Playing video games promote creativity more than reading a book

Alright, here's why your arguments based off of the topical analysis are abusive and mandate a con vote: The legitimate "topic" is "Playing video games promote creativity more than reading a book". If we would look to this exact wording every single time, we would see that it is hardly at all fair for the con, and it would be impossible to win, as your side is plural, and mine is singular. Therefore, you could use the total "accumulative" creativity, and I could only use the weight of a single book. Because it would be rather audacious for you to propose that we argue that topic, I looked to your description of my argument in the first round: "Con will explain how they think books are better for creativity than video games. " Here we see both sides of the topic is plural, so yes, the total and accumulative number is ENTIRELY relevant. Reader and judge, even if you don't buy that we should look to the notes made in the first round, you're voting con. If you were to vote pro, you would be promoting the inherit bias that comes with starting a debate. When someone starts a debate, they have the ability to change the topic towards whatever they like. For example, we could create a topic that was extremely one sided: "Nerf guns shoot farther than a nerf gun". Obviously, because one side is plural and the other singular, this argument is in favor of the pro all of the time. Obviously, no one in their right mind would accept this debate, as they know as con they would lose. This is similar to this debate. My opponent had a very large inherit bias for the topic based on the written topic at the top of the screen. If he did not make the note that he did in the first round, I wouldn't have accepted the debate. By voting con, you're helping Debate. org turn into a fun and academically promoting site, while by voting pro, you would be supporting inherit topical bias and further watering the seeds to turn the community towards abusive debates. Lastly, even if you don't buy any of the above arguments, I've still manage to prove the greater creative value of a single book versus that of a single video game. My opponent did not even once mention the fact I brought up about academic essays, and this was a large mistake. Extend this argument to the final round as the creative value of an essay trumps over the small creative value of problem solving in video games. Onto my opponent's arguments in the last round: >In video games, you can restart puzzles and challenges. And every time you can find a new creative way to overcome >these challenges. Not only does this promote creativity, but it also promotes problem solving. -I believe you're very much over generalizing here. You've neglected to name a single example of a video game that is non-linear enough to allow an "obstacle" to be overcome in more than one way. > Also, video games are more entertaining -Once again, an EXTREME generalization. If you'd like to say this, then you'd have to have another debate round to prove it. Entertainment is, by its very nature, subjective to an individual, so no conclusions can be drawn about the entertainment values. >91% of children play video games -First, if we're judging by your standards, then this is irrelevant. However, if you don't buy that this is irrelevant, then consider the following, reader: The article says that only 4,136 people were surveyed. The article also fails to provide the location, we don't know if this is in a community with a large percentage of wealth or technological access. Also, turn this around to help the con out. The CIA world fact-book says that the literacy rate of the United States is 99%, even higher than my opponents alleged 91%. In conclusion, based on my opponent's abuses, the reader needs to vote con. I've also provided evidence even if the reader doesn't buy the arguments based off of those abuses.