Question: Do Aggressive Video Games Play a Role in Juvenile Delinquency?

Should violent video games be prohibited?

The proposition rests on the claim that violent video games should be banned, a contention I will challenge by demonstrating the lack of evidence supporting the notion that such games contribute to youth violence. I will also provide substantial evidence to counter the proposition's arguments.

Refutations:

A. Aggression increases

The proposition argues that violent video games increase aggression in young people, but this claim is unsupported by evidence. In fact, a substantial amount of evidence refutes this point. A Supreme Court case related to this accusation concluded that the evidence presented did not support the claim that violent video games cause psychological or neurological harm. The research is based on correlation, not causation, and most studies suffer from significant flaws in methodology. None of the research establishes or suggests a causal link between minors playing violent video games and actual psychological or neurological harm. In fact, some studies caution against inferring causation.

Medical and psychological experts agree that violent video games have no negative effects on youth. They state that the "big fears" about violent video games making children more violent or causing them to engage in illegal, immoral, sexist, or violent acts are not supported by current research. The world has not been reduced to chaos and anarchy despite the fact that millions of children and adults play these games.

Actual statistics in correlation with violent video game usage and juvenile aggressive reports also disprove the proposition's claim. According to federal crime statistics, the rate of juvenile violent crime in the United States is at a 30-year low. Researchers find that people serving time for violent crimes typically consume less media before committing their crimes than the average person in the general population. It's true that young offenders who have committed school shootings in America have also been gamers. But young people in general are more likely to be gamers - 90 percent of boys and 40 percent of girls play. The overwhelming majority of kids who play do not commit antisocial acts.

B. Behavioral scripts

The proposition's second point, regarding behavioral scripts, is also opinionated and backed with no source. If one argues that behavioral scripts develop from the repetition of actions, then it could be said that someone who brushes their teeth every morning will brush their teeth automatically when they see a toothbrush. Similarly, it could be said that a person who has to wake up early the majority of the year for schooling will always wake up early. However, we all know this not to be true.

Contentions:

1. Violent video games prepare youth

Violence has always been and

Quick question for future rounds - Do you wish for this to be sources (With links to sites, to show our side of the argument) - or would you prefer this to be a mind vs mind debate here, where we each use our knowledge and wits to sway the others' opinions? ^ this will let me know how you want to approach this debate, so we can do it your way from there. For my first round, I will assert that Video games should not be banned, due to a myriad of reason I will clarrify in subsequent rounds. I just wish to find the format my opponent wishes to go with, and we can get started at full steam! :) As a quick list, so you are aware of where I intend to go with my debate : * Influcing study period (plan to debunk this) * Assistance is learning * Retention of information learnt * Assimilation of languages * Spatial accuracy * Life/Social Skills * Builds Social defenses These are just the few subjects I can see that will help build my case - Pro I hope you have some good ones :) Good luck, and may we both be excellent to each other!

As a road map for the judges, first I will defend my case then I shall attack my opponents. My sources are quotes from people. I don't need a link to provide arguments. If you really want to verify my sources, then Google them. It's not required for me though. Oh, and by the way, Phoenix Wright for the win. DEFENSE: Killing and mutilating a 4 year old after being bullied doesn't classify as mental problem. He murdered someone. The murder is serious considering the victim is a 4 year old boy and since he was 13, he SHOULD be knowing whats right and wrong and that murder is an evil thing. For such an unacceptable crime, we should treat them as adults. Really? How does it not? My opponent makes no argument against the sanity state of Eric Smith, which is a main point of that argument. He murdered someone because he needs mental help. In fact, this was a key point of defense for Eric's attorney. Just because he SHOULD know something doesn't automatically mean he DOES. DEFENSE 2: "Murder however is a different story since you ends someones life. As i said, you are TAUGHT to know whats wrong and right. The mentality of the newer generations are generally higher then the children from 30 years ago. Murder is wrong and if juveniles knows its wrong and still commits murder, why should we still go easy on them and treat them as juveniles." It being murder doesn't change ANYTHING. It's still hypocritical BS. Also, my opponent completely ignores the main argument again. "Scientific studies have determined that the human brain undergoes continuous development up to the age of about twenty-one. "Because the brains of juveniles, particularly the frontal lobes, are not fully developed, youths lack the ability to perform critical adult functions, such as plan, anticipate consequences, and control impulses," DEFENSE 3: "Are you even sure that it doesn't work? Some states now treat crimes from juveniles and adults the same way and what was the results? Crimes from juveniles dropped. It seems Gorski was wrong after all for some part." That's only FEAR from the punishment, not the punishment itself. The argument is that punishing doesn't help the offender sort out any problems he has, which by the way, CAUSED THE CRIME IN THE FIRST PLACE. DEFENSE 4: "I think this is an exception. If a certain person was stealing and you saw it, making you think its ok, then you are influenced by that person. Note that stealing isnt a serious felony." That was one simply case, my friend. This applies to instances of abuse and violence in a bad environment, which are no doubt off the carts in this age. The kid is then offhandedly taught that this is 'OK', even if it wasn't intended by the parents. DEFENSE 5: "You are absolutely correct, they shouldnt be having access to weapons. However, since the gun doesnt tells you to pick it up and fire at people, the juvenile is at fault for taking the gun. Kids watches tv most of the day. They should be knowing what a gun is." They know a gun can get them what they want, and that's enough reason for parents to KEEP THEM OUT OF SIGHT, which apparently doesn't happen enough. That's not even mentioning that some kids don't even understand the concept of death until a certain age. For me, it was when I was 12 when I was forced to realize that there is no coming back from life we see so much in cartoons and kid's programs. Juveniles apply to 10 and up, so we're literally dealing with the fact that it's possible to throw a kid in jail WHO DOESN'T EVEN UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT OF DEATH YET. So from the kid's Point Of View they can get whatever they want and the person they shoot can come ck from the dead, so everything is A-OK. DEFENSE 6: "Why do we put those children in jail in the first place? Because they committed a crime. Was it serious? Of course since he got life sentence for it. Neither the police nor the victims family will show you mercy if you commit a murder. If we punish juveniles for their crime, how is it immoral i ask you?" Oh, really? Here I bring in my trump card for the family argument: The MAMA organization. Victim's families understand the concept of redemption. ANGELA WILLIAMS Founder of MAMA (Mothers Against Murderers Association) Inc, a remarkable support group in West Palm Beach. Seventy-three women, all of whom have lost a child to murder, meet at this storefront office every other Thursday. The walls are lined with the photographs—the mother with her lost child. "That's one thing I tell my moms all the time: the only way they're going to move on, they're going to have to learn to forgive, you know, and if they don't learn to forgive, then they'll never be able to move on to the next step." And Angela Williams should know. "I lost seven. I lost five nephews and two nieces in my family, and that motivates me to keep going to help others. Gun violence — all killed by guns." MAMA is supporting a petition for clemency on the premise that any child should be given a second chance, even for murder. ATTACK *Cracks knuckles* I hope your ready for a spanking, Mr. Edgeworth. 1. With this response, it feels as though my opponent has ignored my entire case. There is no 'should' in the mind of a child. How a child is brought up in the present completely changes him in the future. And it's not like when you are' treated as an adult you aren't punished AT ALL. Your just getting a second chance to make up mistakes, something the Affirmative side cannot do. Yes, I agree, kids SHOULD know that killing someone is wrong, but that doesn't mean they always DO, which is why a child specialized psychologist will do wonders for a child that doesn't know right and wrong. 2. We don't allow children to smoke and drink alcohol because it's bad and unhealthy? Really, bro? Then why can Adults do it? I'm 15 man, and I want a job badly. Why? Because I want to buy and save up for important things in the future. I don't think I'm one wanting one when I get on Facebook and half the posts are "I NEED A JOB." But anyway, lol. I never said that abuse and bad environments force you to commit crimes. Do they influence you to? Your damn right, they do. My opponent seems to not understand the fact that violent felonies don't only apply to murder, but they apply to cases such as Robberies as well. They broadens the horizon greatly in terms of bad influences. Morals aren't the same for everybody because everybody was raised a certain way. I don't see why someone should be punished FOR THE WAY THEY WERE RAISED. And, I don't mean to be a jerk, but it would help if my opponent used spell check. I hate having to correct them when I copy and paste his arguments.

It seems my opponent only contests the fact that people learn things from video games. This means that you can extend out the arguments that video games provide benefits that books don't give, such as physical benefits (hand-eye coordination, reaction time, etc), as well as social benefits. These went unadressed. And these will outweigh the education point because it's the only unique impact in the round. Both sides teach people new stuff, but I'm the only one who gives other benefits.And, on the learning point:It doesn't really matter what video games teach so long as people are receiving some kind of educational benefit from playing video games. My opponent hasn't really contested that video games teach people stuff, rather he just has a problem with what video games teach. Fine, play a different video game then that teaches what you want to learn.And it doesn't matter why people play video games, they'll still teach the player new things.

I personally play Overwatch, and you have to understand that the reason people play is not become of the tight suits some of the women are in (that is just style) and the fact that they"re are guns (at least for most people). The addictive thing about Overwatch is the way it is played. "Move joystick right, press triangle, quickly teleport to dodge enemy attack." Though on the surface it"s people shooting at each other, the addictive thing is the gameplay and the urge to get better and win every game and every challenge thrown at you. The gameplay is designed to be addictive, it is designed to be fun not because of the graphics and weapons you are using but the gameplay that activates the weapons covered by the graphics and the competitive nature of the game"s community as a whole. At the same time, if your son is acting aggressively, I wouldn"t reccomend it and would recommend he got help. I didn"t see the suspension thing till after I accepted the challenge, sorry. I"m just saying don"t view video games from what"s on the surface, but understand that it"s the gameplay that is the appealing element of it.

I will do a quick argument this round because I am running out of time. This is basically a repeat/ rebuttal. So you said something like if you break your spoon and punch someone, it is your fault the the spoon. But think about it like a source, an item, and an outcome. The spoon powered your anger. Then your anger created a punch. So though the spoon didn't directly cause the punch, it was still one of the causes. The same goes for the video game. Since such a scenario is possible, the videogame created violence, thereby proving my point.

This debate is between Zebracakes and I, about whether video games are bad for people or not. The previous debate, I took the position of Con: For this one, I will take the position of Pro. Round 1: stating our Opinions. Round 2: Proving our side of the debate. I believe that video games can be be a very bad influence on people. For example, we have games like "Hate". Games also burn time that can be used for other, better purposes like exercise or schooling.

I will take up this pointless debate that I do not clearly understand at all!!.... wait,..... What da F#!$ did I do???..SH%#! I guess I have not choice now....... L ...... O ......... L. "Yes something happen that may hurt use or scare people but its all part of growing up to see how for your limits are and how far you can go before you have to stop." What are you talking about??? "Okay people know I'll just start by saying that in fact I YES ME am a teenager and I live in Scotland. and I have been noticing more and more that people seem to think that teenage violence is happening alot and under age drinking is happening more and more. But people use are all forgetting that when you are young you wont to try new thinks and that YOU also would prob be put in this sort of part of society if you where my age." Are you dyslexic? OMG I spelled it right on the first try *pats self on back*........ no but seriously?? are you? If you are not dyslexic then I would vote for you to actually learn some good grammar in school. I do not know what you are talking about in the paragraph nor the others.... I could guess and pretend to understand but that would make me feel and possibly look idiotic..... almost like Peter Griffin from Family Guy. "I know I'm putting a VERY fine point on it but I'm just interested on what other people think and what they would do if they were in control of all of us" Seriously?? What fine "point" are you "pointing" out, I did not even know you were "putting a VERY fine point on it"..... and what is it? I seriously do not understand this..... so instead of trying to get my head around this confusing dyslexic writing..... I will end my argument with this........... ...................meow....... I would also like to add to this.. you may have noticed the video on the far upper right side yes... that is to help restore some seriousness into this non-serious debate that has been turned into by me and well of course my opponent. http://www.youtube.com...

To say that video games cause violence is an outrage. If this was simply but an ounce of truth, then every person who bought a video game that contained violence would become a "killer". However, since they haven't, that leaves one option left, and that's to say that it's simply the persons unstable mind. There have been only a handful of tragic events that have been blamed on video games. Each of those times, the person seemed to be mentally unstable. (Take the Newtown Conneticuit shooting for example). The same thing can be said for many other things such as movies, books, TV shows, etc... They contain violent content, but they aren't the cause of any violence.

My opponent did not respond. ""lol oaky first of all I wasn't expecting an anti-videogame-violence crusader to be arguing with me on this topic. Secondly I really would at least expect that my opponant would at least try to stay withing the grounds of the debate. Though I'm guessing I wasn't entirely clear on the matter, when I said "Kratos versus Dante would be a good fight! " I was expecting my opponant to provide an argument that would state the that the fight wouldnt be good by saying that one would eaisly defeat the other, or that these two games werent to his liking to begin with. " Being that my opponent did not clarify in the first round, all explanation goes away. My argument was completely topical based on the topic presented in the first round which we must look to. "I'd also at least expect my opponant to know who Kratos and Dante were. Judging from the way he/she presented his/her argument I'd say my opponant knows nothing of these tow videogame charecters. Though these tow games are VERY violant, my opponant wouldn't even know this because he seems to have no knowledge of God of War II or Devil MayCry IV. For all he knows I could be talking about pokemon, which if you ask me isnt too violant at all. " My opponent can in NO way prove I did not know what I was talking baout thus my arguments stand and this argument is untopical. "Well since my opponant seems to have almost completely turned the topic of debate around, I'm begining a new debate concerning videogame violance and its social effects in our society. Because you have caught my interest with your none violant videogame state of mind my new topic of debate will be "Negative social behavior in vid-game-players cannot be blammed on videogame violance. " NO. Once again, NO. Third, NO. There is no way my opponent can just change the topic of debate. THIS IS RIDICULOUS AND SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTED. THE TOPIC OF DEBATE STAYS AS IT WAS IN THE BEGINNING OF THE ROUND. EXTEND ALL MY ARGUMENTS BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT RESPONDED TO. 1. Video game violence is proven to have bad societal effects. 2. My opponent says Kratos would dominate. This is bad because the other person would get hurt. I will now further elaborate on my points which were not responded to. 1. Video game violence is proven to have bad societal effects. Fifty years' of research on violent television and movies has shown that there are several negative effects of watching such fare (see . http://www.psychologymatters.org......). Because video games are a newer medium, there is less research on them than there is on TV and movies. However, studies by psychologists such as Douglas Gentile, PhD, and Craig Anderson, PhD, indicate it is likely that violent video games may have even stronger effects on children's aggression because (1) the games are highly engaging and interactive, (2) the games reward violent behavior, and because (3) children repeat these behaviors over and over as they play (Gentile & Anderson, 2003). Psychologists know that each of these help learning - active involvement improves learning, rewards increase learning, and repeating something over and over increases learning. 2. My opponent says Kratos would dominate. This is bad because the other person would get hurt. My opponent never responds to the argument saying that Kratos would cause the other video game charector to get hurt. The pain of another is never "good".

To say that EVERY person who plays video games turns into a killer is not true. What a vast majority of people are saying is that games that require the player to kill or to injure another being or animal, may cause the person the become "Interested" in harming others.


Question: Do Graphic Video Games Play a Role in Increasing Youth Aggression?

Do video games have a negative impact on children's behavior?

The American Academy of Pediatrics and other leading organizations have stated that excessive exposure to violence in entertainment can lead children to view violence as a viable solution to conflicts. Children who are regularly exposed to violence may become desensitized to it in real life, reducing their likelihood to intervene on behalf of a victim when violence occurs. Entertainment violence can create a perception that the world is violent and hostile, increasing fear of victimization and promoting self-protective behaviors and mistrust of others. Exposure to violent media, including video games, can contribute to real-life violence, and children exposed to violent programming at a young age are more likely to exhibit violent and aggressive behavior later in life.

Dr. Craig Anderson, Director of the Center for the Study of Violence, has found that there is a significant correlation between exposure to media violence and aggressive behavior. Repeated exposure to violent media can lead to an increase in physical aggression against others. A single brief exposure to violent media can result in immediate increases in aggression, while repeated exposure can lead to a general increase in aggressiveness over time.

Dr. David Greenfield, founder of The Center for Internet and Technology Addiction, believes that continuous exposure to violent video games, which have a strong reward system, can desensitize individuals to violence and teach them violent skill sets they might not otherwise develop. The reward structure in these games, combined with the powerful visual and interactive elements, can elevate dopamine levels, potentially leading to addictive behavior.

State Senator Leland Yee, PhD, has noted that the interactive nature of video games differs significantly from passive media consumption. Children who play violent video games become part of the action, which can facilitate violence and lead to dangerous learned behaviors over time. Over three thousand peer-reviewed studies spanning 30 years have consistently shown the harmful effects of violent video games on minors, including increased aggressive thoughts and behavior, antisocial behavior, delinquency, poor school performance, and desensitization to violence.

Dr. Brad Bushman, Professor of Communication and Psychology at The Ohio State University, has conducted a comprehensive review of 136 articles reporting 381 effects involving over 130,000 participants worldwide. These studies have shown that violent video games increase aggressive thoughts, angry feelings, physiological arousal, and aggressive behavior. They also decrease helping behavior and empathy. The effects are consistent across genders and ages, regardless of the country of origin.

Pamela Eakes, Founder of Mothers Against Violence in America, emphasizes

You said it yourself. Yay!!! You admitted it yourself that it depends upon the person contradicting your stand why video games have benefits. Wohoo!!!

I must say you do make a point that video games are art.What I was saying is that art is a skill and people making the games are very good indeed. You know this just came out of my mind right now and I never think of this before if video games are art then why don't we not hear they are admired as art should be?You admired them and I'm glad that you are , video games are more of a gaming way than admired by a few of their good scenarios and images.So really if you try put up a opinion of what would you do if you got a cool video game with nice graphics and good gaming the approximate will say that it's better to game than waste your time admiring the graphics

My objective in this debate is simple, to show that my opponents claims are not based on sound science and that his claims are no more than a conflation between correlation and causation. My claim is the null hypothesis, that porn is not connected to reducing or increasing the social ills Pro claims. But what is most important is even if you believe porn causes harm, are those claimed harms significant at a societal level to prompt action? If porn was erased tomorrow would the society change in a demonstrable way? In regards to his videos, he makes a bizarre appeal to celebrity. He takes the opinion of the faux spiritualist Russell Brand [Con7;8;9] in commenting on porn in which he casually suggests the now debunked ‘damaged goods myth’[Con10] as a reason women get into porn. Like my opponent Brand makes moral judgments and speculation based on the conflation between causation and correlation. Ted Bundy is an even more bizarre case; to save characters I’m going to put this bluntly, it is very stupid to trust the word of a sociopathic serial rapist, especially when interviewed by a described “evangelical psychologist and crusader against pornography” [Con11] Porn and Aggression My opponent claims that experimental data proves causation; I suppose this means he no longer values his own quoted expert Dr. Jenson who says “no lab experiment can replicate the common male practice of masturbating to pornography.” As I noted earlier in this debate there are many reasons to distrust the experimental side of the anti porn debate. Lab work is artificial, and bears little resemblance to actual conditions; participants are often not fully informed of the nature of the study, leaving ethical questions; the model is backwards with no indication if for example, if porn causes loneliness or if loneliness causes porn use (conflation of correlation/causation); the media effects model sees porn in isolation, without greater context of society; definitions such as erotic, violent, porn, obscene, sexually arousing etc are not uniform making replication difficult, furthermore these definitions are used interchangeably to refer to a whole host of sexual activities; in survey studies the ones taking the survey may not agree with the ones conducting the study in regards to definitions; in experiments the subjects do not choose how to express themselves, they are simply subjectively judged by how they perform an arbitrary task; by claiming causation it strips the individual of responsibility; and finally these types of studies are usually male centric [A]. My opponent cites study after study yet they all suffer the same methodological flaws listed above at one point or another. For example [Pro 17], this work was published in 1986 by a member of the Reagan administration (talk about bias). However what I find remarkably contradictory and consistent with my opponent taking thinks out of context, when looking at figures 12 & 13 the reports says: “The investigation by Check has obvious implications for public health. It shows that on the whole, common nonviolent porn has the strongest influences on men’s willingness to force intimate partners into forms of sexuality that are not necessarily to their partners’ liking and on the propensity for forcing sexual access altogether. Violent porn apparently has the same power to increase rape proclivity, but its influence on the coercion of specific sexual acts is limited, if not negligible. (pg 25)” This is a complete contradiction, how can non violent porn be more influential than violent porn? Pro’s entire argument is based on monkey see monkey do. In regards to studies showing porn reduces sex crimes, as I said before I’m not committed to this argument; his dismissal of my evidence is hypocritical. First I did not fully rely on aggregate data, survey data was taken as well. But regardless, the to quoque fallacy does not makes his sources more credible, especially when it comes to the aggregate sources that he himself cites that he now discredits. If my opponent is going to say that my sources over simplify the issue, I say the same of his sources. And in the end I’m happy to accept that the science on both sides is not credible. And as such can we trust Pro’s argument over admitting the truth that the science is not yet in? By its very definition it is impossible to truly know how much rape is unreported. However rates at which women report rape are on the rise [Con12]! If we acknowledge that overall rape rates are going down as Pro shows in round 3, and see that women are less afraid to report assault, Pro can’t logically conclude that porn is responsible, especially given his own source does not even mention porn. This is biased speculation on his part. In regards to sexually aggressive men and porn, this is a non issue. Again it puts the cart before the horse, aggressive men may like porn at higher rates but that does not mean that porn is responsible for their aggressive behavior. To say otherwise oversimplifies the matter. Honestly have you ever seen a wife beater and thought “Yea, it must be the porn that makes him an a$$hole.”? Furthermore when it comes to hardcore porn on the internet violent porn isn’t even the most popular! It’s actually more focused on older ladies, MILFs, step moms etc. [Con 15-16] So on a societal level, how is violent porn prevalent enough to have violent influence? On a final note, other medias have also shown no link between media and real world violence, video games being a perfect example [Con13]. And in regards to BDSM Pro has completely ignored how this group, literally steeped in hardcore sexual activity, is not rampant with psychos and misogynists. Porn & Relationships Continuing with the theme of conflation, wants to say the porn is the cause for plummeting marriage rates. Yet notice the decline on his chart, it begins in the early 70’s, long before internet porn existed. I could easily correlate 2nd wave feminism with the decline in marriage than with porn, but that would be the same fallacy my opponent is making. With divorce, same issue. Pro’s own source says higher rates of divorce are not the fault of the internet, despite its facilitation. My opponent wishes to claim that porn use is the cause of divorce, when it is more likely that it is a symptom of an already failing marriage. As noted in round 3, porn is only a problem if you make it one, instead of a woman succumbing to the patriarchal demand that women abstain from the sexually taboo, women could just as easily join their men and explore their sexuality together! In fact Dr. Malamuth, a man Pro has cited several times against porn found in a study “respondents construed the viewing of hardcore pornography as beneficial to their sex lives, their attitudes towards sex, their perceptions and attitudes towards members of the opposite sex, toward life in general, and over all. The obtained beneficial effects were statistically significant for all but one measure across both sexes. … A positive correlation was obtained between the amount of hardcore pornography that was viewed and the impact of the benefits reaped. [Con18]” Talk about contradictions huh? Porn & Habit Pro underestimates me in this section. Like with violence and porn, the connection between porn and addiction is not conclusive. The DSM rejects porn addiction on this ground, and if they do not accept it why should you? Pro has not bothered to address my concerns about given the ubiquity and constant use of the internet how can we determine what is addictive behavior compared regular use? Furthermore “although people may partake excessively in certain activities and sometimes suffer detrimental life consequences, they rarely develop tolerance or obvious withdrawal symptoms—two hallmarks of addiction. [Con14]” In other words porn, like everything else, is harmful when taken to the extreme (this is not a reflection on porn, but a truism of life). However you will not find 1 source by my opponent that says how wide spread true addiction is among the porn using population. Given this lack of information can we say that habit formation is a significant problem when not only do we not have societal data, but experts disagree that such addiction is even real and is not comparable to substance addiction [Con14; 17]? Warped View & STD’s Few characters must be brief. His truck analogy is a false equivalence. The necessity of sex education is separate from porn. When we see a failure in sex ed as I have demonstrated with the lack of national comprehensive sex ed, we can expect people to be ignorant of sex. Porn will be consumed either way, but due to the societal failure of education porn is made to be the scapegoat for causing misunderstanding when there was little understanding to begin with. Pro says kids start looking at porn by 11, that’s when they hit puberty, so that’s to be expected. Shall we absolve parents of responsibility then? Genital insecurity? Like before, Malamuth says otherwise [con18]. Not to mention other societal factors could be at play, Con oversimplifies. In regards to STD’s porn is again the scapegoat, a spurious leap in logic that says people give each other STD’s on a global level because porn. People are just helpless aren’t they? I bet all the AIDs in Africa has to do with internet porn and not education, just kidding, it’s lack of education [con19]. To say quality of education does not matter is a dangerous joke. Again use the alcohol metaphor, if boose is all you got you're gonna get drunk. Do we blame alcohol for our lack of water? Thanks Mike for the debate. Remember folks before you whack it, Vote Con! http://www.youtube.com... Sources: http://www.debate.org...

I believe that video games have a negative social outcome and they do more harm to society than they benefit it. First round is for acceptance. Just let me know what your stance is on this subject. Round two is for initial evidence. Explorations of your position are important to the overall decision making process Round Three is for refutation. You think I'm wrong, I think you are wrong. Wait for this round to say why. Round Four is for Rebuttal. Further evidence to define your own position. Round Five is for Agreements and conclusions. If I make statement that you agree with, let it be known. Do you continue to hold your position?

To say that video games cause violence is an outrage. If this was simply but an ounce of truth, then every person who bought a video game that contained violence would become a "killer". However, since they haven't, that leaves one option left, and that's to say that it's simply the persons unstable mind. There have been only a handful of tragic events that have been blamed on video games. Each of those times, the person seemed to be mentally unstable. (Take the Newtown Conneticuit shooting for example). The same thing can be said for many other things such as movies, books, TV shows, etc... They contain violent content, but they aren't the cause of any violence.

Now I think in order to properly analyze and argue what you have argued we must define art. Webster's defines art as "the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance. " You make the contention that because video games are made of virtual images and pixels mean that it is not of artistic merit. I must say that whatever form art is made of does not dictate whether it is art or not. Would you discredit any film that uses computer generated imagery because it is not physically there? I'm sure if you spoke to anybody who programs for video games and created these "virtual images" you speak of you would know how hard work and artistry are required. You say that in your opinion "killing and blood all over the place is not the type of art. " First of all not all video games feature blood and killing, in fact some of the most aesthetically beautiful games (Flower, Journey, Braid) feature no killing at all, and even so if games such as BioShock or The Walking Dead feature killing and blood, so what? Schindler's List features violence and ruthless killing, does that make that film inartistic? Or Saving Private Ryan? Or any painting that depicts violence? You also seem to say that animation creates the storyline in games and the gameplay itself is simply killing and inartistic nonsense, also I must say that games such as BioShock feature in-game storytelling by way of audio diaries recorded by people telling of the fall of a great city by way of the interior politics (the game itself is an indictment of Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy), and in Journey you yourself participate in all of the aesthetic beauty in the game, and even if in some games the story is told by cut-scenes and the gameplay itself doesn't carry much in storytelling I must again say this, so what? Cut-scenes are just as important to video games as gameplay, they give video games a way to tell the story in a way the uses angles and allows the creators of the game to create their artistic vision in the video game. If I have misinterpreted anything or left anything out please rebut.

"Should video games be illegal? What about sports or talking to women?"Say what you will, I've heard it before. Quite frankly, I've never heard a case of a f***ing mexican cartel geting in a shootout over the latest copy of Call of Duty or some s*** like that.You made a good point about the harmful affects, so I'll give you that one."a gross overexageration of the munchies"I don't think so. It may seem like an exaterattion to you, but some of my friends are potheads. I can tell you from personal experience of being around someone who's high but not high myself that they ate every bag of lays in my house. Maybe I took it too far, but as I said I'm a bit of a d*** about the way I argue.And as for the gateway drug thing that you wrote an entire f***ing seminar on, if weed becomes legal then how does it stop being a gateway drug? People take pharmacudicals all the time illegally, so making it legal might make it worse, because teenagers can get in a whole lot more trouble, and now someone who actually needs that weed for cancer or something can't get it because some idiot names Brody needed to get his weed."I am not trying to be rude but "it completely does" is not an arguement."Okay, fair enough. What I was trying to say is that weed, like any other mood changing substance, causes crazy psychadelic affects. These things can cause certain people to do reckless and impulsive things, mainly because they're just so calm about everything. Alchohol does this too, but instead of calmness, drunks get pissed about everything. I'm not trying to say weed's a bad thing, I'm just trying to get people to drop the subject. It's not like it's hard to find or anything. Are you too lazy to visit a nearby park that you'd rather wait in a line to get some more pot?

Violent Video games should be banned because it leads to violence and violent behavior in teens, tweens, and even children under the age of 10.

"we are all mature here."No I am not."Then, I promise you would see shootouts of video game dealers protecting their merchandise."Okay, that may sound accurate now, but drugs are apsychadelic substance people enjoy smoking, so it explains why people would be willing to go to such lengths to protect it. But while normal video games are legal, pirated copies of video games aren't legal. And tell me if I'm wrong, but I've never turned on the news to see people dead in a shootout over bootleg Halo copies."I doubt you had a such a substantial amount of lays that you were little more than annoyed about what happened."You doubt my inventory of lays?"If you were, then you should have made sure they paid you back and if they didn't that's on them not weed." It has both to do with them and the weed. I didn't make them pay me back because they were potheads. They've got better things to do with their money. If they didn't, then they wouldn't have to ask me to bring food when I went to their place."Please reveiew and try to understand what I said so you can properly respond"Okay, this time I got of my lazy @$$ (metaphorically, I'm still sitting here) and read your thing on gateway drugs. And there completely are connections between two acts. If say, I'm a kid and I start playing Halo, I'll start playing Call of Duty. I know that there is a VERY large gap between halo - call of duty and weed - cocaine. What I'm trying to say is if I do one thing, I might want to start doing a similar thing. It's a psychology thing, I guess.

-In Black ops, it is less than or equal to the realism of Minecraft. First of all, when the player is shot by a gun, the player sees red on their screen. A couple seconds later, the player is back to normal. This shows that in black ops, if one would be shot, they would heal back up. This is not true in the real world. Therefore, it is not as realistic > Which then probably meanss that the plyer placed a bandage on himself. -Let me ask you. Is shooting a gun as easy as in Black ops? No. Therefore, I prove that it does not teach how to shoot and kill. Shooting a gun in real life is harder than in Black ops, where you just turn and press the button. Evidently, it also teaches the players a lot about violence. This leads to more violence in society. > Shooting a gun is very easy. Ever try a NERF gun before? ==} Conclusion So, Black ops is better than Black ops. RUBRIC Agree- black ops agree- black ops conduct- black ops (even Con stated) spelling- Tied Arguments- Black ops Sources- Con This is the most fair rubric.


Question: Do Aggressive Video Games Play a Role in Juvenile Delinquency?

Violent video games do not foster aggression or violent behavior. After conducting extensive research on this topic, I can confidently assert that violent video games do not contribute to the creation of a violent culture, but rather, they may attract individuals who are already predisposed to violent tendencies.

I accept your challenge to this touchy topic. I will be unbiased and factual as possible.Please note that I myself am a gamer and will provide personal experiences and statistics to prove my point.This is my first debate so I will try my best.I believe that there are cold hard facts. statistics and enough personal experience evidence to prove that video games are harmful in my next post or (Opening Argument) I will provide thaes key elements- Statistics-To show how many kid are affected Personal Experience-As a gamer myself True Storys-Of kids that have been altered because of video games Reseach-Done by scientists Citaion-Where my evidence is from Good Luck!

But its not all the media fault bc this what people want hear and see and think its cool and it could most definalty be blamed on the parents because all theses video games and music have age ratings on them

video games are fun and are good for children and plus it keeps them and me out of the parents way then when the child starts to go through teen ages it still plays video games but not as much because the teenager has friends to hang out with.

Addressing the claim that is damaged eyesight:(1) Do you have any sources, resources that you would like to use to support this claim?Here is an article on the topic:http://gamerant.com...Addressing the claim that games promote violence:The example you used of a chess gamer being killed over a chess move falls under the fallacy of appealing to extremes. http://www.logicallyfallacious.com.... Using an extreme and isolated incident to reflect a larger issue. I don't know about you but I don't see 7 o'clock editions of the news appealing to stop the chess violence. Same thing goes for video games as a whole, despite years of study there remains only a weak case to prove causation relationship between even violent video games and violence as a whole.

Hello. I am in the position that teens should buy violent video games with parental consent. Teens should not be allowed to buy these games without consent because parents can decide on what sort of effect it will have on their teens.For instance, if a teen has reactsed negatively to violence in the past, than the parent has a right to refuse that their child play the violent game. I believe that teens should be able to play violent games with their parents' consent. Otherwise, they should not.

Quick question for future rounds - Do you wish for this to be sources (With links to sites, to show our side of the argument) - or would you prefer this to be a mind vs mind debate here, where we each use our knowledge and wits to sway the others' opinions? ^ this will let me know how you want to approach this debate, so we can do it your way from there. For my first round, I will assert that Video games should not be banned, due to a myriad of reason I will clarrify in subsequent rounds. I just wish to find the format my opponent wishes to go with, and we can get started at full steam! :) As a quick list, so you are aware of where I intend to go with my debate : * Influcing study period (plan to debunk this) * Assistance is learning * Retention of information learnt * Assimilation of languages * Spatial accuracy * Life/Social Skills * Builds Social defenses These are just the few subjects I can see that will help build my case - Pro I hope you have some good ones :) Good luck, and may we both be excellent to each other!

I will do a quick argument this round because I am running out of time. This is basically a repeat/ rebuttal. So you said something like if you break your spoon and punch someone, it is your fault the the spoon. But think about it like a source, an item, and an outcome. The spoon powered your anger. Then your anger created a punch. So though the spoon didn't directly cause the punch, it was still one of the causes. The same goes for the video game. Since such a scenario is possible, the videogame created violence, thereby proving my point.

I will be making this brief as I am really not feeling well. The original contention of Con was that Playing video games " Every day" was bad for you. In an earlier round I established that this is not the case, peer reviewed studies show it serves to increase stimulation in the brain. Con made a point about bad posture and drew an abstraction, Because many gamers have poor posture Con summarized that games cause bad posture. This is a logical fallacy, Correlation does not equal causation. Bad posture is bad for you regardless of what your doing-while you do it with bad posture. Next he countered again about video games causing violent tendencies but the article he posted only glossed over it and than stated matter of factually. It is true, Certain types of violence in games can promote violence in the real world but this does not extent to all games or all types of violence in video games, not all or even most video games are considered violent.In short, Cons argument at best proves that video games can be abused and over done but so can hamburgers... There is proven benefits that video games can benefit a person who plays games daily.

Con forfeited, and I extend my argument. There is no reason why kids should not play violent video games, as there is no evidence to show that violent video games engenders violent behavior in kids (pro did not even make this claim - in fact, there was no mention of how "violent" video games contrasts with video games in general from the pro side). Therefore, pro failed to uphold the BOP and con wins by default.

To say that video games cause violence is an outrage. If this was simply but an ounce of truth, then every person who bought a video game that contained violence would become a "killer". However, since they haven't, that leaves one option left, and that's to say that it's simply the persons unstable mind. There have been only a handful of tragic events that have been blamed on video games. Each of those times, the person seemed to be mentally unstable. (Take the Newtown Conneticuit shooting for example). The same thing can be said for many other things such as movies, books, TV shows, etc... They contain violent content, but they aren't the cause of any violence.


Question: Do Graphic Video Games Play a Role in Juvenile Aggression?

The assertion that violent video games significantly contribute to real-world violence is unfounded. There are several aspects of this argument that need clarification. Firstly, the concept of desensitization caused by violent video games and its link to increased violence outside military contexts requires further examination. It is crucial to address the logical fallacy employed by the opposition, which is essentially an "affirming a disjunct" argument. This fallacy is exemplified by statements like "either A or B; since A, it's not B." A more relatable scenario would be: "I or Debatability are debating; since Debatability is debating, it must mean I'm not." The fallacy is evident in the opposition's argument that "violence in video games does not cause aggression; rather, it's caused by a competitive environment." This does not negate the significant contribution of violent video games to real-world violence. Both desensitization and competition can contribute to real-world violence simultaneously, as it's not an either-or situation. The claim that competition is the sole reason for violence is flawed, as evolution would not have occurred without it. The chart provided by the opposition, showing video game sales and crime rates, is poorly cited and irrelevant. Violent video games can contribute significantly to real-world violence even if crime rates decrease. The effects of video games on aggression are often misunderstood. Studies suggest that video games provide an outlet for releasing aggression. However, the study cited by the opposition, involving undergraduate students with varying video game experience, is flawed. The survey question "Have you played a video game within the last 6 months?" does not accurately determine the participants' level of video game exposure. It is essential to have a more controlled study, comparing individuals with high video game exposure to those with low or no exposure. The study I referenced indicates that extensive exposure to violent video games leads to a reduced concern for opponents' well-being. The opposition argues that competition, rather than desensitization, is the cause of aggression. However, the study I linked shows an increased willingness to pull the trigger, suggesting that desensitization plays a significant role. Desensitization does not necessarily cause violence in individuals not predisposed to it, but it contributes to a culture of violence. Psychopaths, who lack empathy and make up a disproportionate percentage of the prison population, are more likely to commit violent acts. Desensitization increases apathy towards violence, leading to the bystander effect, where witnesses fail to intervene in violent

Summary: It depends on a few factors. If we are talking about video games in general and the possibility they have, then I would have to agree with you video games can be good for you. Since you state in general that means both negative and positive. The negative outweigh the positive for this statement though. The games made these days are very violent and given that we humans learn through certain pre-determined ways. I hereby say that it is not good for you. Also, the way it is used though its technological tool is bad for you as well. In far I state that being good for you in terms of education. It can be replaced by other methods for in the past this wasn't present thus indicated not needed.

Con forfeited, and I extend my argument. There is no reason why kids should not play violent video games, as there is no evidence to show that violent video games engenders violent behavior in kids (pro did not even make this claim - in fact, there was no mention of how "violent" video games contrasts with video games in general from the pro side). Therefore, pro failed to uphold the BOP and con wins by default.

Now I think in order to properly analyze and argue what you have argued we must define art. Webster's defines art as "the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance. " You make the contention that because video games are made of virtual images and pixels mean that it is not of artistic merit. I must say that whatever form art is made of does not dictate whether it is art or not. Would you discredit any film that uses computer generated imagery because it is not physically there? I'm sure if you spoke to anybody who programs for video games and created these "virtual images" you speak of you would know how hard work and artistry are required. You say that in your opinion "killing and blood all over the place is not the type of art. " First of all not all video games feature blood and killing, in fact some of the most aesthetically beautiful games (Flower, Journey, Braid) feature no killing at all, and even so if games such as BioShock or The Walking Dead feature killing and blood, so what? Schindler's List features violence and ruthless killing, does that make that film inartistic? Or Saving Private Ryan? Or any painting that depicts violence? You also seem to say that animation creates the storyline in games and the gameplay itself is simply killing and inartistic nonsense, also I must say that games such as BioShock feature in-game storytelling by way of audio diaries recorded by people telling of the fall of a great city by way of the interior politics (the game itself is an indictment of Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy), and in Journey you yourself participate in all of the aesthetic beauty in the game, and even if in some games the story is told by cut-scenes and the gameplay itself doesn't carry much in storytelling I must again say this, so what? Cut-scenes are just as important to video games as gameplay, they give video games a way to tell the story in a way the uses angles and allows the creators of the game to create their artistic vision in the video game. If I have misinterpreted anything or left anything out please rebut.

I believe my opponent's argument is that those aged over 13 should be allowed to participate in buying video games, that are rated Mature by the ESRB system, for themselves. I strongly doubt that this would not be the case.True to my usual debating methods, I will first rebut before I make my own argument."Studies show that most teenagers will use violent and M-Rated games to vent anger(1)."It is my belief that my opponent intended to cite a source here. Specifically, this source: http://www.theregister.co.uk... One I have also read.I will take all that as true.However, I don't believe buying video games should be the future at all. I believe we would gain much more by submitting to simply buying the license for the game. I do believe playing rated M games would be beneficial to the human race. We even use it to treat PTSD*.However, that's as far as I'm willing to concede. Half of the argument my opponent has presented is agreeable with me. We should "play 'M' rated Games." Buying them? No.By only buying the license of these games, community is more developed and encouraged, a more structured relationship between corporations is established, and cultivation of a game beyond its release is also heavily encouraged. It also means that more independent games are shared and more independent video game groups are able to flourish and prosper.I will allow this argument to manifest more in following rounds.

Video games (if that's what you mean by electronics) Have been shown to help people think about problems more rationally, solve problems quicker, increase hand-eye coordination, and multiple other benefits of the mind and body.

Television isn"t the center of the world, as this is the impression I"m getting from this argument. There is a lack of statistics that you present in your arguments therefore may cost you the victory of the debate, as I did the same; I am personally speaking through a study that was made by a scholar which its textbook is perhaps too thick for those who isn"t fond of reading. Now, onto the debate: Television, as I said before isn"t one of the reasons. There are many things that influence the impulsive behaviors such as other adolescents who developed such rebellious thinking and decision making due to the neighborhood and living conditions that they come from. If we"re speaking from an idolize perspective then perhaps television can be a influential factor but realistically speaking, television isn"t the cause, it"s more or less the people whom they associate with outside of televised media and how they were brought up. Television does promote such shows that may be too violent and to the parent or youth advocate, it"s perhaps a bad influence but it"s inevitable. You cannot justify that television is the root evil of all violence that happens within the youth, if that be the case; then wouldn"t the government removed television by now to prevent such things? From a jokingly perspective, could the reason why we go to war is because we saw an amazing war movie or played video games such as "Call of Duty" or "Gears of War" that had so much gore and then we believe: "What the hell? Let"s go and kill people because that movie made it look awesome! " to "I hate you, therefore when I see you" I"m going to have an AK-47 at hand and blast your head open for disrespecting me! " You see where I"m coming from with this? Are these legitimate motives for people to go to war just because it looked so cool? There"s more to it than that obviously, same thing with television " there is more to the adolescent violence and rowdiness than just television. Yes, there is some evidence things on television promote such reckless behavior for example the series Jersey Shore where it promotes a lot of drinking, sexual contact, the night life and fighting but again, it"s not the fault of the television it"s the parents and it"s almost impossible for parents to have control of this because well" adolescents have their way in getting around it. I think you"re trying to develop a utopian perspective where if we ban television then everything will be a better place. Trust me, we all wish that and from the looks of things (outside of television) it"s not happening. Even though my argument isn"t as great as I wanted to be, blame midterm week. With that!

Quick question for future rounds - Do you wish for this to be sources (With links to sites, to show our side of the argument) - or would you prefer this to be a mind vs mind debate here, where we each use our knowledge and wits to sway the others' opinions? ^ this will let me know how you want to approach this debate, so we can do it your way from there. For my first round, I will assert that Video games should not be banned, due to a myriad of reason I will clarrify in subsequent rounds. I just wish to find the format my opponent wishes to go with, and we can get started at full steam! :) As a quick list, so you are aware of where I intend to go with my debate : * Influcing study period (plan to debunk this) * Assistance is learning * Retention of information learnt * Assimilation of languages * Spatial accuracy * Life/Social Skills * Builds Social defenses These are just the few subjects I can see that will help build my case - Pro I hope you have some good ones :) Good luck, and may we both be excellent to each other!

I would think that you would understand by now that it is the voters who ultimately decide who wins the argument, not you. Anywho, my response: "The title of this argument is "Video game violence does not contribute significantly to school shootings." The kids who are predisposed susceptibility to the emotional deterioration ultimately are the ones who shoot up the schools, ergo video game violence in theory does significantly contribute to school shootings. Therein your evidences are invalidated and I win the argument." Con has not addressed my initial evidence, nor has the slightest hint of evidence to back up his claim. If violent video games were the cause for these school shootings, then tell me: what happened to all of the other factors that caused the earlier shootings? Our school systems today have undoubtably learned to combat them significantly, but not completely. Another thing that I must present is the likeliness of violent video games influencing students to commit these crimes. Video games, as well as the violent ones, are imbued into our society. They provide entertainment and satisfaction for millions of teens in the United States. Although it has been shown that they can cause aggression in certain cases, for the most part, they do not play a significant role. "School shootings are not a simple issue with a single solution. This violence is rooted in psychological imbalances within the students themselves, poor parenting and a decay in significance of traditional institutions along with the guilt forces they rely on for effectiveness - to name a just a few."[1] With nearly all statistics on school shootings, these factors that contribute to the crimes appear in virtually every case. The part that video game violence plays is very insignificant indeed. Conclusion: Most, if not all school shootings are rooted in psychological imbalances within the students themselves, poor parenting and a decay in significance of traditional institutions along with the guilt forces they rely on for effectiveness[1], not violent video games. The real cause lies significantly more with the student and his/her social environment, rather than the entertainment activities(violent video games) he/she partakes in. Sources: http://www.holology.com...

I have proven that Cons statements, " Therefor, if a child does cause harm, the parents are the ones to be to blame as they bought the game for their child and are responsible for the outcomes of what happens to their child. " That this is not true. I have shown that Video Games are Directly influencing kids, and not the parents buying them. This Refutes Cons 1st Contention "Parents are Disregarding the Game" Also I have shown proven evidence that kids who have played video games with violence have shown a increase in violence and aggression in real life. This Refutes, Cons 3rd contention "No Sufficient Studies" . http://videogames.procon.org... I have shown that we can directly relate events to other events. Adam Lanza had previously played game where he controls a character that enters a school and shoots everyone. --- We can directly relate this to the Sandyhook shooting. (Video Games to Violence) Just as Con said in his opening argument " It just doesn't relate" --- BUT IT DOES. I said the following Quote to Con in my last argument. "Now, I wish for my opponent to provide a piece of evidence that EXPLICITLY SAYS there is NO WAY Adam Lanza, could've been influenced by video games to commit this horrendous crime. " He has failed to do so. So his statement " That means that my opponents arguments (as of right now) are completely invalid. " is actually Fasle. I have given proof that Video Games are Relating to Violence amongst kids. Cons Statement - "Please vote con as his case is contradictory and holds no ground in this debate, he is completely contradictory of himself, and has failed to attack my second and third contention. " Is ENTIRELY FALSE. I have attacked his 3rd contention via --- . http://videogames.procon.org... , and how can I Refute a Philosophy, that is the most proven and undoubtedly true Philosophy ever! That is like trying to debate that Water isn't a Liquid! I will not try and dispute Common sense, but my opponent is. Voters, please, make your own decisions, but please keep in mind that Con has showed no evidence to attack my studies, that DO SAY that violence has increased amongst students because of video games, and realize that we as Humans can make relations from events to other events, via the evidence I HAVE SHOWN. In this case, Video Games to Violence. So, Vote Con. I would like to personally thanking con for bringing up a good debate.

1k characters lol.In regards to my opponent's arguments: video games offer those benefits as well. Video games expose you to different concepts and ideas just as much as books do. Video games also offer a lot of different benefits, including benefits that books don't offer such as increased hand-eye coordination and social cooperation (1). Video games have also been shown in correlation with higher test scores across various different subjects (1)(2).So in short, all the benefits my opponent lists for books video games offer as well. Video games offer more exclusive benefits than reading books do. Therefore, video games.Sources:(1) - http://tinyurl.com...(2) - http://tinyurl.com...


Question: Do Aggressive Video Games Play a Role in Juvenile Delinquency?

The assertion that violent video games significantly contribute to real-world violence is not supported by substantial evidence. Let's address some counterarguments and delve into the voting issues.

**Logical Fallacy - Affirming a Disjunct**

My adversary accuses me of employing this logical fallacy throughout my argument. To clarify, for this fallacy to apply, I would need to lack evidence showing how video games do not cause violence. However, I have provided evidence to the contrary. Firstly, the statistics demonstrate that as video game sales have increased, violence rates have decreased, mocking the notion that violence in video games significantly contributes to real-world violence. Secondly, my argument about the release of aggression through video games further supports the idea that video games can lower violence rates, a point backed by statistical evidence. It's crucial to understand that many variables could influence violence, making it inaccurate to solely blame video games.

**Violence Rates**

My opponent argues that even if violence decreases as video game sales rise, violent video games could still significantly contribute to real-world violence. I acknowledge this possibility, but my statistics are meant to support the argument that video games can be an outlet for aggression. This point also underscores the improbability of violent video games significantly contributing to real-world violence. The statistics do not cover the military kill rate, a topic I will address soon. When evaluating the significance of video games' impact on violence, it's important to consider all variables.

**Video Games' Effects**

My opponent challenges my source rather than my argument. I agree that my source could be considered less than ideal, but I will provide additional points to strengthen the argument that violent video games can serve as a channel for releasing aggression. According to one source, 42% of boys play video games to release anger, and 65% say these games help them relax. Another source elaborates that many men feel powerless, angry, or disengaged, and video games might be the best outlet they have for these feelings.

**Opponent's Case - Not Born to Kill**

The first point to consider is the distinction between video games and military "killing sessions." My opponent essentially dismisses this argument. We must recognize that the video games children play today are different from military simulations. My opponent has only proven that military simulations increase violence within the military, which is not the same as common video games. Even if these simulations could be compared to today's video games, they did not make soldiers more willing to shoot due to desensitization. The increase in firing

Video games damage people's eyes and nerves. Video games are also designed to hook people in - so they play and play until their are nearly blind. Being blind is extremely detrimental to the brain - even if "Increased grey matter in the section for the brain that controls moto functions and navigational ability over the control group which was not allowed to play video games in the same time frame" happens. That increased moto functions and navigational ability is useless without your eyes.My opponent has not rebutted the fact that some people can take RTS too seriously. Would you lose 100 times at a game and feel it benefited you? Of course not.Thank you.

Wether or not you expect people to base all incidents off of your own life expireince or not i refuse to believe that someone who is born into a good family raised in a good neighborhood and is taken care of and disciplined is more prone to violence then someone who has no parents or born in the ghetto or uses drugs. It just doesnt make any sense. In the end you are right we have a choice but i believe strongly that the enviroment and the teachings of our parents or peers dramatically change or decision when it comes to it.

Well you make excellence points , I still would have to disagree with argument because for your first example you skip the fact that society also blames the parent for buying the violent video games. Another thing is violent video games does also take part in a kid bringing a weapon to school. I say this because kids are very curiousity about every thing some higher than others.

my worthy opponent, if you aren't satisfied with the given arguments, i request you to prove your point, to why have you chosen the side of con for this topic. for your kind information, I am not shifting at all. I am on my topic and the best example goes on to the above rounds, with lots of examples stating that television spreads violence. this is what has to do with violence. yes, its total nonsense, nonsense about television that is continuously spreading violence in youth. give me at least few points that I can agree to you that its not. children spend a lot of time before it, and thus it has got to do with all the violence rampant.for your statement that questions are unanswered, i am in a state of deep flutter when I read these lines. I am unable to find any argument or question from your sides, thus, your point of questions being unanswered has no entity at all.

See the house you live in?? Do you think that house was made by playing video games? Do you think video games have any part in making that "house" you live in? The people who made your house are licensed (hopefully). Do you know how those people got licensed to make that house you're living in? They got licensed by taking standardized tests, by reading books on construction... THIS is just a hook.... Think about "Doctors" for a second.. it would be a shame if we didn't have modern medicine... right? Now the question.. how does a Doctor become a Doctor?? ----> http://education-portal.com... You need to earn a medical degree, then you need to enroll in medical school! Do you think any of these doctors never read a book? Lets take all the books away from these doctors :)... ohh no? why not? Now lets take all the video games away! haha it wouldn't make a huge difference. Hence, books are more important! because they make a bigger impact in society. <<<--

Pornography and Aggression My opponent asserts using various studies that pornography and misogynistic aggression are correlated, I would say he even tries to create a causal link. Regardless, there has been no conclusive link between porn and aggression and results concerning the subject are dubious at best [A]. The work by Vega [Pro 3] notes that a societal link between porn and violence is spurious. In her paper she writes “Follow up analyses indicated that the reason pornography contributed significantly to the overall equation is because of its importance in the context of men who are at a relatively high risk for sexual aggression. It was found that among men who scored high on both general and specific risk characteristics, frequent pornography consumption increased the risk for sexual aggression. In contrast, amount of pornography consumption had little predictive value among men considered to be at relatively low risk for sexual aggression” (pg . 114). In other words, porn only promotes misogyny in those who are already misogynists; thus making the connection to spousal abuse irrelevant, because it’s pre-existing attitudes that cause abuse, not porn. Even my opponent tacitly acknowledges the lack of a conclusive societal link when quoting Dr. Jensen, who to paraphrase says, ‘Because we don’t know for sure either way, opponents caution we may over state the link, but it’s just as likely we are understating it.’ It’s just as likely; as in it’s 50/50. Can we really trust the conclusion that porn and aggression are linked based on a coin toss? Even the chart shown in Pro’s initial argument has wildly varying correlation results; taking the average of a crapshoot does not qualify as a reliable average. There is just as much evidence to suggest a null hypothesis [D][E][F][G][H]. Obviously the Attorney General did not examine all of the science before reaching his conclusion in 1986. For example a 37 year study in India on the connection “suggests that easy access to pornography did not have a significant impact on rape rates and crime rate against women. [B]” There is even evidence to suggest pornography lowers sex crime rates [G]. In the United States, Pro does a wonderful job at pointing out the ubiquity of porn; yet since 1993 “Rape is down 72 percent and other sexual assaults have fallen by 68 percent. [C]” If porn is correlated with increased violence, then why since the introduction of the internet pornography have sex crimes gone down so dramatically? As a quick aside, it would follow that those who watch violent porn can’t be nearly as affected as those who actually participate in violent sex. BDSM is a subculture that is entirely based on sexual domination and violence, yet when studied it appears their mental health is better than the average population [J]; how does my opponent explain a lack of misogynistic violence in a group that practices violence as a form of sexual arousal? Pornography Harms Relationships This will come in two parts, first a refutation of Pro’s claim then evidence to suggest how porn can help relationships. In regards to its conflation with divorce there are 2 important quotes to be taken from [Pro 14], first, of the causes for divorce “met new love interest over the internet” ranks higher than porn at 68%. It should be noted that while porn may be a contributing factor, compared to other more common reasons for divorce, like cheating and financial troubles, porn is not a major contributor. And the second quote, “While I don't think you can say that the Internet is causing more divorces, it does make it easier to engage in the sorts of behaviors that traditionally lead to divorce,” according to Short.” Even a divorce lawyer in the source my opponent cites does not believe there is a correlation between internet porn and divorce. In regards to [Pro 17], the insecurity of wives does not constitute as harm done by porn. As said in the abstract this group is not representative of women in general. A possible reason these women feel insecure in their relationship is due to a lack of communication or intimacy in the relationship; porn use being a symptom rather than a cause. Feeling stupid or like a failure for not challenging the husband for his porn use shows how culture can influence people to have unfounded thoughts that porn is necessarily taboo and that somehow women are in competition with porn. This could not be further from the truth. In fact, instead of having porn be a solo act, a study has shown that when both couples participate in viewing it can have positive effects, opening the couple up for sexual exploration and lessening the perceived taboo of sex. In fact Maddox et al. [I] in response to the study cited as [Pro 17] says “These results imply that women may not view their partners SEM (sexually explicit material) viewing as unhealthy as long as they do not perceive that viewing as excessive. In fact, some women may even view their partners' pornography use as enhancing their sexual relationship” and they finally noted that couples that only viewed porn together had higher quality relationships and “… we cannot know from our results whether viewing SEM alone leads to poorer relationship quality or vice versa …”. Porn is Habit Forming As interested as I am in the penile circumference of anonymous men, all Pro has shown is that repetitive sources of entertainment go stale over time. Anything can be habit forming and made into a routine. Unless Pro is willing to make the claim porn is addictive I see no reason to address this point. However it should be said that anything taken to an excess can be problematic, this does not define the product, but the lack of responsibility in the user. Porn Warps Views of Sex If we are going to criticize porn for being an inaccurate depiction of reality then we must also indict all non-educational TV, movies, entertainment radio, music, video games, and fictional literature. Of course porn is a fantasy. To blame porn for warping our views of sex leaves out one very important part of the equation; who is teaching our children about sex? Pornography does not exist in a vacuum; without context yes a young person can misunderstand what s/he is seeing and come to false conclusions. Just as they come to false conclusions about other unrealistic depictions in the media. However this does not constitute a failure of pornography, it shows a failure of parents and school administrations that fail to adequately teach sex ed. and how to understand porn in context. To make porn out to be the source of dissatisfaction ignores all the other non-pornographic sources that compound the issue. To say that porn is significant while other more palatable yet just as unrealistic media is consumed is a red herring. As for 28% of kids being accidentally exposed to porn, this again highlights my point. Parents need to take responsibility and set up parental controls and talk to their children about how to understand the adult world. However many parents choose to have their kids remain woefully uneducated when it comes to sex despite its detrimental effects [U]. If anything, the lack of education is what warps the minds of children, as they are taught that sex is taboo and should be avoided. Porn causes STDs To begin with the health of porn stars, Pro says that they are more prone to STD’s while this may be true, if “significance” is going to play a factor in this debate higher rates of STD’s can be chalked up to occupational hazard. Porn stars are aware of this hazard, and are tested regularly [K] and test results are circulated around the industry. However any perceived harm can be mitigated through the use of condoms, so we can still have porn and be safe. In regards to the mental health of the actors my opponent is playing into the “damaged goods” trope, as a one study reports “The analysis found no evidence to support the "damaged goods hypothesis" that actresses involved in the porn industry come from desperate backgrounds. Rather, the researchers found the women have higher self-esteem, a better quality of life and body image, and are more positive, with greater levels of spirituality. [L]” To further debunk the damaged goods myth, porn stars were not molested as children [M], and not all porn stars are highschool dropouts, some are actually very intelligent [N], and one women even uses porn to pay for her college education [O]! Again Pro brings up how young folks will imitate porn and become more sexually active, again as I said in the previous section this is a matter of education. If kids are taught to have safe sex, they will not transmit STD’s as much [T]. Conclusion I have shown that Pro’s claim of a societal link between misogynistic violence and porn is nonexistent. Porn can help relationships when taken holistically and without stigma [V]. Claims about porn being habit forming is irrelevant; and any problems with the warping of peoples view of sex and STD transmission can be solved with comprehensive sex education. However given the erroneous nature of the US’s taboo on talking about sex candidly [P][R] (the reality of sex, not media depictions) with the large scale teaching of abstinence only education [Q][S] the problems that Pro associates with young people are magnified and spuriously conflated with porn. Overall my main point illustrated throughout this rebuttal is that porn is not the problem, but it is how our culture deals with the subject of sex. Porn is not a significant problem in our society. Thank you. Sources: http://www.debate.org...

Violent Video games should be banned because it leads to violence and violent behavior in teens, tweens, and even children under the age of 10.

video games are fun and are good for children and plus it keeps them and me out of the parents way then when the child starts to go through teen ages it still plays video games but not as much because the teenager has friends to hang out with.

although you say that the violence happens outside of media, tv can influence this. tv is one of the most influential sources now days. kids will most likely learn from the characters. even though you say that children can learn by using websites such as pbs, there are actually a few bad points to this. studies show that toddlers should not watch tv becasue this could interfere with their brain development. the "educational" shows on pbs last for a long time, and children should not be allowed to watch more that 1 hour of educational programming per day. some kids only watch them just for the fun of it. some children might not want to watch this. violence outside is usually caused by the fact that kids watch a lot of tv, and learn the habits. if these children did not watch tv, there might be less violence.

I Understand children imitating what they is a bad thing. But The American Academy of Pediatrics has shown research that a child that has been educated in the media was less likely to be vurnerable to the violent aspects of the media. It is also the idea of simple logic that when talking to a kid about something it does make it better and help them[1] Also I do realize that a ratio like the one I described earlier is nearly impossible to be made exact. I was not stating you had to give one. Now I know that all parents are not psychologists but it does not take a psychologist to talk to a child and help them separate reality from fiction. and I know that not every parent will talk to their child about what they see on television but some will and that is what makes a difference in the type of child[1] http://aappolicy.aappublications.org...


Question: Do Graphic Video Games Play a Role in Juvenile Aggression?

Do violent video games lead to violent behavior in young people? This is indeed a fascinating topic for discussion. From my perspective, not all children aged 9-35 are into video games, not all gamers prefer violent games, and certainly not all players of violent games turn into psychopathic killers. In fact, very few of them do. According to data from videogames.procon.org, only 15.5% of gamers purchased M-rated games in 2008. So, are you suggesting that 15.5% of 68.8% of American households, as indicated in chart no.1, are potential psychopathic killers? Anyway, good luck and I’m looking forward to a stimulating debate! =)

"Video Games with Strong Language shouldn't exist. " Basically I guess this means that pro wants that all games with strong language should be forbidden. I don't think violent games with foul language should be banned just because children might be affected. Well, the same can be said about modern music and movies and even books have foul language. One thing is for sure and that is that games are not for kids only. You mentioned GTA and said its an awful game and yes it is extremely violent and have lots of foul language but its not for kids, GTA is for adults, its designed by adults for adults. The problem is that video games are seen only for kids like toys by media when its not. Its not the state that should "think of the children" in this matter but the childrens own parents. Also to forbid foul language in games is a kind of censor and against many countries laws. Also 1000 chars are a bit to few for a good debate. Good luck.

I would like to conclude with a few ideas. My opponent clearly presents that video games are requiring more physical activity. I refuted that because physical activity is not the norm, and the virtual physical activity is not as beneficial as imperial physical activity. My opponent forfeited rounds 3 and 4 which causes a full 7 point vote in my favor to be acceptable under the DDO rules. If my opponent had anything to refute of my arguments, he could have refuted them during the forfeited rounds, he was certainly online during the debate period. I know because I checked periodically. Although there is some good that comes from video games, They are consistently more harmful to society then beneficial, and my opponent showed no social benefit. Even though I provided several detriments which far out weigh the small amount of benefit they provide.What information he did provide, I refuted. He says video games are a good way to make money. I proved that was unrealistic.

To say that EVERY person who plays video games turns into a killer is not true. What a vast majority of people are saying is that games that require the player to kill or to injure another being or animal, may cause the person the become "Interested" in harming others.

Hello, I am Korean and you know, I am very young, 13 years old. I did many debating but I am still don't know English well. I will start with video games. I strongly think that all video games should be banned because there are many games that are violent so children or even adults would not realize the real and the game world. Also, video games can harm people's health and children can easily be addicted. Also, I think there are many fun activities to do except video games.

You confuse me, but I will reason with you. Let me get my point across the voters: I think that parents should decide what is right for their children. This is different than what my opponent argues - that teens should be allowed to buy and purchase whatever they like. My argument is that violent video games shouldn't be outlawed for teenagers, but should require parental consent to avoid things like increased aggressiveness and becoming less-agreeable, found in studies.

Studies show that most teenagers will use violent and M-Rated games to vent anger(1). This is a positive way to vend unlike some teens that may drink, smoke, or cause physical damage to others. 2 thirds of boys play M-Rated games regularly and over 1 fourth of girls will play M-Rated games on a regular basis. Therefore, kid prefer M rated games and use them a mental stress and anger reducers.

I must say, I mean no beratement with the argument, I was only trying to stress the importance of using proper spelling and grammar to avoid semantic trolls such as mysef.To answer my opponents question, I did not provide an argument supporting the negative resolution because I did not hold the burden of proof. It was only required of me to refute Pro's argument, and required of him to provide arguments and rebuttals. To avoid such a format, I would suggest my opponent put "BoP is shared" in his opening round to require Con to make an actual construct.Other than that, all I have to say is,Pro's BoP is unfulfilled. Telivision is not the main cause of violence in youth.

video games improve a lot of skills like hand eye coordination social skills and improve imagination.

first off i would like to say i do agree with you on some facts. like first off i agree that it is ok for disabled people to play video games because what eles could they do around the house. but i am talking about all of the fat over wieght kids that all they do is play video games. that is horrible for little kids. it is very unhealthy and it is killing them. there are too many fat people in the usa. it is ok to play video games sometimes but you should be more prone to be more active and so you have a higher energy levle and you can do things. Second i would like to point out that the reasoning for more violence in the usa is for all of those fat kids (wich they got that way from playing too much video games) who got picked on all there started to play the new gta (grand theft auto) games then growing up and shooting up schools and such.http://www.msnbc.msn.com... they end up thinking that the kind of stuff you can do in those kinds of games are ok to do. they end up going to jail and becoming losers. all i am saying is that there is more of a negative effect on people who play too much games. if you get out there and become more active you would essentually become a much better person.

I have proven that Cons statements, " Therefor, if a child does cause harm, the parents are the ones to be to blame as they bought the game for their child and are responsible for the outcomes of what happens to their child. " That this is not true. I have shown that Video Games are Directly influencing kids, and not the parents buying them. This Refutes Cons 1st Contention "Parents are Disregarding the Game" Also I have shown proven evidence that kids who have played video games with violence have shown a increase in violence and aggression in real life. This Refutes, Cons 3rd contention "No Sufficient Studies" . http://videogames.procon.org... I have shown that we can directly relate events to other events. Adam Lanza had previously played game where he controls a character that enters a school and shoots everyone. --- We can directly relate this to the Sandyhook shooting. (Video Games to Violence) Just as Con said in his opening argument " It just doesn't relate" --- BUT IT DOES. I said the following Quote to Con in my last argument. "Now, I wish for my opponent to provide a piece of evidence that EXPLICITLY SAYS there is NO WAY Adam Lanza, could've been influenced by video games to commit this horrendous crime. " He has failed to do so. So his statement " That means that my opponents arguments (as of right now) are completely invalid. " is actually Fasle. I have given proof that Video Games are Relating to Violence amongst kids. Cons Statement - "Please vote con as his case is contradictory and holds no ground in this debate, he is completely contradictory of himself, and has failed to attack my second and third contention. " Is ENTIRELY FALSE. I have attacked his 3rd contention via --- . http://videogames.procon.org... , and how can I Refute a Philosophy, that is the most proven and undoubtedly true Philosophy ever! That is like trying to debate that Water isn't a Liquid! I will not try and dispute Common sense, but my opponent is. Voters, please, make your own decisions, but please keep in mind that Con has showed no evidence to attack my studies, that DO SAY that violence has increased amongst students because of video games, and realize that we as Humans can make relations from events to other events, via the evidence I HAVE SHOWN. In this case, Video Games to Violence. So, Vote Con. I would like to personally thanking con for bringing up a good debate.