Competition creates friction

The argument

The Monopoly board is a lawless land, where all extant alliances are called off, and friends and family alike turn on each other for fake money. Of course, the chaos this game causes begs the question: what gives Monopoly its relationship-destroying powers? The answer is simple: Monopoly forces families to compete with each other. Though some competition can be healthy, the rivalries that arise during Monopoly games are anything but. As we see in the worlds of sports, business, and even dating, competition heightens preexisting relational strains, causing conflict to rise to the surface of a group more easily. This can be observed as fights about seemingly trivial things break out during board game night. What’s a game of Monopoly without somebody angrily whipping out the instruction manual to prove a point? In addition, competition encourages people to adopt selfish, bordering on survivalist, mindsets. At some point in nearly every game of Monopoly, it is no longer about having fun; winning is all that matters, familial relationships be damned. As an innocent game of Monopoly becomes more like Lord of the Flies, players tend to take on an “every-man-for-himself” attitude, doing whatever it takes to win. Hold onto your game piece, because stuff is about to get real-and, in all likelihood, someone is going to end up yelling, crying, or both. Clearly, Monopoly takes healthy competition to an unhealthy level, earning its notoriety for destroying families.

Premises

Counter-arguments

An atmosphere of competition isn't unique to Monopoly. From chess to poker to tennis, every game requires some level of competition, or it wouldn't be considered a game at all. Though excessive competitiveness could lead to an unpleasant experience playing Monopoly, the same could be said for any game. Clearly, it must be another factor that gives Monopoly its knack for destroying relationships.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The analogies show the opposite of what is claimed. Sport, business and courtship are the settings in which people compete most, and they are not generally thought to destroy families, so the premise establishes at most what its own wording says — that competition heightens strain that already exists, which makes the game a revealing occasion rather than a cause. [Rejecting P2] This describes an unpleasant evening rather than a mechanism. Focusing on winning is what a game with a single winner asks of its players, and the counter's observation holds: chess, poker and tennis all do this without attracting the charge. Nothing in the premise identifies what is specific to Monopoly — its length, the elimination that leaves players sitting out, or the slow accumulation that settles the outcome long before the game ends. [Rejecting C] "Destroys families" is far stronger than the premises support. Yelling and tears at the table are evidence of a bad evening, and the argument offers nothing about lasting damage — nor any comparison with the cooperative games and shared meals the same families also have.