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

Violent video games indeed lead to poor conduct in youngsters.
Well, I concur, but I will make an effort to present a compelling counterargument. Firstly, in the context of entertainment, individuals aged 17 and above are deemed adults, negating any argument. Secondly, your assertion that "You probably have the cognitive capacity to refrain from going on a killing spree" actually bolsters my stance that "violent video games do not contribute to aggression." Most people possess the mental acumen to distinguish right from wrong. Thirdly, your point further validates my argument. You mentioned that individuals attribute their violent behavior to video games. By using the term "attribute," it can be inferred that the actions were not directly triggered by the games themselves.
Closing Thoughts
Let me remind you, are you in favor or opposed to the notion that violence is a result of video games? Your stance appears somewhat ambiguous, haha. Regardless, I look forward to your reply!

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?

I see your point, even though people don't go out and copy what they do in Call of Duty. Online gaming when not played responsibility does damage the player especially if he/she is young. Just like alcohol and other addictive substances, online video gaming when not played RESPONSIBLY sets the player down a dark path. http://healthland.time.com...

The Affirmative has shown little argument; one sentence was scripted to their constructive. We're gonna talk about that for a little while. 1. The affirmative has listed three reasons that video games are somehow good for kids. But how do they know? The sources in their argument are nowhere to be found in the argument and the reasons are poorly constructed. 2. Hand Eye Coordination? What Hand eye coordination? More like Thumb Eye coordination. Granted, video games may improve reaction time for a Soccer Goalkeeper, but how well would a soccer goalie reach for an incoming ball if he was solely trained on pressing buttons on a console controller for his entire career. Xbox Kinect is a different story, because A) I doubt that anybody uses it today, B) the Affirmative has made no attempt to confirm the type of console the gamers would be using. 3. Social Skills. The possible social skills that could be developed by this are either playing online or in the same room, or playing with random strangers online. You can't develop social skills with close friends because those relationships have already been developed. Close friends become closer mostly through hardships and difficult periods in life. If you lose a kill streak on Call of Duty, I would have difficulty placing that in the category I described- I would identify that as something to laugh about later in life. As for connecting with random strangers, that is a dangerous game you are playing with your personal safety. Who knows how easily a predator can hide online and give/get personal info? It could be a sexual predator or a drug dealer, and this is most definitely not an ideal environment for young children and adolescents to be surrounding themselves with. 4. Improvement of Imagination? do you mean "Improvement" as in to stop homicidal/genocidal thoughts? I'm afraid that a first-person shooter will not improve that sort of imagination, rather than to fuel the thoughts and strengthen the killing mindset. If it means just to "Expand" one's imagination, that would be probably more true, because the thought of playing in a completely made-up world is quite expansive...but then again, what imagination do you use if the world is already made up for you by a corporation? Here are some stock issues Harm: As stated above, the arguments the affirmative have stated have all been proven wrong. All four points are now being provided as harms to the resolution. Inherency: There is a noticeable trend between childhood obesity and new introductions of consoles and videogames. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) research center in Atlanta, GA, has concluded statistics within this trend. ""Approximately 17% (or 12.7 million) of children and adolescents aged 2"19 years are obese "The prevalence of obesity among children aged 2 to 5 years decreased significantly from 13.9% in 2003-2004 to 8.4% in 2011-2012. In 2011-2012, 8.4% of 2- to 5-year-olds had obesity compared with 17.7% of 6- to 11-year-olds and 20.5% of 12- to 19-year-olds.Childhood obesity is also more common among certain racial and ethnic groups. "In 2011-2012, the prevalence among children and adolescents was higher among Hispanics (22.4%) and non-Hispanic blacks (20.2%) than among non-Hispanic whites (14.1%). "The prevalence of obesity was lower in non-Hispanic Asian youth (8.6%) than in youth who were non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black or Hispanic. Note: In children and adolescents age 2 to 19 years, obesity was defined as a body mass index (BMI) at or above the 95th percentile of the sex-specific CDC BMI-for-age growth charts." Source: http://www.cdc.gov... The trend between the two issues continues to grow at an alarming rate. Above, I have attacked the affirmative for a poor argument and turned the tables to them. And to the affirmative- If you used a poorly structured argument to expose my views to use for a school paper you have not finished, I have two things to say. 1) Credit me when your classmates see you get rest 2) Shame on you. Plagiarism is not cool.

There are many reasons video games are not bad for people. I will name just a few. 1. ) Exercise. Video games can include exercise. The Wii requires movement. A few games are Wii Sports, Just Dance, and Wii Sports Resort. Video games that require a controller can help build finger and hand muscle. 2. ) Video games can actually help older children when it comes to school. War games can help in history. Survival games can help in science. Math can be found in pretty much any game. Cooking games can help with home economics. 3. ) Video games are a way for people and children to hang out when the weather outside is not very good (rain, snow, thunderstorm, etc. ). It can be a way for them to interact and find out things they have in common. It can also benefit families. Some families have family game night that is dedicated just to video games. This way, parents and children can spend time together and do something both can enjoy. Thank you for debating with me.

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

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.

What I meant by "violence" was children or adults who play video games becoming murderers, there is definitely violence when it comes to swatting but that it not the type I was referring to. I meant like people who play Call of Duty going out and reenacting what they just did in the game on real innocent people.

Thanks to Bennet91 for accepting. Let's jump right in!I. Pornography and aggressionIn a 2007 study by Dr. Malaamuth of the University of California, an expert in the field who has done 14 studies regarding pornography and sexual aggression (and even more regarding other psychological aspects of pornography) [1][2], and Dr. Vanessa Vega of Stanford University, it was found that the use of pornography increased the amounts of hostility and aggression towards women, and also significantly increased the “rape myth” among men (r^2 = 0.361) [3]. A 1994 study by Dr. Boeringer found a significant correlation between hardcore pornography and sexually aggressive behaviors, as well as an increased likelihood of rape [4][5] (ranging from r = 0.22 to 0.4 for softcore and violent pornography). A 1991 study found a significant correlation between pornography exposure and likely hood to sexual harassment (r = 0.42) [6]. In yet another 2010 study by Dr. Malaamuth, Dr. Hald, and Dr. Yuen, they claimed, “Across four studies and 1,394 participants the average correlation between violent pornography and attitudes supporting violence against women using a fixed effect model was found to be significant (r = .24) [7]. The table from this study is shown below: Why is there a significant relationship between pornography and sexual aggression? Because pornographic material frequently depicts such scenarios. A 2010 study selected 50 random pornographic films from the most rented adult films (As rated by the Adult Video Network) and found that 88% of the scenes involved physical violence, anywhere from slapping and spanking to rape [8]. Considering all this, it is no wonder that the Attorney General claimed, “When clinical and experimental research has focused particularly on sexually violent material, the conclusions have been virtually unanimous. In both clinical and experimental settings, exposure to sexually violent materials has indicated an increase in the likelihood of aggression.” [9] Furthermore, as Dr. Jensen from the University of Texas states, “no lab experiment can replicate the common male practice of masturbating to pornography…Orgasm is a powerful physical and emotional experience that is central to the pornographic experience…most critics of the experimental research caution that such studies may overstate the effects, for these reasons it is just as likely that the research underestimates pornography's role in promoting misogynistic attitudes and behavior.”[10] In yet another study, sexually abused women were asked: “Has your partner ever upset you by trying to get you to do what he'd seen in pornographic pictures, movies, or books?”. 39% responded yes. [10] In another study [11], 198 abused women were asked if their partner used pornography. Of the 198 sexually abused women, 40.9% claimed their partners frequently used pornography. Roughly 300,000 women are raped annually [12] II. Pornography harms relationships Another point to make is that pornography is harmful to relationships. Roughly 40-50% of marriages in the US end in divorce [13]. According to divorce attorneys, the use of pornography is a contributing factor to 56% of divorces [14]. 26.2% of women consider pornography use unacceptable while in a relationship [15]. Yet another study has shown that male pornography use causes negative sexual quality in a relationship [16]. Another study shows that 30% of women thought that their partner had failed them for using pornography [17]. It also found that 24% of women felt weak or stupid for not taking a stronger stance against their partner’s pornography use. Finally, it found that 25% of women thought their partner’s pornography use meant he cared about them less. 33% felt replaced by the women in the pornography. For these reasons, pornography is harmful to relationships, which are the backbone of society. III. Pornography is habit forming Pornography causes arousal, which causes a surge in dopamine, a chemical in the brain which causes pleasure [18][21]. I don’t think anyone disputes men find pornography and the accompanying masturbation pleasurable. However, the problem is that this becomes habit forming. The reason is that pornography is very similar to internet addiction [19][23][24]. The way this addiction works is that there is always something new to click on. When something becomes old and boring, and the dopamine levels in the brain decrease, there is some new novelty to look at, which causes a new surge in dopamine. Pornography is the same way. A medical study found that repeated exposure to the same erotic literature was correlated with a decrease in arousal [20]. The more the subjects saw the same porno over and over again, the less arousing it became. Here is a graph which illustrates the arousal of the subject: Do you see the massive jump in the penile circumference and subjective arousal around 19-20? Guess what happened there. They changed it to a new erotic clip of a different woman. This means since pornography is similar to internet addiction, and since people get bored of the same porn, one would expect to see a decreased sensitivity to pornography. In a survey of online pornography users, when asked if their tastes in pornography had changed [22] This is exactly what we expected. 64% of these users claimed they developed a taste for more extreme porn. I’m sure most readers either know of a person who finds pornography very habit forming, or perhaps you are one of them. Remember, that in order for something to be considered significantly habit forming, it doesn’t have to hook everyone immediately. 80% of people who try cocaine do not become addicted [25]. Thus, while not everyone who looks at porn may develop a porn habit, pornography is still habit forming. IV. Pornography warps views of sex I’m going to be blunt and politically incorrect here. Pornography is a lie. With all the evidence I’ve weighed so far, I believe the readers will be lenient if I don’t source the hell out of this argument. Pornography depicts sexual fantasies which are almost non-existent in the real world. It completely ignores the relationship aspect, and focuses on mere sexual intercourse. In fact, I’m sure any pornography user knows very well that the focus is on the penetration or the sexual act itself [26]. Average pornography users find porn at a very young age (usually sometime during puberty. When an impressionable young mind is shown hardcore intercourse which completely ignores any sort of chivalry, this can form the way a young boy views sex and cause sexual promiscuity [27][28][29]. There are also studies which correlate higher genital and sexual insecurity as well as loneliness with the use of pornography [30][31]. In fact, 45% of men think they are sexually incapable of pleasing their female partner due to having a small penis [32][33]. However, 85% of women are satisfied with their partner. Furthermore, 28% of internet users age 10-17 stumble upon pornography unintentionally [34]. This means that porn will affect many people who do not want to be. Thus, for all the reasons outlined above, pornography causes warped views of sex and sexuality and is harmful to society.V. Porn causes an increase in STDs Yet another point is that porn causes an increase in STDs. Unsurprisingly, porn stars have a much higher rate of STDs [35][36][43][44]. Some studies estimate that 14% of adult porn stars have an STD, while other studies have put this number as high as 28% for gonorrhea and chlamydia alone [37]. This study also estimates that 11% of these cases would not have been discovered through urogenital testing alone. Gonorrhea in particular can be very dangerous, since 80% of women will experience no symptoms until serious damage occurs [38]. Many experts warn that the current testing in the adult film industry is unable to catch these STDs [39][40][42]. The reason that these diseases are so prevalent should be obvious; adult film stars have many different and dangerous sex with many different partners. Furthermore, 33% of adult film stars suffer from depression as opposed to 13% of women who are not in the adult film industry [41]. However, the main problem with this goes hand in hand with the above argument. Young people who watch porn are more likely to act out what they see in the porn. They have more anal and oral sex, as well as sex with more partners [28]. For example, girls who watched porn were over 400% more likely to have had anal sex. Since porn causes the users to act out what they see (indeed, they admit this themselves), and to have more risky sex, porn causes an increase in STDs among the pornstars and among the viewers. And for this reason also, it is harmful to society. Conclusion Porn is everywhere. 70% of men watch porn. Also, porn sites get more hits per month than Netflix, Amazon, and Twitter combined [45]. Over 2 billion people use the internet [47]. Every second there are about 30,000 people watching porn on the internet [46]. Thus, since I have shown that pornography causes sexual aggression, harms relationships, is habit forming, warps views of sex, and causes an increase in sexually transmitted diseases, it is significantly harmful to society. Even if pornography has only a small amount of negative impact upon the society in direct proximity to it, since so many people watch porn, the effects are significant, and ought to be taken seriously. Thus, I have upheld my burden, and have shown that pornography is significantly harmful to society. Finally, porn may be harmful simply because it divorces sex from love. All humans seek to love and to be loved. Porn takes the greatest expression of this and reduces it to a dirty movie. “If you wanna lose yourself, you have to lose yourself to another person…And she has to lose herself to you…It's a two-way thing” [48].Thank you. Sourceshttp://www.debate.org...

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.

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


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

Should minors be allowed to play video games rated for mature audiences?
It’s my belief that minors should not be permitted to play video games with a mature rating, as young individuals can easily be swayed by the content, especially at an early age. As video games continue to escalate in violence, the concern over minors’ fascination with mature-rated games intensifies. Despite my personal experience of understanding the context of the games I play, even when they are mature-rated, there are numerous children who lack this understanding. A significant concern is that the enhanced graphics in video games, particularly in gory games, can amplify the impact. Therefore, my primary argument is that retailers should refrain from selling mature-rated games to children under the age of 12.

I have provided adequate resource to counter that eye strain is not a major concern in those who play video games, watch tv and etc in a responsible way. Con's argument has not established solid links that video games represent a cause and effect relationship with violence behavior or that damage to the eyes is a direct result of gaming. But rather that poor conditions while playing video games may result in damage, this is not sufficient to establish the basic premise that the act of playing video games is unhealthy. In contrast I have provided resources establishing benefits of gaming both mentally in all ages and physically in the elderly and disabled who benefit amazingly from playing games on platforms such as the Wii. It is there for Pro's conclusion that there is a benefit to be gained from the daily consumption of video games. Though I have not touched on it during this debate, additional resources are available regarding educational games and their benefits.

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 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.

Closing: I have given ample evidence to support my claim that video games art indeed art. I feel that my contender has not given any evidence suggest that it is not art, and therefore I believe I have won this debate. It seems to me that my opponent might have changed his mind with the statement, "I must say you do make a point that video games are art." So that should be even more reasoning behind my claim to victory.

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

This is a very hard debate, but I am excited to see who accepts. I will be in favour of video games being better than books. This will be done by explaining which one is better for creativity. This debate will be based on which one encourages more creativity. Video games will be considered as "Playing" and books will be considered as "reading". Writing a book will have nothing to do with this debate, only reading.

I first have to state that I will probably bee counted off for the copy and paste thing. If you feel I should be counted off please do so voters, although this is your own action. Also for the last round (The fifth) you do not have to have an official closing, you may continue making new arguments in your respective round. although I am giving con the upper hand. On with the debate. Yes I have agreed with you on many things. In fact most of your argument is completely true and I know this from experience. I have said BoP is shared, and it is. If you feel I have not brought up enough logic on my positive claim than I will start using statistics. Monday 10 November 2014 A recent long-term study by the USA shows the violent games are not the cause for violence in society If you read this study its states that in the first of the two historical evaluations researchers studied the links between violent films and societal violence by looking at the top grossing titles between 1920 and 2005. What they deduced was that film violence went in a rough U pattern during this time period whereas societal violence decreased in the later half of the 20th century. The second study used data from ESRB to estimate the violent content of video games from the time of 1996-2011. It showed that as the popularity of violent video games went up, youth violence went down. you can read more of thisin the sited resources below. To continue on into a more depressing topic, children who commit homicide have different brain structures. This article talks all about it. Apparently researchers found that children who commit murder have lower levels of grey matter in their medial and lateral temporal lobes and the hippocampus and posterior insula, according to news release. If you are wondering what grey matter is its the stuff that helps you process information in the brain. This means the less grey matter you have the more likely you will become confused between violent video games and reality. In another article posted Wed/July23/2014 showed that harsh corporal punishment can knock grey matter levels down in children. If a person receives this, they are more likely to commit violent acts in the future. This has nothing to do with the debate at hand, but what we can deduce is that when children between ages 10-17 play a violent video game they aren't losing anything beneficial to them and therefor are not violent in the future. Again I will restate a few more points There has never been a link between violent video games and violent acts in kids and teens. The sales rate for video games has quadrupled from 1995-2008 along with a 71.9% drop in juvenile arrest rates and a 49-50% drop in juvenile crimes. Any small correlation between violent youth and violent video games may be explained: Violent games do not cause youth to be violent, instead already violent youth are attracted to violent video games. cites http://www.independent.co.uk... http://www.natureworldnews.com... http://www.news-medical.net... http://www.cnn.com... http://videogames.procon.org...

You are a mean person so I have emailed some of the owners of this website HAHAHAHA!!! Video gamea are not good...

well no B/c some kids know how to control them self like no id would start killing people b/c of one game and like for example Gta V no kid would start robbing cars and they could have family time b/c for example I play with y cousin black ops 2 and we still have time together

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?

Violent video games should not be prohibited. The belief that video games should be banned as there are healthier alternatives is debatable. Video games often require minimal physical activity and consume electricity, and children would benefit more from engaging in sports or academic pursuits. However, a positive aspect of video games is the Wii, where certain games can actually serve as a good form of exercise, as demonstrated by the "WiiFit". Whether video games should be discouraged depends on whether they are hindering more productive activities. Moreover, violent video games do not just display violence on screen; the aggression can manifest in the players' subsequent behavior. Best-selling war-themed games like Call of Duty and World of Warcraft may lead players to disregard the sacrifices made by the military and the gravity of taking or harming a life.

well 1st of all why would the mom by the game if she knows that the kid cant control himself so that is only one kid there are other kids that don't do that so

Video games are good yahh yahhh yahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Because they improve memory and skills and stuff like that Yahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

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.

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.

"Can my opponent agree to these standards?" Yes. Media today are everywhere and close to us, unlike the past where they were scarce and can only be transmitted through radios and televisions. Now, they can be transmitted through our daily gadgets, big screens on buildings and computers. Therefore, the vast exposure of medias to youth is indisputable. Under such vast exposure, it is no surprise that youths today are too heavily influenced by media. Romance scene from korean dramas encourage teens to get into relationships at an early age. I believe that primary school teachers would agree with me that there are rising cases of youths as young as 8 years old are starting to get into relationships. Sexual scene from R18^ films teach youth about "female biology" and encourage sex. Do not be surprise when primary school children starts talking about sex. Their knowledge in sex are equal to us. Whether this knowledge is good or bad is another debate itself, the key point is, youths are naturally curious and like to explore. This encourages underage sex. It is true that even though cases such as violent and romance are rising, it remains at a low level. This is because moral values, laws aand orders, and wisdom refrain us from making these mistakes. However, it cannot be said that they are not influenced by media. Influenced by definition means the capacity to have an effect on character, development, or behavior of someone. It is the thoughts rather than the actions of youth that decide if youths are influenced by media. These thoughts could be killing their bullies, fantasizing a relationship, behaving violently.

You big showoff, you still dont understand me huh? "Con 1 defence: The basic premise behind these Contentions is that it's hypocritical to treat Jueviniles as Adults in terms of Crime and not anything else. My opponent basically states that because it's murder it changes everything. THIS IS WHEN I REFER TO MY CONTENTION 3. During the adole scence period, the brain is still forming and learning right from wrong. If in a negative environment, what we in society has come to know as bad, can be known as 'good' for the child. As Gorski stated, 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. "This is the premise beneath society's across-the-board restrictions on voting rights, alcohol and tobacco consumption, and serving in the armed forces," "Con 3 defence: I've already stated before an argument my opponent ignored: This applies to instances of abuse and violence in a bad environment, which are no doubt off the charts in this age. 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." I've told you many times already that children go to school to learn from right to wrong. Parents CANT prevent them from entering school and since that can't happen, at an age of 14, i doubt you cant see the difference of whats right and whats wrong. Also, we've argued about the age of juveniles and I still claim that childrens under the age of 14 are considered child and that people at the age of 14-17 are considered juveniles. Your argument wont change mine and my source wont change yours anyway. Yes, i know their brains are still in development, but at 13, i doubt you cant see the difference between whats wrong and right. "Stealing overlaps with Robbing. " It all depends whether its an armed robbery or candy stealing. Candy stealing isnt a serious crime and the shop owner may even overlook it. A bank robbery instead is a serious crime and if a child even plans to do something like that, they are thinking as adults the moment they planned this heist. "Again I refer to my Con 1: 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." They lack critical adult functions, but they somehow learned to kill with a knife or shoot with a pistol, yeah right. We are talking about 14 year olds here, they CAN anticipate consequences for their actions. Everyone learned what the JAIL is. "If this is the case, then I agree that they should be punished. However, I really doubt that a kid would murder unprovoked if they had no mental problem. If provoked, I provide the argument above." Prove it that most kids that committed murders are being provoked into killing. Because now, you only list the killings from the childrens with mental problem. (Oh well, you cant prove it anymore) "A mental problem DOES excuse crime. Here I basically repeat my Con 3. The person responsible for causing the mental problem/misunderstanding (that something is right and wrong) should be held responsible. Which is why we should fix it via Rehab." The fact that childrens doesnt know whats right and wrong at the age of 14 is considered VERY RARE. Crimes involving mental problems could still be prevented, insanity not. Parents influencing their childs are considered guilty as you said, however, a 14 year old cant be influenced that easily by their parents as they understand the concept of right and wrong. "Jueviniles apply to the age of 10-18, and in some states even younger. I state in my OPENING PARAGRAPH before that a Juevinile at the age of 13 was tried as an adult in the first place. My opponent isn't very thorough in the reading in my case, which is why I already know the outcome of this debate:" Your source states nothing about the age, only the punishment against juveniles. And here i have my proof that juveniles are considered 14-17 old: http://www.fair-debt-collection.com... " So if I smoke a cigaratte I have the mental capacaity as an Adult. Yeah, OK. OK." Of course not, smoking has nothing to do with your mentality. Serious crimes however, are something that only adults can think of. (rape, bank robbery, etc.) By the way, didn't take the effort to Content your 4th, can't find it anywhere and even if i had found, it already has been answered towards you. "Rehab is a form of punishment. And the juevnile is kept in a facility for a year as well. The MAMA organaziation is focused on juevile on juevnile violence. The number of people in an organzation isn't felective on the quailty of thier views and argments. " Hmm, no comment about it then. Its their decision. "Uh, yeah, we are talking about 10-18 year olds here...and sometimes even younger" I said 14-17 year, stop repeating its 10-18. "JUEVNILES BRAINS ARENT FULLY DEVELOPED. ADULT BRAINS ARE. WHICH IS WHY ADULTS SHOULDEN'T RECIEVE A SECOND CHANCE (in some terms.)" TELL ME THEN HOW DID THEY LEARN TO STAB AND SHOOT AS ADULTS? CERTAINLY YOU NEVER LEARNED TO KILL IN YOUR CHILDHOOD. "I was only saying that Robbery broadens the horizon greatly in terms of bad influences. Not that it wasen't serious. Let me ask you, dinokiller. Who has more ifluence on a child? A parent, sibiling, a friend, or a teacher? Yeah, I'd go with the former. Again I say that juevniles are the ages of 10-18, and sometimes younger." 14-17 year cough cough* Seriously though, influencing a 10 year old is pretty hard too. Summary: Gotta rush on this, but now he somehow indirectly insulted me, but o well. He claims that i ignored their points while i answered them indirectly, clearly he didnt took the time to understand my points. I leave the votes to you voters.

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

Yes, I can agree that video games can teach you a thing or two but...... I'm pretty sure there isn't a "video game" on the natural laws of physics or a detailed analysis on calculus! I love video games; I used to play MW2 every single day, but I can tell you that books make scholars, not video games! **********Most people play video games for entertainment, not to learn something anyway!********** http://www.esrb.org... Here is someone who changes the world by writing "books": Steven Hawking: http://www.stephenhawkingbooks.com... See those books? Is there a video game to teach me all these things? If you can't show me a video game that can help me find this type of knowledge then... How do you expect me to learn about the universe?? "The Universe is a place fill with cold hard facts" - from Halo 2 http://www.youtube.com... How do you think video games are made? by video games? No by people who read code in book

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.

TV was invented in the early 1920"s and video games were developed in the early 1970"s but both have now become an invariable source of fun and entertainment for children. There is no denying that children love to watch TV and play video games. Some of these shows and games were for fun and educational, but throughout the years of technological advances, they have evolved to new levels creating controversy among society.The amount of children that stare at a TV screen for several hours a day has grown so profusely that it has been labeled an epidemic. An average child watches a total of 28 hours of television a week. The amount of time spent playing video games or watching TV, and the types of games/shows children watch/play will influence their behavior in a major way. By the time a child finishes high school he/she will have seen 8,000 TV deaths. Video games have the most negative psychological effects including: a decrease in social skills, increased aggressive thoughts, behaviors, and feelings and increased physiological arousal. Studies show that a family that has the TV on all the time usually speak 200 words an hour to their child but a family that does not regularly have the TV on speaks about 1000 words per hour. so not only have video games proven to be a complete waste of time but they also have proven to decrease the growth of a child. oh and thanks for understanding the misunderstanding about the pro and con


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

Ban the sale of violent video games and restrict their access to minors.

Violent video games should be banned from sale and access restricted to minors due to their potential harmful impact on youth. Some argue that these games teach children to be violent, as we learn through repetition. Allowing children to play violent video games at an early age can desensitize them to the effects of violence. Originally designed for military training, these games were meant to help soldiers overcome their hesitancy in shooting the enemy.

There are concerns that video games, which often feature shooting and killing, can influence children to act violently. People often say, "My son promised never to act like that," or, "Tyler loves these games and keeps asking for a BB gun." The BB gun might be for fun, but it could lead to real guns. Violent video games like MWF3, Call of Duty, and Assassin's Creed are insults to military men who are fighting for our country, while gamers sit on couches laughing at people getting shot in games. This is a serious offense to soldiers, and it's brutal.

Moreover, police have linked several violent cases to violent video games. For instance, an 8-year-old boy, unaware of the real-life consequences of shooting someone, took out a gun and shot his grandmother. He now faces life in prison after juvenile hall for something he didn't realize was bad in the first place. Video games can pump violent ideas into children's heads, causing them to have no way of knowing the difference between real life and video game life.

On the other hand, some argue that placing age-based restrictions on video games is reasonable. Studies on the impact of virtual violence on children are inconclusive, but it's plausible to accept that exposure to virtual violence can influence how a child thinks. As Aristotle has argued, people become habituated by what they do. Children are more receptive than adults and lack the cognitive resources that adults possess. Therefore, keeping young children away from violence, even the virtual sort, seems reasonable.

However, there are grounds for doubting that such games have a significant impact on children. Psychological studies are open to question, and humans seem naturally prone to violence. Violent video games simply allow children to act out killing with better graphics and effects. Banning violent video games to protect children from the influence of violence might not work, making such a law unnecessary.

There is also the matter of freedom of expression and consumption. Minors have a reduced right of freedom of consumption, but imposing restrictions on their freedom

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'm not sure what you are talking about , my point is short and simple , I have been heavily exposed to violence and death as a kid , yet today I am no more prone to violence than some farmer living up a hill with nobody around for miles. The point is , you are more prone to violence if you choose to be.

It's not that they are being violent because of television. Children are going to be violent anyway. Children will be children and they get upset. It's not their fault that the things that come on television is entertaining to them.

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.

In 1997, Aubrey Ankrum, Rhode Montijo and Kenn Navarro produced a short cartoon for a fledgling company known as Mondo Mini Shows. The cartoon was very simple: it featured an enraged blue dinosaur killing three woodland creatures with his banjo. Despite the cartoon's simplicity, it gained popularity and initiated a landslide, a controversial internet sensation and television show known as Happy Tree Friends. [1] I, as the con, and the initiator of this debate, would like to establish the motion as "Happy Tree Friends is a good influence on children", with children meaning children, people of youth, youth meaning the early period of existence, growth, or development. [2] Sure, the Christian Bible states that "we are all children of the same universe", but individual words can be and are used liberally; therefore, such words need not be taken literally, word for word. Even if one were to take such a word literally, "child" has multiple meanings — "a son or daughter of human parents", for example — according to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. The "children"s in Galations 3:26 and the motion are not necessarily the same. Now that I've that out of the way, I'd like to move on to my main speech. I have two topics to emphasize: role models and desensitization. I'll begin with role models. Children see Happy Tree Friends characters as role models, not as characters that children learn from the mistakes of, as my opponent stated. Children generally like cute, cuddly characters. This is depicted by such characters as those in Tellytubbies, Barney, and Sesame Street, to name a few. Children, having warmed up to similarly-looking characters, will follow the actions of the animals in Happy Tree Friends. This includes injuring others intentionally [3]. While it's not likely that children will act so extremely, such hostile, violent behavior will still be embedded in children's minds. Does that sound like a good influence? Moving on to desensitization. During early childhood, children are often taught not to harm others. Because of this, children view physical harm as horrifying. Happy Tree Friends, with its gratuitous depictions of physical harm, helps to relieve children of this fear. One could say that Happy Tree Friends, over time, could make violence second nature to children. That's not a good influence. My opponent stated that the cartoon brings about laughter, and that laughter is healthy. Think of fast food. Many people like fast food. So, fast food makes such people happier, in turn making them healthier. But, wait! Fast food isn't known to make people healthier! Hmm, what's wrong? Sure, there are short-term, surface benefits, but the long-term effects are not good. Children will lose their fear, their barrier to violence, thanks to Happy Tree Friends. Happy Tree Friends is shaping children's minds for violence. Regardless if they commit violent acts or not, the notion and the ease toward violence will be embedded in their minds. If you want violent children powering our future, please vote for the proposition of the motion, but if you want children who avoid violence to run the world peacefully, please vote for the con. Thank you audience, thank you person-with-the-initials-AA, and thank you, opponent, and have a good night. [1] Happy Tree Friends Wiki - http://happytreefriends.wikia.com... [2] Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary [3] "Party Animal - Part 2" - http://youtube.com...

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.

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

http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...I’m not asking the readers to judge if porn is a net negative. All I’m saying is that I must show porn is significantly harmful, and that whether or not porn is net negative is irrelevant and up to the readers.I. Porn and aggression Ted Bundy clearly states that porn caused him to become more aggressive. In porn studies, there are two divisions: those on the individual level and those on the aggregate level (looking at the rape rate over the country as a whole) 1. Individual level studies There are two subcategories here. Experimental and non-experimental. Experimental studies deal with control groups and groups exposed to porn and then use a scientific model to determine attitudes towards women. Non-experimental studies are simply surveys and show correlations within the data. Experimental studies show causation Non-experimental studies show correlation For studies on the individual level, the answer is inevitable. I cite several meta-analyses[1|2|3|6|23] which each examine vast amounts of both experimental and non-experimental studies, and they all come to the conclusion that exposure to hardcore pornography causes increased aggression/negative attitudes towards women, including acceptance of the rape myth (the view that only bad/sexually promiscuous women get raped). I also cite individual studies [4|5|7|8|9|10|11|12|13|14|15|16|24] In an experimental study [17] control groups were compared to those exposed to porn over a period of time, and showed the group exposed to porn developed a more negative view of women, believing that women were naturally more sexually promiscuous, and expected less faithfulness between partners. Rape proclivity was also higher in the porn group: As expected, those with higher levels of psychosis were more influenced by exposure to porn: Also, the group exposed to porn thought the punishment for rape should be significantly less than the control Another study also found that those exposed to porn thought rapists should receive 300-350 less months in prison as compared to the control group [18] Thus, the studies on the individual level show porn increases negative attitudes and sexual aggression towards women, including trivialization of rape.2. Aggregate level studies As my opponent points out, there are several studies which correlate porn availability with decreased sex crimes, however experts have criticized these studies as over simplifying a complex issue [23]. Second, studies at the aggregate level are notorious for misleading mistakes. Dr Robinson illustrates this in a famous example [19] where he used stats at the aggregate level and showed that as the amount of immigrants increased in America, the literacy also increased. This is absurd! We know that immigrants are less literate, since statistics show this on the individual level. This is an example of an ecological fallacy, and it is a huge problem with my opponent’s studies. Dr. Robinson concludes “The relation between ecological and individual correlations…provides a definite answer as to whether ecological correlations can validly be used as substitutes for individual correlations. They cannot”[19] Thus, the very methodology of my opponent’s studies aren’t reliable when applied to interpersonal behaviors, especially since they contradict what the studies on the individual levels show. Thirdly, my opponent’s studies rely upon reported rape values, but only 15% of rapes are reported to authorities [20]. Some of the main reasons why women do not report rape is because they don’t want others to know (63%) and fear shame/mistreatment (44%). But wait…according to the individual research, pornography increases the rape acceptance myth, and thus fosters the social atmosphere in which women would not report rape. Thus, as pornography use increases, women will be less likely to report rape. So an increase in pornography would make it seem as if there is less rape, since less women will be open about their abuse. My opponent’s study takes place in the Czech republic during the middle of a rebellion, a change from communism to capitalism, the national Separation of Slovakia [22] and many other social and political changes. There’s so many factors here, it’s ridiculous to say porn caused the reduced rape rate. In addition to this, immediately after the change from communism to democracy (when pornography became available, the year 1989) the amount of rape actually increased at first [22]. In addition to this, the lesser sex-related crimes and child abuse had already began decreasing before the legalization of porn. Furthermore, they did not continue declining. Also, while the overall crime rate increased, the sexual crime rate remained the same despite women being less likely to report their abuse [26] Furthermore, in the Denmark study, the police admitted that they would sometimes not report rape cases, and in a public survey, it was found that the people were less likely to report physical violence against women [25] after the availability of porn, to such a degree it could significantly alter the rape rate. Historians and sociologists attribute the declining crime rate in the 1990s to various cultural causes including immigration, improved housing for low income, anti-drug campaigns etc[21]. My opponent is using shaky methodology, oversimplifying complicated historical time periods, and contradicting all the evidence on the individual level. Thus, the studies that porn causes lower sex crime rates are inconclusive and do not prove the null hypothesis.II. Porn harms relationships My opponent’s logic simply doesn’t work. Through his logic, we could come to the conclusion that infidelity doesn’t cause divorce, and that it’s just an outlet. While there may be a more fundamental and underlying problem with that relationship, the unfaithfulness of a spouse can obviously contribute to and thus cause a divorce. So why can’t we say that pornography (which is habit forming, and women don’t like when their spouse use it) also causes divorces? Especially considering it contributes to about half of divorces [27]. Also, the marriage rate has been declining dangerously [28]: While the divorce rate has sky-rocketed[29]. This is an important issue. Some recent studies suggest that porn may even be used as a substitute for marriage [30]. There are also many studies that claim the hurt due to porn can be even worse [31|32|33|34]. Therefore, since a significant amount of women (30%) think their partner has failed them by using porn, the effects of porn upon relationships are significant [35]. 23% of them claim their partner lies to them about his porn use. Trust is the basis of every relationship. Furthermore, my opponent accuses this study of methodological problems, but the study clearly does not use experimental exposure to porn.III. Porn is habit forming My opponent doesn’t do much. I’ve provided numerous sources which show that internet addiction and pornography are seriously habit forming (See the big list above). All he does is point out that internet addiction is not listed in the DSM. However, considering how new the internet is, this isn’t surprising. IV. Porn causes warped views of sex Let’s say I go mudding in my truck. I screw up my suspension. But don’t worry, I know how to work on front end suspension pretty well, and I change the ball joints in no time. This means that mudding must not be bad for my truck, right? Obviously not. But this is what my opponent is saying. His entire argument in response to mine is that we should teach more sex ed (fix the ball joints). This implicitly admits that pornography warps views of sex (is bad for my truck’s suspension). If porn isn’t harmful to children, why does Con say parents should set up safety nets to keep their children from finding it? Porn is a poor sex educator and causes people to think that sexual promiscuity is more widespread [17]: Considering porn is now affecting children, it will change the way they perceive sexuality in the world and in themselves. Con has ignored this. The quality of sexual education is irrelevant. Regardless of whether or not I am a good mechanic, mudding is bad for my truck’s suspension. Likewise, porn warps views of sex. Also, considering how porn is discovered at the age of 11 [36], it seems difficult to educate them before damage has already occurred. My opponent still ignores the argument that pornography contributes to genital insecurity. Ask yourself: do you want your impressionable 11 year old wondering “What’s sex?” so he jumps on Google, and his first exposure… double penetration? cool truck btw V. Porn causes STDs My opponent admits that porn-stars get STDs. This is due to the sex they have. Likewise, if porn causes adolescents to engage in the same sort of sex (shown above) it will cause an increase of STDs in the world. Therefore, my opponent has conceded one premise and not refuted the other and the argument stands. The point is simple. Porn causes people to be more acceptant of promiscuity [17]: It also causes them to be more sexually promiscuous (I showed this in earlier rounds). And being sexually promiscuous causes more STDs. So watching porn causes more STDs. Furthermore, considering how every second you spend reading this, there are 30,000 people watching porn [37] and 40,000,000 Americans regularly view porn, I believe the effects will be significant. Conclusion In conclusion, I have upheld every one of my arguments. I’ve shown that porn causes negative attitudes and sexual aggression, that it is habit forming, warps views of sex, harms relationships, and causes an increase in deadly STDs. Therefore the resolution is upheld, and I urge you to vote Pro! I’d like to end this debate with a final quote. “the problem with pornography is not that it shows too much of the person, but that it shows far too little.” [38] Thanks to Bennett for this great debate! Sourceshttp://tinyurl.com...

Most children that become violent when they're older is not solely because they played violent video games. Most violent people usually have a psychological disorder, or some form of abuse. Also, your argument was that two hours of electronics is bad for you. I could play 30 minutes of Call Of Duty, which is a violent video game, but It wouldn't be bad for me. You say that 2 hours of ANY electronics are bad for you. This include televisions, video games, and other visually electronic devices.

. 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...