Are video games making kids dumber Yes(pro) or No(con)

Yaaaay source battles! /endsarcasmI'll be going through this line by line, so anything my opponent says will be in bold."First this is talking about kids 1-16."First of all, this is one-hundred percent shifting the goalposts. No where anywhere else in this debate did he restrict the topic of conversation to people between the ages of 1 and 16. That's entirely unfair for me to prepare arguments to cover a vast array of ages just for him to cut out half of my ground out of nowhere. But second of all, this is such an arbitrary definition of what a "kid" is that there's absolutely no way to support it. Don't abide by this at all. "Boys from ages 6-9 where participating in an event. (check first link) They never had games before and guess what they got dumber."This is where all the fun parts of the debate come into play. /endsarcasmAt the end of the day I have sources saying that kids learn better with video games. He has a source saying that kids don't learn better with video games. So it just comes down to whose sources you believe more.First of all, you're going to prefer my sources because I have information coming from a renowned psycologial association and a noteworthy news organization as opposed to just one person. You prefer it for this reason because a) I'm getting this information from more than one credible place, meaning that multiple people have come to this conclusion, and b) my studies come from peer-reviewed organizations, meaning that it's other people's jobs to look over my information to make sure that it isn't biased or flawwed in various ways, rather than his source which is just the findings of one random guy. Second of all, you're going to prefer my sources because my sources cover a broader scope in terms of a time frame, while his source just focuses on short-term effects, not what it does to the kids overall. To quote directly from the first paragraph in his source, "according to a study that examined the short-term effects of video-game ownership on academic development in young boys."He just has sources that cover a four month period of time in the early life of a kid. My sources span from toddlerhood to college level students. So you're preferring my sources on the basis of I'm covering a much larger scope of information than my opponent, as well as a much larger time frame. But even if you don't buy my sources specifically, at worst this makes them even out and cancel each other out. That means you have to look to my other arguments that weren't addressed at all, such as the arguments that video games increase kid's creativity, ability to visualize objects in three dimensions just as well as academic courses, an improved problem solving capability and ability to cooperate with others. These all impact the debate to make kids "smarter" and most certainly not "dumb". My opponent never responded to any of these claims, hold it against him."The sad truth is that children won't really play them unless they are forced."First of all, even though I'm not one for usually reading sources and I certainly don't blame you if you don't either, I agree with my opponent that you need to read his second source. Why? Because it doesn't say a single word of what he's claiming it does. There's absolutely nothing in the article that says that kids are going to be peer-pressured into not playing games that have clear educational motives.But second of all, even if it is there, my impacts still stand because even the non-educational ones offer added benefits that help in education. These were the claims that, ironically, my opponent dropped. So go back to the argument I brought up from the APA that says that playing shooter video games improved player's capacity to think about objects in three dimensions, as wella s the argument that children's creativity was enhanced by playing any kind of video game, including violent video games. So even if his argument here is true, I'm still giving kids educational benefits through video games that kids will want to play. His argument here just doesn't matter. "What did I learned I learned nothing about teamwork."First, you're still preferring the numerous studies done on this that cite the improved teamplay and coorperation with others over my opponent's personal testemony, which is a) potentially biased, and b) absolutely unverifiable.But even if you do want to give it consideration, I'm also a player of games such as League of Legends, Guild Wars 2, Warcraft 3, World of Warcraft, and Starcraft 2, all of which are online, multiplayer games. I've learned more about how to work together with others and get people to follow one common goal through these games than I ever have through school or academics. This means that a) you prefer my testemony because I have experienced a wider range of games than my opponent has, making my testemony more probably true than my opponent's, or b) just ignore personal testemonies altogether and look to the actual studies that I have that back up my testemony. At the end of the day, the debate breaks down really simply:1. My opponent drops numerous arguments I made from the APA. As the last round is approaching, don't let him respond to them because he had his chance and didn't. To let him do it in the final round where I have a limit time to address them and to create clash is really unfair.2. My sources cover a broader scope and time frame than my opponents, as well as come from more reputable places, which means you're going to be preferring my sources compared to my opponent's.3. Just ignore the personal testemony stuff. But if you won't and you want to evaluate that stuff, you prefer my personal testemony since I've played a wider range of games and therefore am more knowledgable about it's benefits than my opponent, which makes my testamony more probably true.