Resolved: K'nex are better than Legos

Overview: The two sides of this debate show two different views of what it means for toys to be good. My opponent chooses to focus on the economic gains and the particulars of how many units are sold- these are the arguments he leads with in his opening. I concern myself with the quality of the toy; I focus on versatility of use and the range of objects which can be built. My opponent sees toys as mere objects of entertainment and sees children as both lazy (“It's so much easier to follow instructions then to try and master engineering on your own”) and unintelligent (“To say that a young child has the patience and dedication to grasp even the basic concepts of engineering…is naive.”). I view toys as a way to engage children and expand their horizons. I view children as creative and curious. When deciding this debate you should keep these competing frameworks in mind. Are toys simple economic goods we force on our bumbling youth as efficiently as possible? Or are toys the way we teach our children how to be good adults by encouraging critical thinking and creativity? Cultural Appropriation: My opponent has not answered this argument all round and at this point it is too late to do so. If my opponent brings up a new argument on this issue it must be ignored, as I will not have an opportunity to respond to it. This means I have proven that Legos are an unethical brand of toy. Lego lifted portion of Maori culture without consent, fictionalized and then sold indigenous Maori culture for profit. The result was a backlash from the Maori culture and a lawsuit to prevent the patenting by Lego of Maori words. This behavior is clearly unethical. The total lack of response by my opponent demonstrates the indefensibility of this act. On this issue alone I have shown the K'nex are better than Legos because they are morally superior. Engineering Education: My opponent claims that children are too dumb, too unmotivated, to appreciate the engineering aspects of toys. He ignores my R3 video of children clearly explaining engineering concepts and then cheering with joy as these concepts are put to the test. He ignores my R2 picture of a child beaming over his functioning K’nex scale. Were these children too unmotivated and too dumb to learn from these toys? My opponent conveniently ignores the following quote from his source in claiming that engineering is not growing: “Civil engineers are expected to have employment growth of 24 percent over the projections decade, much faster than the average for all occupations.” There is a great need for Civil engineers in the US- exactly the type of engineers that are inspired by construction of structures like the bridge I showed in R3. Finally, engineering education is not just about inspiring children to become engineers. It is about training children to problem solve, to think critically, to understand that they have the ability to take a pile of colored rods and turn them into a tower or a rollercoaster. The most crucial aspect of K’nex is the way in which it empowers children to create, to create something that is of their own making, to know that they don’t need an instruction manual- that they have the power to design the world around them. These are skills and lessons that are valuable for all individuals and transcend vocational boundaries. I have explained how K’nex has been embraced by the engineering community and has been used in classroom settings to teach kids. I have also shown amateur models that illustrate engineering principles. Con has shown no evidence of Lego’s educational benefit. Usability: First, the design of K’nex better allows for 3-D and moveable structures. This can be seen in the R2 images of a functioning crane and the pirate ship. The connection mechanism of K’nex means that pieces can be orientated in space, while the rod and hole connection allows for movement. In contrast, Legos connect only through a 1-D snapping system, meaning 3-D can only be achieved through layering or use of rare special connector pieces. Movement in Legos is extremely difficult and cannot be achieved on a scale anywhere close to that of K’nex. Note my opponent’s lack of examples of moveable Lego structures. The R3 image shows that the additional complexity of K’nex is very slight and negligible. Second, K’nex relies on a narrow range of pieces to achieve a great amount of freedom of design. This makes construction easy, as you don’t need to search for a specific piece at each stage of building. In contrast Lego kits come with highly specialized pieces, encouraging kids to stick to the models the pieces were made for, therefore limiting freedom. The diversity of pieces also makes building with Legos less of a “building” process and more of a “finding” process as you search for the pieces appropriate to your project. Popularity: Both K’nex and Legos are very popular. Both are sold in almost every toy store across the country, both are featured in large exhibits in malls (see the rocket in R3), both make lots of money. Comparing the popularity of the two is just nitpicking the sales stats, something which is not informative of the quality of the toy and obfuscates the true merits of both Legos and K’nex. Legoland: a) The Resolution clearly is focused on comparing Legos and K’nex toys, hence the specific inclusion of the word “toy” in the definition. Con is trying to slide by on a weak semantic argument. Con’s interpretation of the resolution would allow us to include anything tangentially associated with Lego’s; we could wind up arguing about which company has a cooler office under his interpretation. b) If Legoland is not owned or operated by Lego, then it is not produced by Lego and so it not a Lego product. Legoland is not a Lego product and so is not relevant.Conclusion: I have shown that K’nex are superior to Legos on the grounds of usability, education, and ethics, therefore affirming the resolution that K’nex are better than Legos.