if you ban these kind of things soccer for example in London it causes the

immense amount of vandalism right people crazy over soccer but that's not
enough justification for us to say because people might go crazy must not play
soccer from now on it's not enough justification but secondly because the
arbitrary threshold is so like unclear right because basically the how
destructive the game is is not a criteria or not be kind of like main cause of
why these games cause this accident right rather the ranked main cause is
the arbitrary negligence of individuals right so this differs from individuals and
varies upon different cases and first this is not enough reason for you to say
let's ban this and I last argument is about the bet right we told you how
Pokemon go like in roses like immense amount of economic benefits they
create like twenty three billion dollars of Japan and Nintendo companies only
and if you look at these kind of rate rates like economic benefits we clearly
see that the benefits outweigh the harms and if you also think about how
Pokemon go or Regis people to go out and interact with people and because
of these steps if you have played this game you have to go to these
monuments and landmarks to like to find items for example and this actually
allows you to expend money on different kind of cases which is very like
uniquely beneficial because this not only gives the money to these companies
thank you okay that was the leader of our position arguing against emotion so
arguing the government should not vana play all their games in public okay so
let's see how many of our audience judges agree 23 out of 50 so a little bit
less than the Prime Minister so so far the opening government is leading in
the total number of lights on and let's see if the Deputy Prime Minister can
continue this momentum please step up to the podium mr. mayor speaker
since we are all just children or students I would like to ask adjudicators and
the MC when you drink or when you drink and drive actually it's illegal but
when you drink or when you actually wear something smoke you become
immersed in that activity you when you drink and when you cannot actually
control your intake amount you cannot really control yourself why because
even though you really really want to control yourself and your mental and
your emotion your body cannot handle that because it's alcohol it contains
elements it actually controls your emotion and rain which means that if you
wants immersed in that kind of element or in that kind of activity like drunk
driving or Mariana or whatnot you become insensitive and you become
immersed in that kind of activity therefore it's therefore you cannot control
yourself the six I think this is a parallel example that we can actually give into
augmented reality games like Pokemon go you cannot control yourself even
though you want to because you're so immersed in that kind of Pokemon go
game you know catching Pikachu or or any different characters you become
so absorbed in that game they cannot you cannot actually even differentiate
the reality and the virtual society that you're actually playing the game and
therefore the government has an obligation to actually opt-in this phenomenon
and this kind of tragedy and to actually protect citizens from having potential
harms and accidents you know even like going to death moving on to my
rebuttals before moving on to my substantive arguments my first clash is
about the exclusiveness of AR games compared to other mobile games and
other activities they talked about how we can actually be on other mobile
games if you think that those absorbing in its problem however I think that the
mobile games accept mobile computer mobile games or phone mobile games
are different from actually AR games because as I mentioned in my
introduction they do have a function and very unique function and
characteristics that make the users to be absorbed in that kind of game
because we can actually see the real picture of the real picture of the monitor
for example if you go to code small you can actually see that picture of the co-
ed small by your small mobile phone device therefore I think that you can
actually be really absorbed in that kind of game therefore you cannot really um
you cannot really make rational decisions once you actually opt into this game
secondly they talked about the logic of house smoking and drugs and drinking
driving thus not smoking a drinking driving but the very point that our lovely
Prime Minister was trying to argue is that it's not just a problem of smoking or
dry or smoking or taking drugs it's actually problem about after the intake
those drugs or after they in take those alcohol they move out and this is the
very very important characteristic of the Pokemon go when when you drive
and when you move we actually require rationality a very very sensitive sense
of your brain and your body movement so we have to be very careful when
you drive or when you move in public places where it's at all for when open
areas where you're not actually very familiar with it so therefore that's the point
is that after you drink it's not just about your drinking but it's the point is that
after you drink it you move and you drive that's the problem when the problem
starts and begins there's relief that because Pokemon go actually gives you
the possibility and actually it requires you to make a movement like you know
literally walking and running therefore leave that it is yes sir well isn't that
being drunken and playing the AR game different issue because drinking
makes your inner makes problems in the inside and the area is to exclude this
one so what I'm not what I want to talk about is that the both thing yes actually
that's definitely different matter because something is spoon as something is
scheme but actually ultimately at the end of the day it gives your body and
emotion a phenomenon and an illusion that it actually makes your body to
think that you're doing in something in not you're not really in a reality in your
in a virtual world therefore it actually the both of the elements actually makes
you to feel feel in it you're in a virtual world therefore you cannot actually make
different rational choices or actions or lost lifestyle choices second they talked
about how they do have lastly they talked about how they do the people of the
users have right to prioritize their own happiness however there is harm for
harm principle in democracy how I will actually demonstrate in my last
argument when certain people a certain person's action actually and gives
imposes harm to other individual the government can actually opt into the
system and make the people to stop that option so it's not it nicely leads to my
third argument which is about the social harms and how it triggers for their
crimes number one it's about the direct harms that imposed to society a it
actually infringes privacy they are games actually monitor of your phone show
us the real space of their world therefore you can see the body of other people
and because it looks like a camera monitor it definitely gives a room for users
to actually take hidden camera photos of other people and taking pictures
without the person's content is definitely clear a client secondly I want to talk
about how it restricts cyber security because you will make please would you
like to continue would you like to end that can I have some more seconds
okay thank you secondly I want to talk about how a risk cyber security
because you will going to use public and public cybernetic or when you go out
and lastly I want to talk about how indirect arms about the in drugs in guard
harm because it'll going to give you more because of the characteristics there
is an also example that nano safe teen boy actually broke into a stranger's
house and actually got the girl we got a bit robbing and many kinds thanks
okay all right that was a Deputy Prime Minister arguing for the motion and in
detailing why government should ban the play of a are games in public she
mention that a are games are more dangerous than other electronic games
because they are inherently more engrossing how many of our audience
judges agree with the Deputy Prime Minister 19 so a bit less than the Prime
Minister but still good nonetheless okay deputy leader all opposition it's now
your time if you look at most of the stories and episodes of harm that opening
opposition opening government gives you they are generally caused by how
an individual utilizes that particular device that is the individual or whatever
team you're talking about can choose to break into someone's house because
that person wants to catch the Pokemon or that person can choose not to and
there are plenty of people in the world who choose to responsibly utilize
games rather than break into someone's house and break a law that already
exists given that that's the case we don't think that opening government gives
you enough cause causal relationship between games and and bat and
banning and whether people will use to misuse them or not so as a deputy
leader of opposition I'm going to talk about two things first of all I'm going to
talk about the principle and why opening government does not have enough
justification to ban this game and secondly I'm going to extend on the impact
that our leader of opposition already gave you so firstly let's talk about
principles there Prime Minister basically focused on self-harm and how it
harms individuals but if you look at the characteristic of self-harm self-harm
unlike social harm is something that is subjective that is the government
cannot decide for you how much or how or to what extent you are harming
yourself no thank you we think in those particular instances it depends on the
individuals calculus and the individuals prioritization as to how they can utilize
that game and use it in a responsible way but secondly they also talked about
social harm and if you look at many of the harms and injuries and best that are
related to Pokemon go or augmented reality there are various contexts to
various deaths and injuries that happen just because augmented reality was
somehow related to it or somehow part of the part of the incident does not
prove a causation as to what furthermore we want to tell you that because of
the past that not everyone goes through it we think that it does mean that if
not all instances of augmented reality will cause somehow a problem for these
individuals furthermore we think even if a problem happened we think it's
better to ask the individual to be responsible for these actions we think there
are already mechanisms for breaking laws or hurting other people during that
process yes there are actions that are regulated by the government that do
not have the possibility to affect all members such as drunk driving some
people will get away with that some people would be safe with it however it is
dangerous and that's why it is banned we don't think that the potentials of
harm for augmented reality is as comparable to drunk driving and I'm going to
expand this by saying that there is no causal relationship and there's no
particular exclusiveness because no matter what substance of alcohol you
consume whether you stick a cigarette or not inevitably there will be a
chemical and biological harm upon your body and your and and other people
around you but the difference about augmented reality is that just because
you use it that doesn't mean that that's going to harm everyone it depends on
how you utilize that game that's the fundamental difference we're going to
draw between those two we don't think you're exclusiveness stunts but
moreover we think that when they talk about how you can be more like less
aware of what's happening around you we don't think that that's the case
because if you look at things like mobile games on a comparison we think
these are things that drive much more attention only to that particular game
rather than being aware of what is reality around you augmented reality tells
you about what reality looks like around you these are the fundamental
differences that say that mobile games are just as harmful we don't really buy
your logic there but furthermore let's talk about impacts in this particular case
we think this this is problematic for two reasons first of all we want to talk
about the economy we think there are exclusive benefits for augmented reality
in the sense that people who play these games do not just stay in their homes
or do not just stay in the fields that they already know but they go out to other
places we think there are already stores that utilize this kinds of mobility we
think there are already local places that try to utilize this and make money out
of it try to sell to these kinds of people in those particular instances we this is
an exclusive benefit that our tip of mental reality games bring you but secondly
let's also talk about joy we think there are many people as most of us have
probably played Pokemon go and most of us probably aren't dead we think
there are many people who use these games in a very responsible way for
one particular joy at the point that their site tries to limit the the choice of these
people to play these kinds of games we think it imposes a harm on every
other individual who has been responsibly using that game only on the
expense of those who have been harmed as a result of that we think even if
there comes some kind of damage such as a desk or an injury because the
media always goes viral about these particular instances we think our society
progresses people will be compelled to be more careful themselves we think
this is an incentive either for individuals to be careful both on principle and
impact we believe we take this to take home thank you