Playing Video Games are greater in benefits than reading Fiction Books.

This is going to be a rather disappointing debate, Con has gone outside the bounds of the resolution, as stated in R1 Rezamee, I state "Furthermore, when I say 'benefit' I am complying to which has better psychological benefits and which provides more entertainment." So Cons arguments, one through six, are irrelevant and for the good of the voter I will explain why each is irrelevant to the resolution; however, Cons arguments 7, 8, 9 are relevant. First thing is first, the reason I made the statement, as mentioned above, is to prevent people making arguments on how video games are bad for you (hence the phrase "which is more beneficial" and/or making 'duh' arguments. For example "Fiction books are better because you can "load" a book faster than you can load a game" arguments such as these have and should of been prevented if Con read my paragraph in round one. Starting with Cons first argument, he basically explains how (fiction) books are easier to access, this has nothing to do with the psychological benefits of either the book or the video game. Argument 2 Con, he describes books having better backwards compatibility, this obviously has nothing to do with the brain. Cons 3A, he, in summary, states how a brains processing power is way better than a machine's, this is true. But he fails to explain how this correlates to the brain benefiting from reading a book or how the brain doesn't benefit from playing a game, if Con knew what he was arguing, he could of used an argument on how reading interesting books can increase your lexile level. For me, argument four is almost relevant if Con would of went further into depth, but like the others it isn't. Why? Yet again, he doest explain any benefits that improve the brain. (Sigh) Another 'duh' argument, of course books don't have loading screens, and how does this correlate to any physiological benefits? Argument 6 ties into the reasoning behind argument 5. Now that I got all the out of topic arguments shot down we can begin a real debate. Note* As I was reading Cons points I feel as if he thought this would be far from a serious debate. I was rather entertained by the points he made, not kidding, they were true and funny, sadly they do not fit within the agreed upon terms. Now Con has pointed out that video games have less variety than a the field of fiction literature. This is simply untrue, video games in fact might have even more genres then whole of fictional books. Video games come in several categories and those categories can split into further subcategories. You have options to play a strategy game, a first person shooter, a massive multiplayer online, a role playing game, a horror game, a adventure game, etc ( I could go one for a while). Now what's amazing is that those can be split into further groups or each genre can mix. For example, lets take the game Minecraft, it can be considered a role playing game, a MMO, and a adventure game (mods extend the variety). There are a plethora of games all with their own taste. Video Games do cost more, this is a fact, but most provide way more than the average 200 page book. If he were lets say a college level reader, you could most likely blast through a 200 page books in under 12 hours of total reading. A video game on the other hand will provide much more entertainment and it will do so in a longer time frame. Games like Skyrim can take days to "complete". when I read the Hunger Games (Book 1) it took me like 10 total hours of reading, the book was entertaining but the game provided much more. Also, most video games takes millions of dollars to complete, so a price tag of $60 dollars is quite a deal. These are the reasons I think a 60 dollar price is justified. Cons study is not within the resolution, we are talking about which is more beneficial, not which pacts a harder punch. Video games proves to be the forefront of mass entertainment, with the industry worth a hefty 91 billion dollars, it has surpassed Hollywood and sport entertainments and what's even more amazing is that its still growing at a rapid pace. As better machines get cheaper we could only see a rise of people participating in the gaming industry, which can be directly translated into people finding games to be entertaining and worth the time and money. Con also failed to reply to any of my arguments in round one. In summary, more than half of Cons arguments are invalid to the debate, video games are in huge variety, and the gaming industry proves that people find games entertaining.