[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?