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

Video Games and Their Impact

I am well aware that the majority of video game enthusiasts are decent individuals who would never harm others, and I recognize that video games are purely a form of entertainment. Moreover, my cousins and a significant number of my friends are avid gamers, and they all possess good character. However, video games, along with television shows and films that contain excessive violence, can potentially desensitize individuals to real-world violence. When exposed to graphic images of actual fatalities on the news, they may exhibit reduced emotional responses, such as disgust or sorrow. This does not imply that gamers lack empathy or are devoid of feelings when confronted with images of real-life casualties, but their reactions are likely to be less pronounced. It is crucial to avoid promoting violence, as it should only be justified in self-defense. By the way, I also enjoy playing Slender Man, which is both terrifying and entertaining, albeit not excessively gory or violent.

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!

I think the violence in the media does not have a negative effect.Children these days are getting bullied and their parents,older brothers and sisters won't teach them how to fight so they turn to television or videos.

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.

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.

You didn't really argue at all. You copied my whole argument and said how "wrong" I was and said I should "accept the truth". Not only that but you had no sources whatsoever to provee I was "wrong". I will make one final statement. Don't let this person take away the fun you're allowed to have by playing games.

Extend all arguments made by me in round two. I will go through my opponents main arguments in the first speech and tell you why you should vote for me.TV and video games distort reality.A distortion of reality is never always a bad thing. A distortion is an exaggeration. For example, many of the claims made in global warming videos are a distortion of reality. However, the compelling message persuades people to do a good deed. Thus, the distortion of reality is not always a bad thing. The majority of games children play are violentMost violent videogames my opponent is referring to is rated mature, thus the person who purchased it must have been mature. The sad thing however, is that adults are buying these games for children to play. However, for the government to regulate who plays what videogames at what time is a violation of the 4th amendment. If my opponent advocates the banning of all violent videogames, it is an infringment on the first amendment. However, if my opponent advocates for the control of who plays what, it would be an infringment on the 4th amendment because 1) they would have to know who is in the house playing the game. They would literally be watching who plays the game at what time, which is a violation of the 4th amendment since playing videogames is not a crime. it has been proven that tv and video games influence obesity ratesFood increases obesity. Should we regulate that? Computer programmers sit in front of a computer every day for 10 hours. Should they lose their jobs just because they might gain weight? No! Here is why you should vote for me:My opponent has failed to uphold his burden of proof that the government should regulate internet.My opponent has failed to uphold two of his arguments and provide links to all of his arguments. He has never explained why the distortion of reality is bad. He has never explained why exposure to death is bad. He has never even explained why violent games should be regulated other than the simple fact that someone who killed another was interested in CoD. That is also an example of casuation and not causation. There are many people who were very violent that did not play videogames.My opponent spent the entirety of his speech defending his side, while forgetting to argue any of my points.For these reasons, vote for me.

Video games are not a “good” way to earn money. They are a way to earn money the same as selling drugs is a way to earn money, or becoming a stripper is a way to earn money. Competitions have high entry fees and are oversaturated with savants. The average game player would probably make more money starting a garage band than playing video games. Unless you mean making money for the game makers, and the advertisers. There seems to be a market for people who want to sit on the couch and do nothing for 30-40 hours a week. Game makers are giving visual content to stories that would otherwise be non-existent. The problem is that many of those stories should have stayed that way. Sitting on your couch keeps you from doing other stuff like taking out the trash, paying attention to your actual surroundings, and getting good sleep. You can’t be attentive all the time, but it’s better to be attentive during the time you can be. Video games are great way to play with a computer and call it your friend. MMO’s restrict non-verbal communication which truly the core of all communication whether you believe it’s 93% of all communication or some other number. Gaming also restricts interactive physical contact. Sure if you are in the same room as second player, you can trade jabs and eat popcorn together, but when it comes to online you might as well be playing with NPC’s. You sit alone and talk to your computer telling it to pick up certain items, or perform certain tasks. The only difference between an NPC and a player controlled by another human being is variable response. Your actions and their actions are both limited by the game which acts as interference between both people. One person interacts with the game, the game interacts with the other player, the other player interacts back. Fighting genre games can prove that many players have no clue what the player next to them is doing, the buttons they press are in response to the characters on the screen not the thumb and finger movements of the player. Many players consider movement off the screen as a distraction and refuse to take their eyes away from the screen for even one moment. A girl could be standing there naked for all they know, they will not turn away and are completely shut off from their environment. What good are reflexes if they only occur in your thumbs? Reflexes come from doing task repetitively and continuously responding the same way to certain stimuli. Pavlov’s Dog is an example of this. Master rings a bell, it’s time to eat. Zombie pops out at you x,x,x,x,x, rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. You’re physical reflexes are diminishing as you spend more and more time practicing being immobile. Better at multi-tasking? There’s a cliché that calls some people a “Jack of all trades…A master of none.” Too much “multi-tasking” cause cognitive difficulties when it comes to focusing on a single event. Many people call that ADD, ADHD, and Hyper-Activity. In real life, skills build upon skills and trust comes from experience. I’m just not going to trust a guy who is always talking about how he knows about everything. Being good at more than one thing is great. Claiming to be good at everything is questionable. That time spent multi-tasking could have been spent making you a guru. I hope by help you with stress and the ability to focus on a certain thing. You mean epileptic seizures. Video games also cause epileptic seizures, so we’ll see if that is considered a good. There is a great variety of video games but they all have one thing in common. They are just dying to tell you how well you are at performing the tasks you are required to do. Here’s an example of that praise in truth. http://youtu.be...; As I have never played portal 2, I decided it would be best for me to research it on youtube and I found the said link to be a true gem in proving addiction to the praise that happens unnaturally in video games. The walk through makes it look easy, but it seems to come with a lot of frustration. I can imagine a player Back tracking, pushing buttons that don’t do anything, performing certain tasks in confusing unknown sequences all for a prerecorded message of adulation. And the points don’t go anywhere. They just stay on the disk. The accomplishments are not tangible, and they vary from game to game. I don’t want to repeat myself too much, but this sense of accomplishment is the reason why Angry Birds is such a widespread game. Each level starts with birds grumbling which induces stress. To relieve that stress, you must destroy all of the pigs. The music is very encouraging, but skips beats. The music plays tricks on the mind that cause panic and poor performance in the game. If you don’t destroy the pigs, they laugh at you and you try agian to overcome the percieved ridicule. If you do destroy the pigs a very warming praise comes from the birds. You are presented with your star achievements and then you are returned to a new level with the sound of stressed out birds. Sports video games are great, but imperial sports are better. Video games have lag, the lag of today’s game is less than the lag of years gone by but it’s still there. Lag causes movements in interactive video games to be repeated over and over. You mustn’t repeat movement over and over for others to notice them in real life as you do for the machine. In outdoor sports there are many factors which are not present in video games, First and foremost is running. Using your body to press against gravity and move yourself great distances far out ways the benefit of running in place. Many times the movements in interactive video games are not the same as they are in real life. In Wii bowling for example, the balance and weight of a 12 pound ball cannot be matched. The movements with the controller in your hand are much different than they are with a real ball and Wii has a lot of forgiveness. And it probably should, the player isn’t fighting gravity, or friction, or variations in lane composition which all add to the experience of doing tasks in real life.

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.

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.

OK, I guess a better title for this debate would be "Do video games influence violence" but semantics isn't that important to me.Counter: Your contention that people getting mad at video games and then doing acts of violence means that video games cause violence is false. People's reactions to video games can cause violence, this is a definite fact. This does not mean that video games cause violence. Say, for example, I am using a spoon to scoop ice cream and then the spoon bends slightly, and then I punch my brother in the face. Should I have reacted so badly? No, I shouldn't have reacted like that. People aren't going to blame the weakness of spoons for me punching someone in the face, they are going to blame me and the incredibly bad temper that I have. When people in completely sound mind get mad at a video game, they don't become violent. If video games did cause violence, then wouldn't everyone who got mad at a video game become violent? It is more correct to have the cause of the violence on the person committing it then the video game they were playing.


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

Video Games and Youth Violence: Is There a Correlation?

The assertion: "Video games do not cause violence to a degree that warrants concern." In this discussion, I will not contend that video games incite kids to commit acts of violence. Instead, I will argue that there is a correlation between violent behavior and violent video games.

A. Definitions and Clarifications

1A - Information
Although my adversary might prefer me to argue that there is a definitive link between video games and acts of violence, I will concentrate on demonstrating that there is a correlation between video games and concerning violence, as per my opponent's assertion.

1B - Assumption about the assertion
"Video games" - I will assume that this does not refer to all video games, as my opponent did not include "all" in the assertion. Instead, I will assume that the assertion suggests that "Video games with violent themes or aggressive content do not cause violence," as it would be redundant to debate whether games like Mario Kart or Angry Birds cause violence.

1C - The Definition of Violence
Violence is not restricted to actions that result in immediate harm to another person. It encompasses swift and intense force, rough or injurious physical force, unjust or unwarranted exertion of power, and rough or immoderate vehemence of feeling or language.

B. Arguments

B1 - Violent Video Games cause concerning violence, and all violence is concerning
Especially in youth, the display of noticeable or unprovoked violence is abnormal and indicative of a deviation in the proper growth and functioning of their brain. If someone exhibits violent behavior, then that should be inherently significant enough for those who care about them to consider as "big enough to worry about." In the linked video, you will see adolescents, children, and even adults exhibiting behavior that can be considered "violent" as a result of video gaming.

B2 - Those who benefit from video games and never exhibit violence are irrelevant to the assertion
My opponent has presented me with the assertion that:
"Video games do not cause violence (Or at least not at a scale which is large enough to worry about. ) Scientists have found, however, that there are many benefits to video games such as socialization and increased reflexes."
While it is true that in certain cases video games can bring benefits like increased reflexes, the assertion is over whether violent video games are one of the many possible causes of violence, not whether video games cause violence in every instance.

B3 - The APA attributes that video games

Not everything can be solved with peace. There are a lot of terrible people out there and unless you say no T.V at all then there is no way you'll be able to stop it. The entire middle east is ravaged with violence and destruction and all they do is show it on all the major news networks. 30 years ago if you wanted to shield you children from T.V violence you shut it off and went outside. Now you shut it off they go to their rooms and play Call of Duty. It does nothing but show how sheltered they want to make everyone. But they know the can't fully shelter you so instead of watching ISIS videos on the news they will go play GTA and COD.

my resons why video games are good for you. 1. They reduce cravings. We all have cravings. Ice cream. Alcohol. Crack… Fortunately, UK scientists have found a new way to reduce these cravings through the fun means of playing video games. 2. They slow the aging process. Don’t want to become a crazy old cat lady in your old age? A study conducted by the University of Iowa found that regularly playing a video game specifically designed by the team stalled the natural decline of cognitive skills by up to seven years for some participants. 3. Reduce pain. The pharmaceutical companies may blow a fuse when they hear this one, but psychologists at the American Pain Society’s annual meeting reported that chronically ill patients who immerse themselves in the virtual reality of video games report reduced levels of anxiety and pain. 4. Improves eye sight. In 2009, scientists from the University of Rochester compared the vision of expert action gamers playing shooting titles like Call of Duty compared to less experienced action gamers playing The Sims 2. Those playing the first person shooters found that their ability to distinguish subtle changes in the brightness of an image had improved a skill the researchers relate to tasks like driving at night. 5. Treats depression. Researchers from New Zealand have created their own video game which is designed to treat depressed teenagers as an alternative to conventional counselling. The acronym SPARX stands for ‘smart, positive, active, realistic and x-factor thoughts’, strategies which have been previously proven to help fight depression. The game itself involves creating an avatar who explores a fantasy world with the aim of removing ‘gloomy, negative automatic thoughts’ in an effort to restore order to the land. Each level incorporates facts about depression and strategies that can be used to help deal with negative thoughts within the game play. 6. Improves education in kids. In the last few years, one game in particular has dominated the industry in a way never seen before, drawing players into worlds of their own design for literally hours on end. Minecraft has sold millions of copies and its success shows no sign of slowing down, but for those of you who are worried about fans spending hours watching Youtube videos of others playing the game, research has demonstrated that the educational benefits of Minecraft are almost limitless in scope.

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.

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 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 am sorry my definition of rap was not up to par. I found it on a website, it was not my own definition. I would also like to say to readers that I do NOT believe that rap music should be limited. I am doing this for a school project and solely that. I also thank my opponent for taking this debate, but I would like to point out that this is also very much so for researching aspects. If I say anything improper or has lack of evidence, I apologize. I am attempting to make this a real case scenario as much as possible for myself. ======= Argument 1 ======= Last time I checked, I am supposed to support my arguments with evidence that supports my side, not yours. So the POSITIVE (yes I can use caps as well) effects would not exactly prove my arguments well. ======= Rebuttal ======= 'Findings thus far are mixed, but overall they suggest that listening to rap music does not cause aggressive or deviant behaviour.' [1] I would like to bring attention to the findings are MIXED, there is grey area in this situation. Therefore, it can still cause aggressive and deviant behaviour. 'Another study found that adolescent females, after watching a rap video depicting women in sexually subordinate roles, were more inclined to express acceptance of violence against women in a dating situation. However, increased acceptance of crime and violence appears to be linked with viewing violent or sexist rap videos rather than listening to rap music on its own.' [1] Yes I agree that it is not only rap music on it's own, but the production of rap music equals the production of rap videos (in most scenarios). ======== '"The thing is: the young people who are very impressionable want to make it big in a similar way. But the danger here is that the young people at the street level…they don't have the same protection [as the commercial rap starts], and they are carrying guns. And young people are losing their lives. And this has been reflected from the role models that these people follow."[2] I believe this involved and aspiration to be part of the rap scene is the exact situation we are trying to avoid for adolescents and young adults everywhere. I agree that most successful rap artists come from impoverished backgrounds, but a lot of people who can familiarize themselves with them tend to follow their prior life style and fall in to the same bad habits, without the fame. Involvement with the rap scene has also put kids on the streets, trying to live their big dreams of becoming the next rap star. ======== '"Music forms an illusion and young people take it on board, because one known fact is that people connect to music lyrics, and these illusions are what young people take on and live with and try to portray in their own lifestyles, and that is such a big danger."[2] Explain how these behavioral problems before rap were not evident until rap was introduced? Frankly, on both parts, these will be biased opinions because there are scenarios for every situation possible. There are situations where people may develop the problem through the music, have had it before, or never occurred one throughout. Once again, it was never stated that rap music 100% did not influence this said behaviour. Limiting would solve the issues of children being able to walk into a store and buying vulgar and violent music. Little pictures on the bottom saying explicit content usually does not stop kids from buying it. It may be the responsibility of the parents and the individual themselves, but perhaps it is needed on a greater scale to be the responsibility of society to protect the future of tomorrow. '"If I had a choice I would say it should be completely be cut off, but the thing is they say forbidden fruit attracts, and I do believe that if there is a market you know then the negative rapping should be censored. And I'm not saying it should be 18 or 21, I do believe it should be censored to 25, because all young people, by the age of about 25, would have become fathers or they would have matured a little bit, and that's when they will be able to actually make up their minds in relation to what should be heard in the house and that shouldn't be" [2] Also, for the infringement upon civil liberties, that could go any way regarding any issue. Such as: drinking age, age of eligibility to vote. etc. ================== In conclusion, there may not be consistent evidence that rap on its own significantly influences behaviour, but there is no consistent evidence that rap doesn't either. 'There are many other rappers who also feed young people the type of lyrics that can influence positive thinking. These artists are usually not in the mainstream but you can find their music online.' [3] Therefore the rap music that is in mainstream, that is violent and negative, should be limited. [1] http://cognitive-psychology.suite101.com... [2] http://static.rnw.nl... [3]http://www.goarticles.com...

REBUTTAL(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......Here is an article on eyestrain. http://www.pasadenaeye.com...-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------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.......Yes, that is an extreme but many, many more smaller case incidents happen. Many people gain temporary anger and sadness over a lost game. That is quite normal, and is people's natural response. 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.http://katiecouric.com...There is some link between video game violence and real violence. Thus violent video gaming causes real violence.ARGUMENTExcessive playing of video games causes muscle stiffness especially in the shoulders. "Both muscle spasms and stiffness can be painful, though they are not always. You might feel the dull ache of stiff muscles, or a sharper pain if they spasm. Muscle problems can also interfere with good posture, causing back pain, for example." Muscle pain also causes many other interferences in life, such as inability to even stand or sit. http://www.mssociety.org.uk...http://www.healthcentral.com...

The thing is they're still blaming the video games more than they're blaming the parents. It is the parents job to make sure that any sort of weapon the child could bring to school is out of the child's reach. Yet society blaming the parents for buying the video games is not enough, the parents need to take at least most of the responsibility in this situation. Yes you bring up a very good points when it comes to child curiosity, and as a parent then they should understand this and make sure that they don't let this curiosity allow for the child to do something that shouldn't.

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

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.


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

Parents hold the primary responsibility for raising their children properly. Firstly, parents have the choice not to purchase violent video games. However, there are instances where they might not check the game ratings, inadvertently purchasing highly violent games for young children. As children are highly impressionable, absorbing and mimicking what they witness, this can potentially lead to concerning behaviors.

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.

In the following study, a Group was asked to play mario 64 for 20 minutes a day. http://www.kurzweilai.net...; The result: Increased grey matter in the section fo the brain that controlls moto functions and navigational ability over the control group which was not allowed to play video games in the same time frame.The following study was funded by the United States airforce and conducted by Katholieke Univestiy in Belgium. http://www.plosone.org...The result: Real Time Strategy games (RTS) are shown to improve neural placity related to stratgic thinking. These studies and many more including this one:http://www.huffingtonpost.com...Which shows even very small amount of gaming is capable of staving off metnal detteoriation associated with aging. And this study: http://news.nationalgeographic.com...; Showing improvement in eyesight.The abstract conclusion is that these games are akin to mental excercises, the mnd responds to stimulation in a way that is not dissimiliar from stimulating muscles. http://www.wikihow.com...; <- A neat article if aonly slightly anecdotal.

I am going to be in the center on this issue. Although some teens can handle violent video games, some can not. Some, in studies, have become more aggressive and less-agreeable due to the playing of violent video games. My personal position is that we should not take risks; violent video games should be more strongly prohibited against teens than now. I believe that a parent can decide what is right for their children - but the teen should not be able to buy the game without parental consent.

Now your first argument states that video games change a person, well that is not true the percentage of violence is the same in both game playing and non-game playing individuals. What does 13 hours of gaming a week have to do with anything it is simply 111.428571 minutes a day which amounts to 1.85714285 hours a day who cares. Your 65% chance that it is a violent video game is irrelevant beacuse of what I said about the percentages of violence being the same, and if violence is their isn't the simple fact that we show violence on T. V. , in history textbooks, and insistently in the News just as bad, I am quite certain that you do not see it that way so your facts still remain pointless. Fights in school tend to have no basis upon the games they play it has mostly to do with how they are being raised, and other situations but video games do not play any true part within the origins of the bully behavior. Finally what does the movie Saw have to do with anything (or the game they made from it) it does not show you how to build those contraptions of death, it does not show you how to do anything of that nature and the fact still remains it does not show your child how to commit those heinous actions and it is more likely to give people nightmares than to make hem go around in a pigs mask and put them in a room with a tape cassette and tell them "You have one hour to cut off your leg if you want to live". . http://www.associatedcontent.com... . http://www.switched.com... . http://arstechnica.com... . http://www.thebluebanner.net... . http://www.geeknewscentral.com... . http://southeastpsych.blogspot.com... . http://childbehaviourtips.com... . http://www.selfhelpmagazine.com... . http://www.xbox360achievements.org... . http://www.salon.com... For your second argument I would like to inform you that I already know not all parents are caring, but my points from the previous paragraph still remain that the amount of violence remains the same for both parties. The parents also can go right up to the register and ask for about what the ratings mean, read the back label of the game that will elaborate the meaning of the rating as well as give a description of the game contents, and they can simply go to the ESRB website for rating information. Only a minority of parents are not actively involved in their children's lives. The point remains that parents still retain the ultimate control over the games they play. . http://www.unmarried.org... . http://atomsfamily.net... . http://www.mhea.com... . http://www.esrb.org... . http://www.freedomfromfear.org... . http://www.aboutourkids.org... Your 3rd argument coincided with what I had said that you do not need to pay sports to get physically fit. I never said they had to go to gyms at school they can go to any gym available, and I also said that they did not need a gym they can simply jog around. Also remember the fact that many ids have parents which will not let their kids go outside and play sports, and that some kids have so much work to do that they cannot take time out of their schedules to play sports. What is this I hear about you saying they are too young to be interested in their careers it is never too early for one to be interested in their career which will effect how they will live for the rest of your life. Remember that the majority of people who spends time playing video games do not spend all of their time eating, and if one wants to be physically fit they will attempt to do so it makes no sense to force them and if the parents want them to be fit then they will make them exercise. Also now more than ever I would like to point out a series of reasons children no longer go outside as much: they can live in a bad neighborhood in which it is safer to stay inside than outside, too much work at school, horrible weather conditions, too many extracurricular activities, parents are too strict, they have many household chores that need completion, etc . . . etc . . . . http://www.quintcareers.com... . http://career-advice.monster.com... . http://www.nsls.info... . http://www.aicpa.org... . http://focusonyourfuture.org... . http://www.collegenet.com... . http://sweet_stuffva.tripod.com... . http://www.cmt.com... . http://www.parenting.com... . http://www.ehow.com... . http://today.msnbc.msn.com... . http://www.experienceproject.com... . http://www.whitehutchinson.com... . http://boingboing.net... . http://articles.latimes.com... . http://www.nwf.org... For your IV argument I want to know a 17% increase since when, you make no elaboration upon the argument hence I say that it bears no weight. Another thing is that video games do not show you how to jack a car the simply show people doing it but never in enough detail to teach you to hijack the car, if a kid truly wanted to learn to jack a car all they have to do is read a basic car design book or look it up on the internet as well as take a basic automotive course at school so don't even bother blaming the game in this regard. Research shows that people who pay video games are no more aggressive than those that don't so that argument also remains futile. You also show no direct link to that child who stole a car and the presence of video games so how does it bear any weight in the regards of your argument, the quick answer is that it doesn't. Last I need to point out that simply beacuse violence in schools are on the rise that does not mean that video games are the culprit there is more of a link between parent,monetary, and social situations and crime in schools than video games in this subject. So in the end your arguments are simply subjective generalization and scapegoating on video games. . http://www.bitmob.com... . http://www.pbs.org... . http://boards.ign.com... . http://www.megaessays.com... . http://www2.uwstout.edu... . http://www.vancouversun.com...= I would like to point out one more thing , I never said that "Crime rate since video games have ben out" nor have I ever implied that all I had stated is that violence has been around since the dawn of civilization and that video games have nothing to do with it.

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

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!

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.

I think we should because people don't commit crimes because of video games. If they did then so does movies, news, shows, and everything. that is why i say people should be able to play video games.

Neither do I, but just for the sake of this argument, I'll accept the opposing position. While there's little to no evidence supporting the claim that video games cause violence, perhaps there is a case to be made that certain types of violence are unacceptable in games. So I'm mainly going to focus on games that go "too far". (I will freely admit that I've moved the goalpost a bit, but I do this because of the lack of evidence on my side of the debate). With the possible exceptions of psychopaths, sociopaths and severe narcisists, everyone has a line they will not cross. Where this line lies is different for each individual, yet there are some subjects that illicit (or would illicit) such outrage from the general public, that banning it might not be such a bad idea. Let's imagine a game that would involve raping children. No matter how much you object to censorship, I doubt that many people would defend a game such as this and would not see banning it as an infringement on free expression. The horror that people will feel when confronted with such a game even existing is enough to override any reservations they might have concerning the banning of a videogame. So, yes, games that overstep certain boundries should be banned if there is a general concensus with the public.

There should be violence in video games because if there isn't our society would fall apart


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

Can video games have positive aspects?

The argument that video games, particularly those with violent content, may contribute to youth violence is complex and multifaceted. While studies like Anderson & Bushman (2001) suggest that children who engage with violent video games might exhibit increased aggression and decreased prosocial behavior, the correlation is not always consistent. For instance, some experts, including Henry Jenkins from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, have observed a decrease in juvenile crime rates coinciding with the popularity of games like Death Race, Mortal Kombat, and Grand Theft Auto. Jenkins posits that teenagers can compartmentalize the emotional impact of these games, leaving them behind once the game is over.

On the other hand, the American Psychological Association (APA) has found a "consistent correlation" between violent video game usage and aggression, although it acknowledges a lack of evidence linking such games directly to criminal violence. This conclusion has been challenged by a group of media scholars, psychologists, and criminologists who argue that the APA's findings are misleading and sensationalized.

The social impact of video games is another area of concern. While excessive gaming can lead to social isolation, studies by researchers at North Carolina State University, New York, and the University of Ontario Institute of Technology indicate that gaming can expand rather than replace offline social lives for many players. However, there are concerns that some games might teach children inappropriate values, such as rewarding violent behavior over peaceful conflict resolution. Women are also often portrayed negatively in these games.

In terms of academic performance, studies have shown that excessive video game playing is associated with poorer school performance, as noted by researchers like Anderson & Dill (2000) and Gentile, Lynch & Walsh (2004). Additionally, video games may negatively impact health, contributing to issues like obesity and video-induced seizures.

The potential for video games to confuse reality and fantasy is another worry, as is the risk of online dangers when playing games that connect players with others. Addiction to video games can increase depression and anxiety levels in children, affecting their school performance, as found by the Minneapolis-based National Institute for Media and the Family.

However, not all the effects of video games are negative. Some studies suggest that violent games may contribute to better real-world behavior by making gamers more sensitive to the moral issues they encounter during gameplay. Moreover, games can enhance a child's concentration in short bursts, although they might also damage long-term concentration.

In conclusion, while there are valid concerns about the potential negative impacts of violent video games on

I argue that the exposure to video game violence does not contribute significantly to school shootings, but rather, the living environment of the individual.

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?

In conclusion, video games are better than books.

Of course, it may seem that games such as Fortnite and other FPS games contribute to violent behavior and aggression, they aren't. I do understand where you're coming from, it would make sense that playing a game involving repetitive fighting and killing would change how someone acts, but that isn't the case. No one in their right mind thinks that since being violent on a game is okay, that duplicating that violent behavior is okay in real life. Most people who play these kinds of games are normal people seeking a way to pass the time, maybe a bit too much or too seriously admittedly, but not to the degree where they begin to adopt a violent behavior in real life. Majority of people who play games understand that games, especially games such as Fornite or GTA, do not apply to real life, and (most of them) know not to be emulate the character they are playing in the game. It's common knowledge and common sense. The reason why many criminals such as the Parkland shooter play these games in my opinion was as a way to escape reality at least for a time being, and being unable to realize that the things shown on games are not examples to follow. If he wasn't able to get the right treatment or help then he would likely have maintained those beliefs up until the shooting. He didn't have much else to fall back on or rely on, and so adopted the beliefs of the game because it was a way to escape the harsh reality he lived in. He had development issues, lost his father at age five, and felt separated from everyone else. It would only make sense then, that games attached to his personality. Now, I am not a person with any of these kinds of problems, so if my guess is wrong, please let me know, but this shows that it isn't the games fault, but rather the player's mental status, and shows that games may just be a result of the actual problem at hand. Mental illness gives people a higher chance to adopt violent tendencies, video games have not been shown to increase that same chance. Cruz was diagnosed with plenty of these disorders alongside anger issues and depression. He had trouble making friends and was bullied himself. He wasn't provided with the help he needed and therefore, developed aggressive tendencies because of it. Video games likely were only a minor stem of the problem. People need to be able to trust that people know what's wrong and what's right when playing video games. It is only when someone may feel lost, depressed, or mentally ill, that violent behavior is more likely to be adopted. We can't shift the solution from helping those with these issues to banning video games because they are violent. Sources: https://www.forbes.com... http://www.sun-sentinel.com... https://www.theatlantic.com... https://www.nbcnews.com...

i think playing violent video games can cause brain damage and they do nat spend time there family.they also can start fight in school

it is rather unfair to day all games are violent as some are made to maximise your mental capacity for stuff like memory and problem solving and yeah i cant think of any thing else :(

. Since your argument is that video games caused NO violence it is easy to prove you wrong. Most of gaming today is online, and alot of yelling, remote bashing, and violent actions occur when certain people play them. Ever hear of the term swatting? It's when one gamer calls the SWAT team on another gamer http://www.theblaze.com...

Can you prove that stricter laws lower the crime rate? To me, what I see is mass media becoming more popular and violent crime going down. Criminals adapt to laws. Stricter laws can be overcome as soon as someone figures out how. I stand by my previous evidence; crime rate has gone down, mass media use has gone up. I see no way to prove mass media is the main cause of violent crime.

Ok well first off I thought you were taking the other side on this debate. However it was my mistake I will do my best. Counter #1: You say that almost all of the mass murders were carried out by mentally ill people. However you do not know why they killed those people. They very well could have been influenced by video games. As a matter of fact being mentally ill will make someone even more submissive to video games influence. Example: A mass shooting in Washington, D.C. In which an angry, mentally-ill young man shot and killed a dozen of his fellow citizens. This happened on the week that the popular game Grand Theft Auto V came out. Now just because they are close to each other does not prove anything. This report was made on the subject: According to Media Matters, MSNBC"s Mika Brzezinski of the Morning Joe show said that "it"s kind of hard not to make a connection [between games and the Navy Yard shooting] when you hear [the shooter's] friend saying that he would watch on a life size screen these violent video games for hours and hours and hours and hours and hours." The Telegraph"s Nick Allen described the shooter"s "darker side" which "saw him playing violent "zombie" video games in his room, sometimes from 12.30pm until 4.30am." Is it odd to describe a mass murderer"s "darker side" not as his killings or other unstable interactions with people, but as an activity he shares with millions of other people? (http://www.forbes.com...) Counter #2: Now just as you said in your first argument,"Almost all of the homicides, and mass murders in public are carried out by mentally ill persons." The video games are affecting the mentally ill not so much normal people. I too play video games but if a mentally ill person is playing GTAV then maybe they think it is possible. I cannot write my opposing argument due to the limit. However I want voters to remember I accidentally started this.

You didn't really argue at all. You copied my whole argument and said how "wrong" I was and said I should "accept the truth". Not only that but you had no sources whatsoever to provee I was "wrong". I will make one final statement. Don't let this person take away the fun you're allowed to have by playing games.


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

Resolved: Violent video games do not lead to increased aggressive behavior in youth.

Greetings, 16kadams! I will argue against the notion that violent video games contribute to increased aggressive behavior in young people. The onus is on the opposing side to prove their contention.

1. The alleged connection is ambiguous

Premise 1: If a definitive connection between violent video games and violence exists, the opposing side meets their burden of proof.
Premise 2: There is no definitive link between violent video games and violence.
Conclusion: The opposing side does not meet their burden of proof.

Justification for Premise 2: Although several studies claim to demonstrate a connection between violence and violent video games, recent research indicates otherwise. Real-life environments differ from controlled experimental settings in terms of their influence on individuals. Studies have shown that violent media sometimes correlates with increased violence, but at other times, the relationship inverts. This suggests that the connection between the two is more likely correlational rather than causal (http://www.sciencedaily.com...).

2. Violence rates have been declining, despite the growing popularity of video games

Premise 1: If violent video games cause violence, the increasing popularity of violent video games should lead to higher violence rates.
Premise 2: Despite the rising popularity of violent video games, violence rates have been decreasing.
Conclusion: Violent video games do not cause violence.

Justification for Premise 2: Despite the growing popularity of video games between 1990 and 2010, crime rates actually dropped (https://commons.wikimedia.org...)(http://www.bjs.gov...). This indicates a lack of correlation between violent video game popularity and crime rates. Furthermore, the video game industry has been expanding at an annual rate of around 16.7% (http://www.forbes.com...), reinforcing the lack of a causal relationship between violent video games and increased aggression in youth.

Video games are not a “good” way to earn money. They are a way to earn money the same as selling drugs is a way to earn money, or becoming a stripper is a way to earn money. Competitions have high entry fees and are oversaturated with savants. The average game player would probably make more money starting a garage band than playing video games. Unless you mean making money for the game makers, and the advertisers. There seems to be a market for people who want to sit on the couch and do nothing for 30-40 hours a week. Game makers are giving visual content to stories that would otherwise be non-existent. The problem is that many of those stories should have stayed that way. Sitting on your couch keeps you from doing other stuff like taking out the trash, paying attention to your actual surroundings, and getting good sleep. You can’t be attentive all the time, but it’s better to be attentive during the time you can be. Video games are great way to play with a computer and call it your friend. MMO’s restrict non-verbal communication which truly the core of all communication whether you believe it’s 93% of all communication or some other number. Gaming also restricts interactive physical contact. Sure if you are in the same room as second player, you can trade jabs and eat popcorn together, but when it comes to online you might as well be playing with NPC’s. You sit alone and talk to your computer telling it to pick up certain items, or perform certain tasks. The only difference between an NPC and a player controlled by another human being is variable response. Your actions and their actions are both limited by the game which acts as interference between both people. One person interacts with the game, the game interacts with the other player, the other player interacts back. Fighting genre games can prove that many players have no clue what the player next to them is doing, the buttons they press are in response to the characters on the screen not the thumb and finger movements of the player. Many players consider movement off the screen as a distraction and refuse to take their eyes away from the screen for even one moment. A girl could be standing there naked for all they know, they will not turn away and are completely shut off from their environment. What good are reflexes if they only occur in your thumbs? Reflexes come from doing task repetitively and continuously responding the same way to certain stimuli. Pavlov’s Dog is an example of this. Master rings a bell, it’s time to eat. Zombie pops out at you x,x,x,x,x, rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. You’re physical reflexes are diminishing as you spend more and more time practicing being immobile. Better at multi-tasking? There’s a cliché that calls some people a “Jack of all trades…A master of none.” Too much “multi-tasking” cause cognitive difficulties when it comes to focusing on a single event. Many people call that ADD, ADHD, and Hyper-Activity. In real life, skills build upon skills and trust comes from experience. I’m just not going to trust a guy who is always talking about how he knows about everything. Being good at more than one thing is great. Claiming to be good at everything is questionable. That time spent multi-tasking could have been spent making you a guru. I hope by help you with stress and the ability to focus on a certain thing. You mean epileptic seizures. Video games also cause epileptic seizures, so we’ll see if that is considered a good. There is a great variety of video games but they all have one thing in common. They are just dying to tell you how well you are at performing the tasks you are required to do. Here’s an example of that praise in truth. http://youtu.be...; As I have never played portal 2, I decided it would be best for me to research it on youtube and I found the said link to be a true gem in proving addiction to the praise that happens unnaturally in video games. The walk through makes it look easy, but it seems to come with a lot of frustration. I can imagine a player Back tracking, pushing buttons that don’t do anything, performing certain tasks in confusing unknown sequences all for a prerecorded message of adulation. And the points don’t go anywhere. They just stay on the disk. The accomplishments are not tangible, and they vary from game to game. I don’t want to repeat myself too much, but this sense of accomplishment is the reason why Angry Birds is such a widespread game. Each level starts with birds grumbling which induces stress. To relieve that stress, you must destroy all of the pigs. The music is very encouraging, but skips beats. The music plays tricks on the mind that cause panic and poor performance in the game. If you don’t destroy the pigs, they laugh at you and you try agian to overcome the percieved ridicule. If you do destroy the pigs a very warming praise comes from the birds. You are presented with your star achievements and then you are returned to a new level with the sound of stressed out birds. Sports video games are great, but imperial sports are better. Video games have lag, the lag of today’s game is less than the lag of years gone by but it’s still there. Lag causes movements in interactive video games to be repeated over and over. You mustn’t repeat movement over and over for others to notice them in real life as you do for the machine. In outdoor sports there are many factors which are not present in video games, First and foremost is running. Using your body to press against gravity and move yourself great distances far out ways the benefit of running in place. Many times the movements in interactive video games are not the same as they are in real life. In Wii bowling for example, the balance and weight of a 12 pound ball cannot be matched. The movements with the controller in your hand are much different than they are with a real ball and Wii has a lot of forgiveness. And it probably should, the player isn’t fighting gravity, or friction, or variations in lane composition which all add to the experience of doing tasks in real life.

Well what about those with physical disabilities that prevent them from being able to participate in physical sports such as chronic fatigue syndrome http://www.cdc.gov... or arthritis http://www.arthritis.org... and there is even a list of conditions on this page http://sped.wikidot.com... do you think it is wise for people with these physical disorders to participate in sports which could potentially worsen their conditions, I think not. The simple fact is not everybody can participate in physical activities due to bodily conditions so would it not be wise to let them play video games in order for them to entertain themselves? And how does sitting around your house playing video games make you a loser, from current trends in culture (well culture of the U.S.A.) people with game consoles (especially the newest ones) are held at a higher esteem and tend to be more popular in many social areas (this is more from a teens standpoint upon the subject) http://www.usatoday.com... http://www.examiner.com... http://www.associatedcontent.com... . I would also like to say this majority of programmers make a $53,964 salary http://www1.salary.com... and employment in this field is expected to continue to rise http://www.bls.gov... http://www.infoworld.com... you can also see some of the "perks" of their jobs (so to speak) and from what can be seen people who are interested in video games tend to be interested in programming http://mvpmodelingsolutions.com... http://www.racialicious.com... http://degreedirectory.org... now what are the odds of getting into any major league sport .00565% chance of that happening http://www.thesportdigest.com... http://forum.bodybuilding.com... , now are those high or low odds I am fairly certain that is considered to be a low probability bu the odds of being a programmer are significantly higher such as nearly 100% if you put your mind to it http://freelanceprogramming.blogspot.com... http://www.articlesbase.com... http://www.educationcenteronline.org... . You see video games interest the young in other fields of expertise other than that of a pro-athlete which you have a low chance of becoming. Although I agree that sports can help you stay physically fit that is not the only way, you can simply go to a gym and use the exercise room or jog it is not necessary to play sports in order to maintain physical fitness http://www.thedigeratilife.com... http://ezinearticles.com... . Playing video games also comes with certain benefits such as improving hand-eye coordination and enhancing creativity http://www.selfgrowth.com... . The idea of who is and who isn't a loser is a subjective matter due to the way you use it hence bearing no weight for I am fairly certain that people with a chance at making higher wages and a low chance of going out of business seem pretty cool to me, just use Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Steve Wozniak as a reference http://dictionary.reference.com... http://www.microsoft.com... http://allaboutstevejobs.com... http://www.woz.org... .

"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".

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...

Many of you have probably played Fortnight. Its a battle royal styled shooter. Although it is a fun game, its addictive and causes aggression. Send Feedback

Greetings! The first part of this debate, “Do kids imitate what they see on screen, cinema, videogames, etc.” is largely an evidence battle. I, as Pro, will be asserting that yes, children do, in fact, become more violent for watching violent movies or television shows or playing violent video games. I feel more than well-supported by the scientific literature here. First, children who played violent video games were found to be more aggressive in the next months, regardless of nationality. [1] Although the studies in the referenced meta-analysis likely used adults, given the similarities in reactions to various social situations between children and adults, I’d suggest that evidence of video-game-induced violence in adults could also be used as evidence of video-game-induced violence in children. [2] I present two other studies which not only conclude that players of violent video games tend toward more violent behavior, but offer explanations of the mechanisms involved. [3][4] Second, there are also multiple studies indicating the same increase in aggression linked to other violent media. [5][6][7] Again, I feel as though the scientific literature supports my position here. Feel free to contest the evidence provided or provide counter-evidence for dispute. The second part of this debate, “Should we stop it,” is a moral decision. However, I believe this is easily answered by asking ourselves if we want to predispose large numbers of the future generations to more violent behavior. I think any rational person would agree that this is not something we want for the future. Under a utilitarian stance, as the benefit of violent video games (short term pleasure) does not even come close to cancelling out the potential negative outcomes (a higher propensity for war, violent crimes, overall rudeness, crudeness, and douchebaggery), I suggest that, if it can be established with reasonable certainty that violent video games, movies, and television shows cause more violent behavior in children, they should be withheld from them. [1] http://pediatrics.aappublications.org... [2] http://www.soc.iastate.edu... [3] http://web.missouri.edu... [4] http://lol.medieraadet.dk... [5] http://www.psychology.iastate.edu... [6] http://pediatrics.aappublications.org... [7] http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...

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.

Having video games at school is educational.It brings in new information it also helps their memory if players are able to memorize the proceed farther into the game they are playing therefor it does help memory.If my opponent thinks it is good not to let children have these benefits then what will happen to all the children out there who love new information. thank you

For this debate I would like to clarify the points I will be making. 1. When you play video games of any sort you are submitting yourself to anything that people may want to say to you or about you during, before, or even after the gameplay.2. People have their own opinions. It may not be the nicest thing to judge someone upon the game they play and call them a "dork", and I do not think that is right to say, but hey! America is a free country. 3. If people are mean to you that doesn't mean you should be mean back. I'm not saying that you can't be mean back, but try being the bigger person. Maybe they will learn to not treat other people in a bad way if they see how even though they may be being rude to you, you are still kind back. Thank you for debating. I look forward to see your next argument.

I think we should because people don't commit crimes because of video games. If they did then so does movies, news, shows, and everything. that is why i say people should be able to play video games.


Question: Can aggressive video games lead to increased juvenile delinquency?

Violent Video Games and Youth Violence

While I concur that numerous video games are excessively violent and can encourage violent and criminal behavior, there are other contributing factors to consider. One significant factor is parental involvement. The absence of a parental figure can have a profound impact on children, potentially leading them to develop suicidal or violent tendencies. According to an article titled "Do Video Games Make Teens Violent?" published by NewsMic, excessive exposure to violent video games can detract from time spent in positive, nurturing environments. In summary, video games by themselves do not directly cause violence, but in conjunction with other factors, they can contribute to harmful outcomes.

I am defining children as people between the ages of 10 and 18 I contention 1: TV and video games distort reality. Contention 2: The majority of games children play are violent contention 3: it has been proven that tv and video games influence obesity rates

The thing is they're still blaming the video games more than they're blaming the parents. It is the parents job to make sure that any sort of weapon the child could bring to school is out of the child's reach. Yet society blaming the parents for buying the video games is not enough, the parents need to take at least most of the responsibility in this situation. Yes you bring up a very good points when it comes to child curiosity, and as a parent then they should understand this and make sure that they don't let this curiosity allow for the child to do something that shouldn't.

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.

REBUTTALThe 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. I did not make an assumption between video gaming and bad posture. The link is here: http://www.healthcentral.com.... And, if playing video games itself is bad enough, playing it EVERY DAY is certainly worse.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 are proven benefits that video games can benefit a person who plays games daily.Even if violent video gaming does not correlate to real violence COMPLETELY, there is still a risk, and that risk increases exponentially as days go by. So, video gaming every day is certainly NOT good for you.CONCLUSION In conclusion video gaming every day is not good because of the eye strain it provides. Since video games hook people in, the effects are multiplied. Video games also sometimes causes real violence and muscle stiffness which is very interfering with life. Overall, video gaming is certainly NOT good for you.I would like to thank my opponent for her time and arguments.Thank you.

"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".

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.

However, it can't be denied that there exists video games that people can benefit from. For children, specifically, it can just be math, reading, or academic based games that will assist them in school. I'm sure that they would much rather complete a math problem in a video game, where it is embellished, rather than a math book, where it's just "bleh". I'm totally on board with placing limitations on the violent video games you have in mind, but I don't agree with removing ALL video games.

While it might interest some in harming others, it's highly unlikely. People with stable minds know that what is shown on screen is not actually happening in real life. You must be utterly sick-minded to think off attaching a chain saw to a gun, and actually killing people that way. To even imagine that, you need to be confined to a mental institute. I stil also don't see why people keep singling out video games as a source of violence, when most R rated movies explicitly depict violence in MUCH MUCH worse ways. The amount of blood in Halo is minor, even the amount of blood in Black Ops is. Also, most games have gore filters.

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?

Watch your words. The one you have just "copied" was to contradict your stand. Oh, what was your stand again? Video games are good for you. Now that you have admitted that it depends upon the people it now contrast badly. Why? Video games are not good and saying that it depends upon the people means that it is not good to all people. In fact, the right words to use where "gaming has benefits." And maybe no one would've stood up to conquer you. You have misused words. Gaming is not good. Good is the definition of the results when these benefits implies to a person. Let me teach you some lesson, 1 gaming is not good 2 good is the definition if the benefits have impinged to an individual 3 misuse of words is misleading and may construct an invalid argumentative reason and 4 try not to geneneralize people. As what I've said, people have different ways of thinking. If we had one way of thinking and then the benefits of gaming would imply to us and using the terms "Gaming is good" would be acceptable. I'm not really here to say gaming is bad but I truly object your agenda. Once again, gaming is not good.