I'm getting really sick and tired over the used games debate. Specifically the side arguing that they should be unrestricted. Why? It's not that I'm necessarily against this (more specifically I don't actually care enough either way to take a firm stance), so I'm not opposed to them. It's that the vast majority of them sink to pathos, rather than logos. Or to skip the latin, they're arguing with their hearts and not their heads.

I have seen so many illogical arguments against the restriction of used games, and many more that are just plain irrational that it's making my head hurt. There are legitimate and logical arguments to be made that support their view yet nearly everyone seems to ignore them in favour of spewing out the most asinine drivel I've had the displeasure of reading. When confronted with the debate these people immediately jump to making false analogies and comparisons. So many red herrings are thrown out that it'd make Jesus Christ feeding the five thousand look like a picnic.

Advertisement

And it's always the same as well, often because it's the same person arguing. There's one notorious commenter on Kotaku proper that can't seem to keep his nose out of anything to do with the Xbox One. There's always someone there to make the ridiculous assertion that video games are perfectly equitable to cars, or some other physical product. It's logical to make the implication that if two things are the same then the rules that apply to one should apply to the other. However it's not a logical argument when you try and make that implication for two things that are radically different.

It's not limited to used games though, no way. This is a much more pervasive problem. Any time something happens that triggers a strong emotional response with people you get this kind of reaction. On disc/day one DLC is another prime example when it comes to gaming. On disc DLC probably inspired some of the most ridiculous analogies I've ever seen. And some of the most obstinate and stubborn commenters as well.

What's worse is that when these people are presented with a logical argument that goes against their stance they just get angry and dismissive. Rather than address the points raised they counter with the same illogical nonsense they through out in the first place. The counter to a counter-point should never be the original point repeated verbatim. Either that or they just start making ad hominem attacks, most commonly accusing the person of being a corporate shill. A lot of people just seem outraged that anyone could possibly disagree with them, and that's precisely the problem.

Advertisement

I'm not saying we should go all Vulcan and suppress our emotions. But they are capable of blinding us, making fools of us. It's perfectly fine to dislike something, just because something has reason and logic behind it doesn't mean you have to be happy about it. But when you try and rationalise your emotions, turn them into something objective, that's when it becomes a problem. It makes a mockery of honest debate, and it does you no favours. If you're really against the restriction of used games then you should present valid reasons why it's not a good thing, or just express your dislike for it. Making ridiculous arguments and attacking anyone that disagrees with you only serves to weaken your side of the argument, not strengthen it.

People should listen to their hearts, but maybe if they listened to their heads first they might take what their heart has to say with a grain of salt.

Edit: Just so we're completely clear here, this is not an argument for or against used games. It's against the faulty logic and emotionally based arguments that are being employed to debate the issue. If it seems like I'm attacking the side arguing against their restriction that's simply because they're more commonly guilty of employing these tactics. Both sides are just as capable as the other of resorting to this though.