• SoMi - October 12, 2012 11:01 a.m.

    This discussion on pokemon reminds me a lot of a discussion I had recently on whether or not zoos are ethical. A lot of the same problems appear, specifically the lesser amount of space given to animals under human care than they would have in the wild. However, it was rightly pointed out that when animals are under human care they don't need such a great amount of space. Instead of having to hunt for miles to bring back food to satisfy their their needs and the needs of their family, the food is instead provided for them. Animals in the wild, like wild pokemon, are assured of neither safety nor food, two things pokemon under good trainers have no need to worry about. The one thing that is important in a zoo/pokeball setting is to ensure that the animals/pokemon get the exercise they need to stay healthy, and that is where battling comes in. If you think about it, pokemon battles are the best thing that could have happened to pokemon. They get well fed and taken care of, as well as regularly exercised. Of course there are some downsides to battling pokemon, but injuries come as a part of life, and are probably least worrisome within a controlled setting. Pokemon in the wild most likely have a much shorter lifespan due to the dangers of predators, natural illnesses, and starvation in the winter (just as animals or humans in a non-civilized setting). A pokemon that does not battle would not have to be in such top shape, and therefore health problems that are noted and cured on a regular basis in battling pokemon might go unchecked, and we're complaining abut pokemon who faint during battle and is then promptly healed? I agree that we could stand to look at how the taxes are structured, (perhaps there could be a heavier tax on training and battling?) but if the people are willing to bear this much of a tax burden, I would argue that the government would just find something else to spend the money on. At least it's going toward the well-being of our fellow creatures.
  • talleyXIV - October 12, 2012 12:57 p.m.

    PETA is silly.
  • tehtimeisnow - October 13, 2012 1:39 a.m.

    i argree with peta pokaman is bad for anemals and eating meat is rong cuz its murder to eat meat and pokaman is a horrable games anyway cuz nitendo makes it and it sucks
  • bishabosha - November 5, 2012 9:25 a.m.

    Too rite. Stve Job woudl neva eat meat
  • espadaxin2 - October 13, 2012 9:20 a.m.

    3 words: Pokemons. aren't. real.
  • Rosilea - October 13, 2012 11:23 p.m.

    I believe pokemon fighting should be banned. After seeing my brother level up his Blastoise to level 100 I saw him pick up a water gun and go outside to squirt some friends with it. This has got the kid to have fun with water and start going fun to enjoy the topics and interesting things he found in the game that he very much enjoys. I had already given him MW3 and have fixed any problems he'll have with being a bad child. MW3 is so much better and a classic anyways.
  • Flaaffy180 - February 24, 2013 8:05 a.m.

    1I think this is a good debate so Im going to say my opinions here. I think Pokemon shouldn’t fight because it may encourage younger audiences (for example, four year olds) to fight with others. Think about if two imaginative eight year olds (I mean children ranging from 5 – 8 play pretend sward fighting and things like that) played outside and one of the decided to play Pokemon. While battling as Pokemon, Possibly one of the children could get injured if one child punches the other. As we see in the Pokemon episodes its all about fighting and in the very first episode Ash is watching two Pokemon fight. This is encouraging violence. However it not just Pokemon games and series that involves fighting. There are war games like MW, call of duty and other violent games that are based on killing others. The good thing about these fighting games is that they faint and can be recovered at the end of a battle/war. However children aren’t realising that in real life if they shoot there friend with a machine gun, they wont come back alive. On the other hand, Pokemon has been successful and therefore there is no reason it should be banned now. 15 year running and nobody as urgently complained at the fighting. Pokemon Blue, Red, Green, Ruby, Sapphire, Emerald, Gold, Silver, Yellow, Pearl, Diamond, Platinum, white, black, white 2, black 2 X and Y (and so on) have been super successful in the past eighteen years and nobody has really complained. To sort this solution I think, like they have done on some Pokemon games, there should be an age limit on different games and Tv series. Thanks for reading, Flaaffy180
  • alllifeinfate - December 4, 2014 3:16 a.m.

    This is a really good debate... it is educational to apply a little sense and knowledge to the world of geek culture. :)

Showing 41-49 of 49 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000


Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.