treatment involves both the physical and mental aspects.
Ouch... this is an incredibly tough one and both sides made EXCELLENT arguments, however I do think that behavioral addictions can be just as strong as drug addictions.
When any activity begins to have a financial impact (spending money people don't have), when it starts to affect a person's relationships, when it has an impact on their ability to hold down a job or go to school... it's an addiction and a problem. Drugs create a physical addiction that can be self-destructive, but I do think that mental addictions can be just as self-destructive, though with proper counselling they may be easier to resolve than physical/drug addictions where treatment involves both the physical and mental aspects.
@ManWithNoName
I see your point, however id argue that Call Of Duty is the only game out theree right now that feels the unlocks are intrusive in the gameplay. You see them in other game. But most are transparent and take a really long time unlock. Sure theyre there for the hardcore to look forward to but none try to be as flashy about it as CoD is and thusly your seeing less incentive in game for unlocks. Perhaps outside there's an interest but in game its usually all business.
TL;DR. CoD is the only franchise to do what your describing blantantly.
I see your point, however id argue that Call Of Duty is the only game out theree right now that feels the unlocks are intrusive in the gameplay. You see them in other game. But most are transparent and take a really long time unlock. Sure theyre there for the hardcore to look forward to but none try to be as flashy about it as CoD is and thusly your seeing less incentive in game for unlocks. Perhaps outside there's an interest but in game its usually all business.
TL;DR. CoD is the only franchise to do what your describing blantantly.
I gotta say I think it's case by case. I definitely know of people like NoName mentioned who practically froth at the mouth when for any completely rational number of reasons they're torn away from their precious gamebox for five minutes.
Shit I've exhibited behavior like that before when kicked off of a server in the middle of a good match. Updates don't give a fuuuh about your 12-bitch killstreak -.-
But at the same time I think the majority of gamers are like Caiters said, just ppl who like fun. Who the hell wouldn't? But those same ppl are usually smart enough to balance out gaming with sex and backgammon and spelunking or whatever the hell normal people do these days.
Shit I've exhibited behavior like that before when kicked off of a server in the middle of a good match. Updates don't give a fuuuh about your 12-bitch killstreak -.-
But at the same time I think the majority of gamers are like Caiters said, just ppl who like fun. Who the hell wouldn't? But those same ppl are usually smart enough to balance out gaming with sex and backgammon and spelunking or whatever the hell normal people do these days.
I am noticing a trend in most people here. Because not all gamers are addicted, games are not addictive, they say. But that goes for all addictions. For example, not all people who drinks, gamble or work are alcoholics, workaholics or whatever the word we use for addicted gamblers. The fact that every gamer is not an addict does not make games automatically non-addictive.
@ManWithNoName:
"The fact that every gamer is not an addict does not make games automatically non-addictive."
The reverse is also true: The fact that some gamers are addicts does not make games automatically addictive.
Again, I point to this as a matter of the framing statement - anything can be an addiction. However, for something to be considered addictive (or better, dangerously addictive) there has to be a threshold danger of contracting that addiction. Otherwise, even one instance automatically makes something addictive, and the word addicitive loses a great deal of meaning.
Are video games likely to addict a significant number of users, like those addictions society commonly holds (e.g., alcohol, various drugs and stimulants)? Or are they a potentially addicting stimulus that predominantly affect those with a predilection to those behavioural addictions?
These are the considerations that led me to my vote. Addiction is a slippery term to define, and consequently a tough one to debate. I applaud both debators for tackling this tricky topic.
"The fact that every gamer is not an addict does not make games automatically non-addictive."
The reverse is also true: The fact that some gamers are addicts does not make games automatically addictive.
Again, I point to this as a matter of the framing statement - anything can be an addiction. However, for something to be considered addictive (or better, dangerously addictive) there has to be a threshold danger of contracting that addiction. Otherwise, even one instance automatically makes something addictive, and the word addicitive loses a great deal of meaning.
Are video games likely to addict a significant number of users, like those addictions society commonly holds (e.g., alcohol, various drugs and stimulants)? Or are they a potentially addicting stimulus that predominantly affect those with a predilection to those behavioural addictions?
These are the considerations that led me to my vote. Addiction is a slippery term to define, and consequently a tough one to debate. I applaud both debators for tackling this tricky topic.
I'm with Tarvu on this...I can't vote. Caiters has laid down a fine argument with a lot of evidence, when I was all set to vote for Manwithnoname. Yes, I believe videogames can be addictive to certain people, but not on the same level as hard drugs and stuff like that.
Unusually, Corduroy Turtle's comment almost got me prepared to switch my vote to Caiters. At the same time, I've heard the stories of the men who lose their girlfriends and wives to Championship/Football Manager. I was so certain on who I was going to vote on, but the lack of extra definition on the title, along with both Caiters and Turtle have left me struggling to fully side with either argument.
Unusually, Corduroy Turtle's comment almost got me prepared to switch my vote to Caiters. At the same time, I've heard the stories of the men who lose their girlfriends and wives to Championship/Football Manager. I was so certain on who I was going to vote on, but the lack of extra definition on the title, along with both Caiters and Turtle have left me struggling to fully side with either argument.
@ManWithNoName
"I am noticing a trend in most people here. Because not all gamers are addicted, games are not addictive, they say. But that goes for all addictions. For example, not all people who drinks, gamble or work are alcoholics, workaholics or whatever the word we use for addicted gamblers. The fact that every gamer is not an addict does not make games automatically non-addictive."
I see your point, but by using this logic, you're also saying that literally every single thing in the world is addictive, since somebody, somewhere is addicted to it.
I think that's where my problem lies with this debate. Nothing against your debating skills (you brought up excellent points), I just think it's too hard to prove this one either way, so I delivered a verdict of "not guilty" by voting for Caiters :)
"I am noticing a trend in most people here. Because not all gamers are addicted, games are not addictive, they say. But that goes for all addictions. For example, not all people who drinks, gamble or work are alcoholics, workaholics or whatever the word we use for addicted gamblers. The fact that every gamer is not an addict does not make games automatically non-addictive."
I see your point, but by using this logic, you're also saying that literally every single thing in the world is addictive, since somebody, somewhere is addicted to it.
I think that's where my problem lies with this debate. Nothing against your debating skills (you brought up excellent points), I just think it's too hard to prove this one either way, so I delivered a verdict of "not guilty" by voting for Caiters :)
MANWITH
I have to agree that games are at least somewhat addicting. There are plenty of reports of people playing games to the point of neglecting some key responsibilities in life and even playing to the point of death in some cases.
As mentioned, some personalities are more easily addicted to games than others and not everyone is addicted. However, we've all seen the documentaries about how people just completely lose touch with reality and sink into a game world. I've seen close friends of mine lose jobs over MMO addiction, flunk out of school and destroy relationships. It sucks. But when someone gets to that level and they shut out friends and family in order to play, I think its safe to call it addiction.
I have to agree that games are at least somewhat addicting. There are plenty of reports of people playing games to the point of neglecting some key responsibilities in life and even playing to the point of death in some cases.
As mentioned, some personalities are more easily addicted to games than others and not everyone is addicted. However, we've all seen the documentaries about how people just completely lose touch with reality and sink into a game world. I've seen close friends of mine lose jobs over MMO addiction, flunk out of school and destroy relationships. It sucks. But when someone gets to that level and they shut out friends and family in order to play, I think its safe to call it addiction.
"I think that's where my problem lies with this debate. Nothing against your debating skills (you brought up excellent points), I just think it's too hard to prove this one either way, so I delivered a verdict of "not guilty" by voting for Caiters :)"
Er, that's not how abstaining works.
Er, that's not how abstaining works.
Stevil quit yer whining and vote ;]
Gnarly - Thank you - the points you're bringing up were things that were hard for me to articulate. It took me a few days to even begin to approach the topic because it is so hard to quantify, which is why I framed it as logically as possible.
Gnarly - Thank you - the points you're bringing up were things that were hard for me to articulate. It took me a few days to even begin to approach the topic because it is so hard to quantify, which is why I framed it as logically as possible.
@Caiters
You're welcome. I'm quite aware of how difficult it can be to frame an argument relating to a proposition that is, at best, semi-quantifiable. Addiction metrics are difficult to devise and apply, and conversely affect any serious discussion around those issues.
Again, I'd like to thank both debators for their excellent arguments and obvious commitment to the topic.
You're welcome. I'm quite aware of how difficult it can be to frame an argument relating to a proposition that is, at best, semi-quantifiable. Addiction metrics are difficult to devise and apply, and conversely affect any serious discussion around those issues.
Again, I'd like to thank both debators for their excellent arguments and obvious commitment to the topic.
@Gnarly
My problem with your arguments is that you say addiction is hard to define, but ManWith made it perfectly clear he's using the definition laid out by The American Society of Addiction Medicine, a definitive source on the subject, that Caiters also referred to in her argument (when you click through her links it eventually leads back to the same - or very similar - definition). This is the definition you should be judging the debate on, not your own opinion on the matter. The fact you think an addiction needs to affect a large group of people is irrelevant, as are your other opinions on the matter when judging a debate.
If this were a poll, or we are just discussing our own ideas, then i wouldn't have an issue. However, we're supposed to deciding based on the strength of the argument, not who we internally agree with.
But i know this a problem, and i actually agree with most your opinions on addiction. If you still think Caiters had the stronger argument that is totally cool, i'm not trying to change your mind. I just see your personal opinions weighing heavily in your decision here.
Which actually makes me question this format in general, sometimes it totally works fine, but other times it's too hard to separate personal opinion from judgement of the debate. I wouldn't mind seeing more of a MassPoll format for some of these questions.
My problem with your arguments is that you say addiction is hard to define, but ManWith made it perfectly clear he's using the definition laid out by The American Society of Addiction Medicine, a definitive source on the subject, that Caiters also referred to in her argument (when you click through her links it eventually leads back to the same - or very similar - definition). This is the definition you should be judging the debate on, not your own opinion on the matter. The fact you think an addiction needs to affect a large group of people is irrelevant, as are your other opinions on the matter when judging a debate.
If this were a poll, or we are just discussing our own ideas, then i wouldn't have an issue. However, we're supposed to deciding based on the strength of the argument, not who we internally agree with.
But i know this a problem, and i actually agree with most your opinions on addiction. If you still think Caiters had the stronger argument that is totally cool, i'm not trying to change your mind. I just see your personal opinions weighing heavily in your decision here.
Which actually makes me question this format in general, sometimes it totally works fine, but other times it's too hard to separate personal opinion from judgement of the debate. I wouldn't mind seeing more of a MassPoll format for some of these questions.
@dr spaceman:
There is a fine but critical line between the definition of "addiction" and "addictive". Yes, MWNN used one of the definitive sources for his definition, but that's only one facet of the proposition. Had the proposition been "Can video games be a source of addiction?", then I would have gone with his argument.
However, in this debate, Caiters dealt more with what I ssaw as the crux of the issue - strength and potential of addiction, which is necessary in these kinds of debates. Any study dealing with addictive behaviour needs to expressly clarify their criteria and thresholds for what they consider addictive behaviour, as there is no clear-cut value for addictions.
So, I contend that my assertion that an addiction needs to affect a significant (not necessarily large) group is quite relevant - in absence of specified criertia for addictive, I have to judge the arguments based on those I consider that best address the proposed proposition.
My initial comments were intended to clarify the position I was judging the arguments from. Later ones were simply to address the larger debate that often springs up in these comment threads (which I quite enjoy).
There is a fine but critical line between the definition of "addiction" and "addictive". Yes, MWNN used one of the definitive sources for his definition, but that's only one facet of the proposition. Had the proposition been "Can video games be a source of addiction?", then I would have gone with his argument.
However, in this debate, Caiters dealt more with what I ssaw as the crux of the issue - strength and potential of addiction, which is necessary in these kinds of debates. Any study dealing with addictive behaviour needs to expressly clarify their criteria and thresholds for what they consider addictive behaviour, as there is no clear-cut value for addictions.
So, I contend that my assertion that an addiction needs to affect a significant (not necessarily large) group is quite relevant - in absence of specified criertia for addictive, I have to judge the arguments based on those I consider that best address the proposed proposition.
My initial comments were intended to clarify the position I was judging the arguments from. Later ones were simply to address the larger debate that often springs up in these comment threads (which I quite enjoy).
@Gnarly
first, i'm glad we're being friendly about this, i re-read my comment and it sounded a little harsher than i intended. thanks for an intelligent response.
now this!
i think the problem lies in the vagueness of the question. whereas i was convinced by MWNN's argument that some games utilize addictive mechanisms and cause some people to become dependent on playing (thus being "addictive"), i wasn't concerned with this applying to significant group. the reason for this being two fold. 1: the games he mentioned are played by millions of people who could easily display the side effects of addiction (including myself) without noticing; and 2: i am well aware that people can develop "addictions" to just about anything (that's called OCD), but many of the things people are "addicted" to have not been specifically designed to cause the addiction - like the games MWNN describes.
to me, that qualifies the proposition. on top of that, the fact MWNN swayed me from my stance prior to reading this debate is why i felt his argument was stronger.
For us, i think it's our different interpretations of the proposition that caused me to question your arguments. you've done a fine job explaining your thoughts, i wonder if my explanation makes sense to you?
first, i'm glad we're being friendly about this, i re-read my comment and it sounded a little harsher than i intended. thanks for an intelligent response.
now this!
i think the problem lies in the vagueness of the question. whereas i was convinced by MWNN's argument that some games utilize addictive mechanisms and cause some people to become dependent on playing (thus being "addictive"), i wasn't concerned with this applying to significant group. the reason for this being two fold. 1: the games he mentioned are played by millions of people who could easily display the side effects of addiction (including myself) without noticing; and 2: i am well aware that people can develop "addictions" to just about anything (that's called OCD), but many of the things people are "addicted" to have not been specifically designed to cause the addiction - like the games MWNN describes.
to me, that qualifies the proposition. on top of that, the fact MWNN swayed me from my stance prior to reading this debate is why i felt his argument was stronger.
For us, i think it's our different interpretations of the proposition that caused me to question your arguments. you've done a fine job explaining your thoughts, i wonder if my explanation makes sense to you?
@dr spaceman:
I agree - cordiality is the way to go. Especially if it involves brandy snifters and plenty of harrumphing. I didn't see your comment as too strongly-wroded, although I appreciate the consideration.
I can certainly see why one would suppor MWNN - as I mentioned, both commenters gave great arguments, and it took some time for me to decide who I supported.
Regarding the question, it's not uncommon in a debate to give some latitude to the debators - if the proposition is too narrow, it really restricts the arguments. I will concede that formal debates have more interaction with the opponent (with rebuttals and such).
Regarding OCD, that is a slightly different case - it is a compulsion, which (IIRC) deals with similar and some different area of the brain, and typically does not show the same escalating pattern as is often seen with addictions (that is, the compulsion is more static, whearas addictions generally get worse over time).
I certainly understand your position, and why you would go with MWNN. Especially if it causes you to reevealuate your personal opinion - that is one of the hallmarks of a well-reasoned argument.
I will also apologize if any of my comments seemed offensive to you or anyone else. Comments are an inexact medium of expression, and even IRL I can come off as a bit condescending of haughty.
Now, to the snifters!!!
I agree - cordiality is the way to go. Especially if it involves brandy snifters and plenty of harrumphing. I didn't see your comment as too strongly-wroded, although I appreciate the consideration.
I can certainly see why one would suppor MWNN - as I mentioned, both commenters gave great arguments, and it took some time for me to decide who I supported.
Regarding the question, it's not uncommon in a debate to give some latitude to the debators - if the proposition is too narrow, it really restricts the arguments. I will concede that formal debates have more interaction with the opponent (with rebuttals and such).
Regarding OCD, that is a slightly different case - it is a compulsion, which (IIRC) deals with similar and some different area of the brain, and typically does not show the same escalating pattern as is often seen with addictions (that is, the compulsion is more static, whearas addictions generally get worse over time).
I certainly understand your position, and why you would go with MWNN. Especially if it causes you to reevealuate your personal opinion - that is one of the hallmarks of a well-reasoned argument.
I will also apologize if any of my comments seemed offensive to you or anyone else. Comments are an inexact medium of expression, and even IRL I can come off as a bit condescending of haughty.
Now, to the snifters!!!
CAITERS
I agree with Manwithnoname's points about addiction but Caiters I think gets to the nub of the problem more; as addiction to games is different from addiction to say crack cocaine. With games it's more about personal factors that make the enjoyment you get from the game 'addictive' rather than something your mind/body physically craves. Obviously it doesn't help that games appeal to the way our brains are designed to follow the pattern of 'action, reward, repeat' but they aren't addictive in themselves.
Games like CoD or WoW can obviously be massively addictive, but it depends upon the person and what they get from it, some people can get a lot of enjoyment from being able to achieve and attain in either, but others will find nothing. I'm sure there are some people addicted to CoD who would find WoW boring and vice versa. I've known loads of people who were heavily into iPhone or smartphone games in general (you know the small, $1/£1 games you get) and they'll play them for hours upon hours whereas I can't stand games like that... but put me in front of a PC loaded with a copy of Half-life or Deus Ex and I can just go on and on.
So I would say it depends a lot upon the person and what drives them as to whether it's addictive.
I agree with Manwithnoname's points about addiction but Caiters I think gets to the nub of the problem more; as addiction to games is different from addiction to say crack cocaine. With games it's more about personal factors that make the enjoyment you get from the game 'addictive' rather than something your mind/body physically craves. Obviously it doesn't help that games appeal to the way our brains are designed to follow the pattern of 'action, reward, repeat' but they aren't addictive in themselves.
Games like CoD or WoW can obviously be massively addictive, but it depends upon the person and what they get from it, some people can get a lot of enjoyment from being able to achieve and attain in either, but others will find nothing. I'm sure there are some people addicted to CoD who would find WoW boring and vice versa. I've known loads of people who were heavily into iPhone or smartphone games in general (you know the small, $1/£1 games you get) and they'll play them for hours upon hours whereas I can't stand games like that... but put me in front of a PC loaded with a copy of Half-life or Deus Ex and I can just go on and on.
So I would say it depends a lot upon the person and what drives them as to whether it's addictive.
