(From "Video Gaming Should Be Considered a Sport" and "Gamers Are Not Athletes", Illuminate)
Question: What's the main difference in how "Video Games Should Be Considered Sports" and "Gamers are Not Athletes" talk about video gamers as athletes?
In "Video Gaming Should Be Considered a Sport," the article argues that video gamers should be considered athletes. It highlights the physical demands of professional gaming, such as hand-eye coordination, reflexes, and mental agility. The article emphasizes that gamers train and compete in a competitive environment, just like traditional athletes. It also suggests that video games require skill, strategy, and teamwork, similar to traditional sports.
On the other hand, "Gamers Are Not Athletes" takes a contrasting viewpoint. It argues that gamers should not be classified as athletes. The article focuses on the physical aspect of traditional sports, stating that athleticism involves strength, endurance, and physical prowess, which video games do not require. It questions whether video gaming can be considered a sport, as it lacks the physical exertion and physicality associated with traditional sports.
Overall, the main difference lies in the perspective regarding the physical aspect of gaming. "Video Gaming Should Be Considered a Sport" highlights the physical demands while "Gamers Are Not Athletes" argues against it, emphasizing the absence of physical athleticism in video gaming.