Video Games are more successful than Movies.

I knew i was forgetting something when i posted for round 1. .. but regardless we shall debate your third definition and then we'll see where the debate leads to. Rebuttals: 1: "Encouraging discussions. Movies, unlike video games have been successful time and again in provoking debates in the society. Movies can be motivational and provide hope to those who may need it. " Now this is merely an opinion, many people will have different things they would enjoy to discuss, such as Perks from "Call of Duty". .. to the intentions of the Illuminati from "Angels and Demons". We cant really say that video games don't provoke debates, just look at this debate I found:. http://www.debate.org... video game ALWAYS provoke debates, mainly because of their huge fanbases, and trolling fanboys, but regardless are just as effective if not more effective at instigating arguments that movies. My argument: Also most movies are seen once, maybe twice, whereas players use video games for months if not years, and therefore will discuss and argue a game more than a movie. Also a single game like "Halo" instigates much more arguments than a single movie does: overpowered weapons. .. Play styles. .. Balanced Maps. .. Game types. .. Halo vs. COD. .. . and the list goes on. Whereas most movies can only be argued on a pair of features, like theme of discrimination, or accuracy of timeline. However some movies do instigate more meaningful arguments. .. but that is also based upon opinion, a typical fanboy would not find a discussion on "The secret life of bees" as interesting as an argument based on "Rushing techniques". I very much disagree with this statement: "On the other hand video games tend to have negative impacts. They can be violent and this can have psychological impacts on the minds of young gamers. While they do come with ratings, more often than not, these ratings are ignored. " Games are just as violent as Movies. In video games we have people gunning each other down, in movies we also have people gunning each other down. The only difference is video games allow you to interact with these events. But if I delve into this subject this debate will focus on violent video games not "Games are more successful than movies", so I'll just leave you with that statement. Same goes for negative impacts. Now i will agree that ratings are often ignored, but how many people read the sticker on a DVD? How can you just decisively conclude that video game ratings are ignored more than movie ratings? Once again opinion, and no evidence. My Argument: The survey — by My Voucher Codes, a British Web site that offers discount codes — found: 39% of parents let kids play video games that aren't age appropriate. 53% let young children watched R-rated movies. Although this does not display 100% of the world population, the sample concludes that parents are more careless with movies than video games. I believe this is because a lot of the blame on violence is being put on video games like MW2. Mainly because video games are becoming increasingly popular and as violent as movies, whereas the latter has been around, and been violent for a much longer time. I will concede that movies can cater to more people, however this does not make them superior. 2. "Entertainment is best when it comes in a small amount"-again another opinion. "Movies typically entertain us for 60-200 minutes. This is sufficient to refresh the mind and provide entertainment in a meaningful way. " Assuming we're talking in movie ratio. A 6 hour long movie would be horrible, but so would a 15 minute video game. The quality of the time it takes to complete a game/movie depends on the, well, game/movie. I personally find a 10-hour campaign to be better than a 6 hour campaign. Same goes for movies, but there are exceptions, some movies and games are better longer, therefore length does not determine quality. Look forward to Con's reply.