Why does Monopoly destroy families?

Being stuck indoors with family is never going to end well

Question: Why does Monopoly destroy families?
Position‹2 of 5›: The intensity of the situation
Argument: Being stuck indoors with family is never going to end well

You've finished all the puzzles, run out of charades prompts, and it's still raining outside. The long-neglected shelf of board games is calling your name, and one stands out to you: Monopoly. It'll be fun, right? The circumstances that lead to playing Monopoly bring out the worst in people.

The argument

Let's be real: Monopoly is never the first choice. Nobody ever thinks, "Hey, you know what sounds like a good way to spend the next five hours? Playing a frustrating miniature version of capitalism with my family." The point of the observation is that the game is almost never chosen for its own sake, which means the circumstances around a game of Monopoly are already unusual before a single piece is placed. Rather, Monopoly is often the last resort when there is nothing left to do on a rainy day, or when you've already played all the fun board games on family night. Both are situations of exhausted options: the family has run out of things it would rather be doing, and Monopoly is what remains. Thus, the circumstances that lead families to play Monopoly set them up for failure. Already bored, restless, and forced to spend time together, families are primed and ready to be torn apart by this game before it has had a chance to do anything to them. Read that way, the game's reputation is a case of mistaken attribution. Evidently, Monopoly cannot take the blame for all of the familial conflicts it is famous for. Rather, it merely lights the fuse on the bomb created by preexisting circumstances — the conflict is real enough, but its materials, the boredom and the confinement and the obligation, were assembled beforehand. The counterfactual is what settles the case. If a family freely chose to play Monopoly in a stress-free setting, and, perhaps most importantly, one they could get out of if they so desired, perhaps the game would not have such notoriety. Because being stuck indoors with family is never going to end well, it is the intensity of the situation rather than the game itself that does the damage.

Premises

[P1]Monopoly is rarely a first choice and is usually played as a last resort on a rainy day or after the fun games are done. [P2] Families turn to it already bored, restless, and forced to spend time together, which primes them to be torn apart. [P3] The game does not cause the conflict so much as light the fuse on a bomb built by these preexisting circumstances. [C] Therefore, because being stuck indoors with family is never going to end well, it is the intensity of the situation that makes Monopoly destroy families.

Counter-arguments

This is not the only situation that inspires families to play Monopoly.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The premise is drawn from personal impression and is not obviously true. The game has sold in very large numbers over nearly a century, and people who buy a game and keep it generally do choose to play it — which is the counter's brief point that this is not the only situation in which families reach for it. [Rejecting P2] Boredom and confinement attend every activity a family undertakes on a wet afternoon, including the games the premise concedes are more enjoyable, so the condition cannot explain why this game in particular has the reputation it does. [Rejecting P3] This premise concedes the argument away. If the game only lights a fuse laid by circumstance, it is a contributing factor at most, and the position becomes a claim about families under stress rather than about Monopoly — which leaves the question the article is answering unanswered.