A Refutation of the Kanetkar Theory of Pokémon Being Good for Children

In his article "What Darwin Can Learn From Ash Ketchum," author Sachin Kanetkar claims that the Pokémon video game series can teach valuable lessons to children about adapting to change, making bonds with friends, and other phony bull. Mr. Kanetkar ruins his ethos right of the bat with his egregious misspelling of "Pokémon." His spelling lacks an accent above the "e," resulting in "Pokemon." Which to me, sounds like "Poke-mon." Pokémon is three syllables. Pronounced "Poke-ay-mon." Not "Poke-mon," which is clearly only two syllables. Further damaging his already pitiful and essentially nonexistent ethos, Mr. Kanetkar flaunts his "high school diploma" and "average GPA" as if those two bits of information made him worth listening to. In fact, they expose him as the immature child that he is. Mr. Kanetkar also peppers his writing with a punctuation usage that would make a poverty-stricken, paraplegic orphan cry tears of profound sadness and abnormal salinity. There are two cases of multiple exclamation points in a row and one outrageous moment where a parenthetical aside includes a period outside of the parenthesis when the question mark inside would have sufficed. It is clear that Mr. Kanetkar is a writer of very low caliber.

(Author's note: I, Alex Liu, have a doctorate from Kennesaw State University. My other honors include being knighted by the Queen of England, winning the Nobel Peace Prize, and being recognized as an honorary member of the Communist Party of China. I am sure that Mr. Kanetkar's ethos pales in comparison.)

Now, for the actual, poorly-constructed argument, or at least what Mr. Kanetkar claims to be an argument. Happiness and bonding with Pokémon is hardly a factor in the game, with only 13 out of over 600 species of Pokémon evolving as a result of happiness. What the games really do is encourage bloodlust within the people who play it. One example is how status changing moves (moves that can poison Pokémon, burn Pokémon, etc.) are almost never taught, not counting attacks that can inflict a status condition. No, Pokémon are only taught moves that inflict damage upon enemy Pokémon in hopes of causing them to faint. Since, in the game, Pokémon are unable to be killed, players can put these virtual beasts of war through as much violence as they wish. This would surely damage the mental well-being of any child.

The second preposterous claim made by Mr. Kanetkar is how Pokémon teaches kids about dealing with change through the strengthening process that the series calls "evolution." It does not. All evolution does is instill in children an unhealthy lust for power. The prime example of this is Magikarp. Magikarp is one of the most useless Pokémon in the game. It does not learn an attack until players train it hard. But enough training eventually allows it to evolve into the vicious, bloodthirsty Gyarados. The evolution gives players more power to devastate opponents with Gyarados's enormous strength. The power that the players wield within the game world translates into a real-world hunger for power.

Mr. Kanetkar closes his article with a statement calling Pokémon a "lifestyle." Perhaps he has a point, which means bad news for the world at large. The embracing of Pokémon as a lifestyle means an embracing of power, the embracing of violence, and the embracing of animal cruelty. The world that Mr. Kanetkar envisions must be prevented at all costs.