RPGamer Editorials - Terrorists Win?

by Andrew Long 

No, this editorial has nothing to do with the limited skirmish currently providing CNN with more programming than it ever deserved. Rather, it has to do with the rather ill-founded editorial 'Counterstrike Part 2' that appeared in this column some time ago. To make a not-so-long story short, it's a silly video game reference, just so this editorial has some passing connection to that particular field of recreation. Now, to harp on this author may seem like beating a dead horse, but I find it slightly bizarre that someone would justify their stance by pleading 'it's my opinion, I'm allowed to have it'. In a section devoted to presenting arguments in a logical fashion (at least in theory), such a statement is nothing short of ludicrous. To base an entire editorial around this tenet is even more ludicrous, regardless of how many times it is bleated throughout the course of that piece of writing. While Orwellian sheep may be convinced of a statement's veracity in this fashion, a discerning, logical person should not be, and it is the worst form of illogical thinking to attempt to present this as a be-all and end-all to discussion of a point.

First off, I'm not going to dwell on the author's childhood, nor will I bother to argue the merits of school as opposed to videogames. Rather, I have to question the appropriateness of this particular editorial, and the message behind it. The author starts off by quoting this statement: "I don't care what he has to say. Something to agree or disagree with. Why does his opinion matter to me? I shall form my own." Okay, fine. That's a noble sentiment, to be sure, and if everyone lived by its guidelines, the world would probably be a nicer place. Unfortunately, though, a saying like this has no validity in determining whether or not an argument holds true. Logical debate in its very nature involves the presentation of factual arguments, or statements that can be validated in some measure by measurable or factual things. To say that simply holding an opinion immediately shields it from all attack is ludicrous. Yes, it's charming that people, to this day, believe that creation began a few thousand years ago on November the 16th, but the fact that they're utterly convinced of it in no way means that all argument on the subject should cease. If this was the case, then how would science ever have advanced beyond its rudiments? The world isn't flat, and sun doesn't orbit the earth, but if people had listened when the Catholic church declared these two fallacies to be true in the face of overwhelming evidence, then where would humanity be today?

Regardless, saying "It's my opinion" in no way makes a statement objectively more or less true. To present this sentiment in support of an argument which, in this case, has already been adequately elaborated upon in preceding editorials (the majority of the actual points used in favor of the argument presented by this particular incarnation of the author's argument have appeared previously) simply serves to degrade that argument in my eyes, since anyone saying this undoubtedly has reason to believe that whatever they're arguing might not be quite so foolproof as they originally felt it to be. Retreating to this figurative high ground in no way proves anything other than an unwillingness to rationally hash out an argument. If an opinion is truly valid, then surely there is no reason to retreat from arguing it, at least if a person truly believes in what they are arguing for.

Subjectivity has a definite role in argument; after all, without opposing viewpoints, there would be nothing to contest. That said, objectivity does count when arguing a case. Certainly, since every coin has two sides, there will be different spins to take on things, but in the end, these opinions must be based on some objective fact. Arguing that two and two is five, for example, makes no sense, and even from a philosophical standpoint it is difficult to justify making this argument. This is because factually, there is no evidence that this is the case. It has been adequately demonstrated that two objects, when paired with two other objects, groups together to make four objects. Thought two, four, and five are all convenient labels imposed upon these groupings by language, that does not change the fact that inherently, four objects does not make five objects. There is thus little sense in arguing anything to the contrary, since objectively, it will be impossible with our current capabilities to ever suggest otherwise. In the end, then, unless something is worthwhile of argument, it hardly makes sense to argue it.

How does this relate to this particular argument? Well, the author himself admits that "In terms of total facts coming at me, then I am wrong in saying that RPGs presented me with more material". Okay, fine. Since that's the whole basis of this particular editorial, there is no point in adding anything further. Objectively, the idea that videogames are more worthwhile than actual life experience and education is ludicrous, and even with the author's exceptional circumstances, 'behaving the ideal' in response to material, and then "(finding it) to be destructive" is its own lesson. The videogames did not teach him that, and they certainly had less empirical educational value than, say, learning trigonometry or reading Shakespeare would. In short, it's not a valid point, so why even bother trying?

In the end, it isn't a matter of the right to hold an opinion, which is undeniable. The part where the trouble starts in is when this right is used as justification for that opinion, without bothering to back it up with anything approaching a factual basis. This is an editorials section, and as such, arguments posted here should relate to something tangible, or at least something that can be backed up in some way by statements which have at least some basis in fact. We're not here to argue whether the moon is pink, and we're certainly not here to say it is just because we think so.

Original Editorial : Counterstrike Part 2