[yayr]

imo giving way to kids impulses like fighting might be commercially the most viable thing - educationally it is not. It is always much easier to be destructive than constructive. However, we should try to teach our kids the latter. Achieving win-win does not usually come from impulse but from empathy.

Although it is hard, I try to avoid fighting games and media for my kids as much as I can and try to teach them competing in more creative ways...

[bubblewrap]

The kids would presumably spend a lot more time constructing than destructing. I also doubt the robots get actually destroyed in the competition.

Do you also forbid water blasters in the hot summer?

As you say, those playful fights are a natural impulse. It is also not true that you can solve every problem without violence.

I'm expecting people to chime up with "what about the girls?", though. Presumably those battle bots might be considered off putting to girls, putting them to a severe disadvantage because they miss out on their STEM education. (An argument I would also consider bullshit, but those are the times).

[yayr]

as I said, it's hard, but I offer them alternatives: building things, ball games, surfing,... I guess they are better of with that than water blasters.

[bubblewrap]

In what way are they better off, would you say?

Btw Rudolf Steiner (of Waldorf School fame) would also outlaw ball games, at least soccer. After all, the ball could be mistaken for a head and it could train kids to kick heads.

[yayr]

I guess

1) they learn to have fun without the need to feel superiour (ball games need some supervision in that regard though)

2) they learn emotional intelligence, especially for activities that require collaboration (surfing not so much though)

people tend to miss, that in the early years many inner brain functions and predispositions, especially emotional regulation get tuned for the rest of the life...

[bubblewrap]

I don't think winning in a game has to involve "feeling superior". Many games of chance are also fun. In other cases, somebody might actually be superior (the better player). Then what - nobody should be better than anybody else in anything? Maybe the "loser" can try to become better, for example.

And it can also train emotional intelligence to win or lose gracefully in games, and try again.

What will your kids do when they encounter somebody who "feels superior" later in life? Like an actual superior, perhaps?

[kbumsik]

Teaching how to code is constructive and creative btw. If you don't want the turret you can simply do so.

[yayr]

the main question is: for what purpose

here it is fighting... This particular robot though is hard to repurpose (e.g. put additional sensors on top, e.g. to measure things or additional actors to move things or have other meaningful impact)

commercially it makes sense, like a facebook bubble does, educationally it is limited

[kbumsik]

Have you watched a youtube video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GpdoJXpo2U

You can use "macros" in the fight. Regardless, this robot is a vision-enabled robot after all. You can use it as a ordinary AI robot anyway. I think the price still make sense as there are few consumer programmable robots with mecanum wheels.