Logic, evidence and consensus: Towards a more constructive debate on gaming disorder

Daniel L. King, Paul H. Delfabbro, Marc N. Potenza, Zsolt Demetrovics, Joël Billieux, Matthias Brand

Research output: Contribution to journalEditorial

10 Citations (Scopus)


In their most recent ANZJP debate paper on the topic of gaming disorder (GD) as a mental disorder which, for context, was preceded by two other debate papers (Dullur and Starcevic, 2018; King et al., 2018), Schimmenti and Starcevic (2019) argue that our paper, which outlines arguments in support of GD as a diagnostic category in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and International Classification of Diseases (ICD) classification systems, was ‘biased’ and based on a series of ‘logical fallacies’. While we share the authors’ concerns regarding the need for conceptual clarity and strong evidence in this growing field, we believe that their paper’s attempt to frame this GD debate as a contest between logical and fallacious thinking has some weaknesses. In our view, many of their examples of ‘faulty logic’ are derived from misinterpreting our arguments or taking a less than charitable interpretation and represent a failure to account for the caveats of a brief debate format. Furthermore, their views concerning logical fallacy could also be applied to Dullur and Starcevic’s (2018) arguments in opposition to GD much to the same effect.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1047-1049
Number of pages3
JournalAustralian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry
Issue number11
Publication statusPublished - 1 Nov 2019


  • gaming disorder
  • mental disorder
  • debate paper
  • logic
  • evidence
  • logical fallacy


Dive into the research topics of 'Logic, evidence and consensus: Towards a more constructive debate on gaming disorder'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this