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

Do violent video games play a significant role in juvenile violence?

The growing trend of bullying can be partly attributed to the increasing popularity of violent video games. According to a 2008 study, "Grand Theft Childhood," 60% of middle school boys who played at least one Mature-rated game had a history of hitting or assaulting someone, compared to 39% of boys who didn't play Mature-rated games. Video games often incentivize players for simulating violence, thus reinforcing violent behaviors. Research indicates that players who are rewarded for violence in video games exhibit heightened aggressive behavior compared to those who play games where violence is penalized.

Violent video games can desensitize players to real-world violence. In video games, victims often vanish from the screen when killed, and players have multiple lives. A 2005 study linked violent video game exposure to reduced P300 amplitudes in the brain, associated with desensitization to violence and increased aggression. A 2000 FBI report includes playing violent video games among behaviors associated with school shootings. Violent video games may teach young people that violence is an acceptable way to resolve conflicts and achieve goals. A 2009 study found that youth who play violent video games have lower confidence in nonviolent strategies and are less forgiving than those who play nonviolent games.

Violent video games can make players associate pleasure and happiness with inflicting pain on others. Young children are particularly susceptible to conflating fantasy violence with real-world violence, potentially leading them to mimic violent actions seen in games. Violent video games require active participation, repetition, and identification with violent characters, with new controllers enhancing physical interaction. The immersive nature of video games can increase the likelihood of youth violence.

Playing violent video games can increase aggressive behavior and arousal. A 2009 study found that it takes up to four minutes for aggressive thoughts and feelings in children to return to normal after playing violent video games, and five to ten minutes for heart rate and aggressive behavior to stabilize. Video games with more graphic violence tend to generate more aggressive thoughts. When blood is depicted in video games, players show a measurable increase in arousal and hostility.

Violent video games can foster aggressive behavioral scripts. Repeated actions in games can develop subconscious scripts that influence behavior, similar to driving scripts that guide drivers to buckle up and turn on the ignition. Violent video games can create scripts that prompt youth to respond aggressively in certain situations. A 1998 study found that 21

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

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

BUT, research shows that all the violent games kids play teach them to be violent when they get older.

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

As a roadmap I will force defened my case and then attack my opponents. Oh really? You think they cant see the difference between stealing a candy from the candyshop and killing someone with a rock? Murder is serious as you know and if they commit such serious felony, they are thinking as adults at that point. And serious crimes accepts NO excuses like a problem. (Unless hes driven insane, but the perpetrator clearly shows his sane) And that, my friend, is where you are wrong. As I said, childrens WILL see a difference between stealing and murder. What you explained was just a simple case were someone is stealing candy (or something xD) because they thought it was ok. Do you think parents can tell their childrens that murder is ok after seeing your parents commit one and the next day see your parents thrown in jail? If you think its possible, prove it. My opponent still COMPLETLY IGNORES the main point of my Contention 1 and Con 3. (He cannot attack my Con 1 without defeating my Con 3, as which they closely relate. (And vise-versa.) 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. Stealing overlaps with Robbing. Con 2 defence: Fear from punishment is fine as it scares them from committing a serious felony in the first place. 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. Even so, murder isnt always committed because the person is having a problem, they could be greedy or they couldve hated someone. 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. And even if they do have problems, we are talking about a very serious crime here! Having a problem is no excuse for such a serious crime. 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. Sub A defence: Yeah right, thats from your point of view anyway. Juvenile only applies to childrens at age of 14 to 17, the argument of yours fails here. 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: Source: http://www.juvenilejusticefoundation.com... As I said, no one tells you to pick up the gun and shoot someone. If the child grabs the gun and commits a crime or robbery, then he is thinking as an adult. Really, bro? Really? So if I smoke a cigaratte I have the mental capacaity as an Adult. Yeah, OK. OK. Judges, you may extend my Contention 4, as my opponent hasen't attacked it. If my opponent cannot fuffil his burden than he automatically loses. P.S: My opponent cannot make new arguments in the final round, as I will have no way to defend myself sense it's the final round. Contention 5 defence: This trump card wont work here xD, as you see, its an organization organized because they believed in something. They believe that they can forgive those people that killed their child, but that doesnt mean that the punishment should be overlooked. Also, your so called trump card doesnt show even who the perpetrator was that killed their childs, rendering this argument useless as it couldve been an adult or another child. Also, it only lists 73 womens from the 70 million citizens rendering this kinda weak too. 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. And now I shall proceed to smack my opponent into next year, at which hopefully my oppponent will learn advance his comprehension skills. Yeah right, we are talking about 14-17 year old childrens here. They SHOULD be knowing whats right and wrong. But you are the one that keeps saying that they dont always do. (If you are 14 and you still dont know whats right and wrong, then uhh god should help you) Uh, yeah, we are talking about 10-18 year olds here...and sometimes even younger. Also, if you give them a second chance because they committed a murder, then why didnt we give those second chances to adults that also committed murders? Its really unfair isnt it? Think about the facts before you accuse me of ignoring your points. My opponent AGAIN completly ignores my Con 1 & Con 3: JUEVNILES BRAINS ARENT FULLY DEVELOPED. ADULT BRAINS ARE. WHICH IS WHY ADULTS SHOULDEN'T RECIEVE A SECOND CHANCE (in some terms.) Ahum, robbery is serious as you just said since a life is in danger at a robbery. But here comes a new one: EVERYONE goes to school right? The school teaches you whats bad and wrong, no? Not listening? Punishment.(Your parents = spanking) At the age of 14, i hardly can believe that someone would still not see the difference between good and bad. No matter how you are raised, when you are 14, you SHOULD be knowing whats wrong and right. (School aid in building the childrens inner mentality) 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. SUMMARY I urge a Negative vote. My opponent has failed to counter of my arguments and I have completely squashed his meger two points of offence. There is no reason of any kind for you to vote Aff a this poi

I accept this challenge Let me highlight your statements. "Mobile games should be ban, because most of the games are based on bad concept which is affecting our children." Let's check the grammar and spelling. "Mobile games should be ban" is not correct. It should be "Mobile games should be banned*" Next the inner details. Based on bad concept that I presume negatively affect our children correct? Look at this [http://abcnews.go.com...] According to this video games actually help. Problem solving being one, which is one thing that can help you in school. Problem solving is really mostly what the schools make you do anyways. Solve this problem and get a good grade, correct? Problem solving isn't limited to school, but also your daily life. By playing games (mobile or console) WITH MODERATION your kids will develop problem solving skills. It also teaches that failure is okay sometimes. Start again and keep practicing and you will get better. This is also perfect for school. When a student gets stuck on a question they might wanna give up. Those who play games are less likely to succumb to failure. "Teenagers are affected mostly, they are not giving adequate time to their study and as a result getting high pressure at the time of exams and getting bad score." Let's look into that shall we? I did research and guess what. GAMING IS NOT A BIG CULPRIT. That's right games are not the biggest reason why students fail tests. I went to multiple websites and gaming was not on there. Actually when I directly looked up if gaming was a reason why they fail tests no plausible (reasonable) results actually popped up. "Moreover, working person also addicted with mobile games." The first part of my argument explains this. "They spent all idle time on mobile games and some cases it has been observed that, they are losing concentration at work place because they wanted to play game to achieve a level in the group." Another flaw in grammar. "at work place" should be "at the* work place" Also without sources to prove there were tests and observations there is no support to this argument.

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.

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

True, but besides the positive effects video games could have. There are also negative effects through the long usage of it. If you play it all the time straight, or even 10 hours straight chances are you will get a headache. From that the body is telling you what you are doing now is damaging. Also, the brain is a very important organ in your body you really don't want something to go wrong with it. The positive effects of video games can be gained in another ways. We exist for quite some time now even before video games. Within that it is perfectly possible to use another source for education that has the same effect as video games.

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


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

Violent video games, movies, books, and music do not contribute to violent behavior in young people. There have been numerous studies conducted on the subject, and the findings suggest that playing violent video games, listening to aggressive music, and watching violent movies do not result in increased violence among children. While some argue that violent individuals may be drawn to violent forms of entertainment, research has shown that those who are already prone to violence are the most susceptible to the effects of violent media. This means that while violent individuals may be attracted to violent forms of entertainment, they still become even more violent as a result of exposure to such content. Therefore, it is incorrect to assume that violent video games contribute to youth violence.

I have no new studies to present, so this round will consist entirely of rebuttals and defenses of my statements. Statements in quotes which begin a paragraph are taken from Pro’s rebuttals in round 3. “With Kids having a higher chance does not guarantee that they will become more aggressive and for a statement like that where a higher chance is incorporated there must be some sort of ratio. and you do not have to state one I am just stating that there should be one and it would have to incorporate; all children who have been known to play violent video games or television, who have actually became more aggressive, who did not, and which households did the parents explain to their children the differences. and a ratio like that is hard to achieve” This does absolutely nothing to refute my claim that children who play violent video games or watch violent movies are far more likely to act violently. The fact that an exact ratio is virtually impossible to establish does nothing more than testify to the number of variables affecting the situation. I'm sure that you will find that the studies indicate that the ratio is quite high, however. “it also is the parents fault if the child is to imitate what they see on television. the parents have to state to the children that the reaction they are going to get by imitating what they saw or what will happen will be a lot more different then what they had seen.” This, whether true or not, is entirely irrelevant. The fact is that kids ARE imitating what they see on TV, which is what is to be shown in this debate. “you conclude that children should be limited to what they watch. in the past limitations are set so things do not get out of control, but limitations are not needed when met with a compromise or a "win win" situation and all that means is that parents need to take time to talk to their children and their life” 1) Most parents are not psychologists. Given that it is not likely that parents worldwide will suddenly start reasoning with their children on matters of morality, and simply limiting violent media intake is far easier, since violent media doesn’t impart any know great benefit to society, it would be far better to simply limit children’s exposure to it. 2) The problem with assuming that if parents simply talk to their children, the children will have a lessened propensity for violent behavior after watching violent movies is that even among adults, violent media is still positively correlated with violent behavior. Furthermore, you’ve not presented evidence that parents who speak to their children about violence before or after or during a violent movie are going to produce less violent children. Extend all other arguments.

Let's look at your statements shall we? "~Are you sure games we play on mobile or console designed for brain-training to solve problems? Children play games for entertainment and problem solving is something different. refer the articles which clearly shown the bad effect of digital games." "First, problem solving skills develop naturally. I'll throw you an example of something else that portrays this as well. Pretend you're a blacksmith. You Swing a hammer against metal all day. Not only do your skills with working with metal improve, but also you become stronger, an indirect positive outcome." I guess your point is valid but example is wrong! How can you compare hammer swing with games??? Digital games are limited to fingers & eye movement on game button and object. I am happy that you added physical activity as a game which is good for health but that we are not doing with graphic games, especially on mobile or console. "Second, your sources weren't that reliable. Ehow was the most reliable, however "SCMP.com" talked about TOO MUCH screen time. What about moderation? If parents moderated their children's play time, there wouldn't be that many bad effects, if any. CNN isn't reliable at all but ignore that and look at THEIR signs. They aren't too good and in fact common sense should already tell you when you're "addicted"." There is no harm if you accept the truth! Game addiction is growing rapidly. Less concentration in other regular tasks like, completing homework, maintaining personal hygiene, skipping meals and change is in the behavior can be commonly seen. "In addition to bad results on academics, purchase games and add-ins generate credit card bills. http://venturebeat.com... about the population of people that can afford games? Are you going to take their right to have fun because they have money and others don't? It's their money, let them spend it. It's up to YOU to make choices about this stuff. To further add, you're mad at people for making money? The revenue is 3 billion dollars (USA). That's USEFUL to the ECONOMY. By BANNING MOBILE GAMES HURTS THE ECONOMY." Game addiction is equal to drug addiction but only difference is we cannot see smoke or instant bad effect. Let"s look at this.. Take an example, like playing games is one of the main activity which our children do. Some play outdoor games and other play indoor. For outdoor games like Cricket, basketball, badminton, football etc. has benefits and less addiction because performer feels tired after playing for 1-2 or more hours and he/she takes break to take rest and after then he/she feel energetic as body movement give strength. But unfortunately, graphical games which we play on mobile, tablet or computers console bound your physical actions, effect vision, damage ears, headache and stress can be raised. A research shown that, Parents allow children to play digital games because they feel their children safe at home as they less contact with dust and no physical injury can occur. However, due to their restriction to play outdoor games children become less physical strong, weaker immunity as they easily get sickness after a suburb tour, less vitamin d as they not take required sun light, etc. "Now to make my points. Read this http://www.theesa.com...... The gaming industry is a constantly expanding empire and even grew faster than the US economy (Not surprising) and PROVIDE JOBS TO PEOPLE. Because it grows so quickly, more jobs are needed. BY BANNING MOBILE GAMES OR GAMING BUSINESSES, YOU ARE GETTING RID OF JOBS. The gaming industry also added $5 billion dollars to the US GDP, which is a VERY good thing. Still refuse to believe it can help? http://www.wired.co.uk...... Even the UK can't avoid the positive influence of the gaming industry. Yes, it's gone international. Still can't face the facts? http://www.businessinsider.com...... There's no denying. The gaming industry has a positive impact. Here are some jobs that the gaming industry needs to run successfully. http://www.ccs.neu.edu...... In Texas, 1700 jobs were created. How you wonder? The gaming industry. Further proving my point, it creates jobs. http://www.mlresearch.org...; I am sure that you would not deny that, children are the future, then we should care of their better future instead of worries on gaming industry"s money and jobs. After all we have so many areas of work and not confined to games. I think software developers are making these games so there is no problem for them as they can make other software. They still do not lose their earnings. Thus I strongly suggest to prohibit such applications.

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

Well i dont even know what an LD format is >.< Anyway, you keep posting arguments, but i want your source. No source? = Argument false "In order to uphold my case and provide for Moral Obligation, I offer the following criterion as a weighing mechanism for the round: Protection of Human Worth. I ask you judges, if you can protect human worth if you throw a ten year old in jail without parole for a mental problem? Take Eric Smith, for example. At the age of 13, he strangled a 4 year old, slammed two large rocks on his head, and then proceeded to shove a stick up his rectum. Judges, do you really think any sane human being would do such a terrible thing? And do you really think those nine years to life in prison will help his sanity more than a psychologist?" Killing and mutilating a 4 year old after being bullied doesnt classify as mental problem. He murdered someone. The murder is serious considering the victim is a 4 year old boy and since he was 13, he SHOULD be knowing whats right and wrong and that murder is an evil thing. For such an unacceptable crime, we should treat them as adults. Contention 1: Juveniles brains aren't as developed as Adults. According to Terence T. Gorski is an internationally recognized expert on substance abuse, mental health, violence, & crime and others qualified professionals, (Ed. Judy Layzell. Ortiz, Adam.) "Scientific studies have determined that the human brain undergoes continuous development up to the age of about twenty-one. "Because the brains of juveniles, particularly the frontal lobes, are not fully developed, youths lack the ability to perform critical adult functions, such as plan, anticipate consequences, and control impulses," states Adam Ortiz, a policy fellow with the American Bar Association Juvenile Justice Center. Although juveniles should be punished for their crimes, they are not as responsible as adults. "This is the premise beneath society's across-the-board restrictions on voting rights, alcohol and tobacco consumption, and serving in the armed forces," observes Ortiz. "Indeed, this is why we refer to those under 18 as `minors' and `juveniles'—because, in so many respects, they are less than adult." Murder however is a different story since you ends someones life. As i said, you are TAUGHT to know whats wrong and right. The mentality of the newer generations are generally higher then the childrens from 30 years ago. Murder is wrong and if juveniles knows its wrong and still commits murder, why should we still go easy on them and treat them as juveniles? Contention 2: Punishment doesn't work, it just makes things worse. "Gorski presents three principles which should guide the debate regarding adult sentencing of juveniles. First, adolescents are not fully developed mentally and are prone to poor impulse control; second, even the most violent juvenile offender can be rehabilitated with proper treatment; last, the United States has a juvenile justice system that is designed to help youthful offenders, not punish them. "It is important to remember that punishment does not work," asserts Gorski. "Punishment is a failed strategy for changing behavior, teaching new skills, or developing new and more positive attitudes and beliefs." Are you even sure that it doesnt work? Some states now treat crimes from juveniles and adults the same way and what was the results? Crimes from juveniles dropped. It seems Gorski was wrong after all for some part. Contention 3: Youths are easily influenced "It's a well known fact that a most juvenile delinquents had a bad upbringing. During the adolescence 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. An example would be a case where a Mother began stealing things with her children, hiding things in their pockets and purses. The children were thereby taught that stealing is OK, maybe even if they must use force. The children should not be held responsible, the bad influences should be, be it a parent or a sibling or maybe an older friend who's experienced in the life of crime. Therefore, we should always take different circumstances into account, something the Affirmative cannot do." I think this is an exception. If a certain person was stealing and you saw it, making you think its ok, then you are influenced by that person. Note that stealing isnt a serious felony. Sub Point A: Youths should not have access to violent weapons. "Guns are usually related to violent crimes juveniles commit. Obviously, you must be 21 to buy and legally own a gun. Who's to blame for letting an underage have possession of such dangerous weapons? Certainly not the juvenile. Maybe the parent didn't fully teach the juvenile right from wrong, and/or carelessly left the gun around. Maybe the juveniles see on T.V. the power the gun has, and can get whatever they want if they have possession of it." You are absolutely correct, they shouldnt be having access to weapons. However, since the gun doesnt tells you to pick it up and fire at people, the juvenile is at fault for taking the gun. Kids watches tv most of the day. They should be knowing what a gun is. Contention 4: You cannot protect Human Worth with the Affirmative position. "Professor Palo Annino (Florida State University) expands: Oh, absolutely, I think we're immoral, ultimately as a nation. This is no different from slavery and other major moral issues. Placing children in adult prisons for life is a death sentence for children. Do we want to do that as a society? Do we want to ignore our Western traditions? I mean, we do have Western traditions, and one part of our Western traditions is called redemption, and for many people in our culture redemption is an important value." Why do we put those children in jail in the first place? Because they committed a crime. Was it serious? Of course since he got life sentence for it. Neither the police nor the victims family will show you mercy if you commit a murder. If we punish juveniles for their crime, how is it immoral i ask you? Here i fight back since i dont like to be pummeled. "1. We look at them as a child because as my Con 1 and Con 3-Sub A states, there are multiple factors that are behind why a child commits violent felonies, such as abuse, growing up in a bad environment, etc. That's not even mentioning the fact that "During the adolescence 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." At age of 13, you should be knowing that killing is wrong and that you get punished if you commit a murder. And with the rising mentality of younger ages, they should be knowing whats right and wrong at young age. You can disagree with me, but my claim still stands that they should be knowing it. "2. If we treat Children as Adults in terms of crime, we should treat them as adults in EVERYTHING, such as voting rights, alcohol and tobacco consumption, and serving in the armed forces. It would be hypocritical otherwise. Also, that narrow minded viewpoint doesn't bring in circumstances such as, as I stated, before abuse and growing up in a bad environment." I disagree here. We have these restrictions here to show those juveniles the differene between bad and good. We dont allow childrens smoke or drink alcohol. Why? Because its bad and unhealthy. As for jobs, the juveniles will be disagreeing with you xD (they dont want to work yet xD) Abuse and growing up in a bad environment doesnt force you to commit a crime. With killing all around you, its absurd to not know what killing is and if it is right or not. I guess i have to stop here since im running out of text... Source: http://www.time.com...

To conclude my argument for the debate, we have two arguments being presented. The first by my opponent, who claims there are other things than video games causing violence; and myself that state that video games do technically cause violence. My opponent did not define the topic of the word "violence", making it not mean only one thing but multiple, while I used the definition of violence as an emotion. Violence does occur whenever a person plays a video game for about 40 minutes, even though they may just get angry and not do any criminal action. As well as earlier within the debate, my opponent even admitted on most of my points; meaning that he "dropped" the debate. With the given statement, on the fourth round, being: "Yes I have agreed with you on many things. In fact most of your argument is completely true and I know this from experience". So voters, who do you think deserves the win? My opponent, who dropped the debate within the middle, or I, who pushed on and added more arguments. Thank you for this debate my fellow opponent!

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

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

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.

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

Welcome to the debate.First round is for defining and last round is for conclusions. I define video gaming as "a game played by electronically manipulating images produced by a computer program on a monitor or other display". I define "good" as any benefit, need not be health.Thank you.


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

Video Games Lead to Aggression
Video games indeed contribute to aggression. The violent content in today's games can desensitize individuals and make them perceive violence as trivial, merely a part of a game. Unbeknownst to many, this exposure can potentially mold them into violent individuals.

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

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

That is another thing there parents are responsible for what they can buy and what they cant but if that is where they release there stress and then they become better and at least they don't go around and take out there angry on other people and on people that don't have any way to fight back or start bulling people they get on there game and they start to work. and thank you for doing this this is for a school job.

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

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

Well i dont even know what an LD format is >.< Anyway, you keep posting arguments, but i want your source. No source? = Argument false "In order to uphold my case and provide for Moral Obligation, I offer the following criterion as a weighing mechanism for the round: Protection of Human Worth. I ask you judges, if you can protect human worth if you throw a ten year old in jail without parole for a mental problem? Take Eric Smith, for example. At the age of 13, he strangled a 4 year old, slammed two large rocks on his head, and then proceeded to shove a stick up his rectum. Judges, do you really think any sane human being would do such a terrible thing? And do you really think those nine years to life in prison will help his sanity more than a psychologist?" Killing and mutilating a 4 year old after being bullied doesnt classify as mental problem. He murdered someone. The murder is serious considering the victim is a 4 year old boy and since he was 13, he SHOULD be knowing whats right and wrong and that murder is an evil thing. For such an unacceptable crime, we should treat them as adults. Contention 1: Juveniles brains aren't as developed as Adults. According to Terence T. Gorski is an internationally recognized expert on substance abuse, mental health, violence, & crime and others qualified professionals, (Ed. Judy Layzell. Ortiz, Adam.) "Scientific studies have determined that the human brain undergoes continuous development up to the age of about twenty-one. "Because the brains of juveniles, particularly the frontal lobes, are not fully developed, youths lack the ability to perform critical adult functions, such as plan, anticipate consequences, and control impulses," states Adam Ortiz, a policy fellow with the American Bar Association Juvenile Justice Center. Although juveniles should be punished for their crimes, they are not as responsible as adults. "This is the premise beneath society's across-the-board restrictions on voting rights, alcohol and tobacco consumption, and serving in the armed forces," observes Ortiz. "Indeed, this is why we refer to those under 18 as `minors' and `juveniles'—because, in so many respects, they are less than adult." Murder however is a different story since you ends someones life. As i said, you are TAUGHT to know whats wrong and right. The mentality of the newer generations are generally higher then the childrens from 30 years ago. Murder is wrong and if juveniles knows its wrong and still commits murder, why should we still go easy on them and treat them as juveniles? Contention 2: Punishment doesn't work, it just makes things worse. "Gorski presents three principles which should guide the debate regarding adult sentencing of juveniles. First, adolescents are not fully developed mentally and are prone to poor impulse control; second, even the most violent juvenile offender can be rehabilitated with proper treatment; last, the United States has a juvenile justice system that is designed to help youthful offenders, not punish them. "It is important to remember that punishment does not work," asserts Gorski. "Punishment is a failed strategy for changing behavior, teaching new skills, or developing new and more positive attitudes and beliefs." Are you even sure that it doesnt work? Some states now treat crimes from juveniles and adults the same way and what was the results? Crimes from juveniles dropped. It seems Gorski was wrong after all for some part. Contention 3: Youths are easily influenced "It's a well known fact that a most juvenile delinquents had a bad upbringing. During the adolescence 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. An example would be a case where a Mother began stealing things with her children, hiding things in their pockets and purses. The children were thereby taught that stealing is OK, maybe even if they must use force. The children should not be held responsible, the bad influences should be, be it a parent or a sibling or maybe an older friend who's experienced in the life of crime. Therefore, we should always take different circumstances into account, something the Affirmative cannot do." I think this is an exception. If a certain person was stealing and you saw it, making you think its ok, then you are influenced by that person. Note that stealing isnt a serious felony. Sub Point A: Youths should not have access to violent weapons. "Guns are usually related to violent crimes juveniles commit. Obviously, you must be 21 to buy and legally own a gun. Who's to blame for letting an underage have possession of such dangerous weapons? Certainly not the juvenile. Maybe the parent didn't fully teach the juvenile right from wrong, and/or carelessly left the gun around. Maybe the juveniles see on T.V. the power the gun has, and can get whatever they want if they have possession of it." You are absolutely correct, they shouldnt be having access to weapons. However, since the gun doesnt tells you to pick it up and fire at people, the juvenile is at fault for taking the gun. Kids watches tv most of the day. They should be knowing what a gun is. Contention 4: You cannot protect Human Worth with the Affirmative position. "Professor Palo Annino (Florida State University) expands: Oh, absolutely, I think we're immoral, ultimately as a nation. This is no different from slavery and other major moral issues. Placing children in adult prisons for life is a death sentence for children. Do we want to do that as a society? Do we want to ignore our Western traditions? I mean, we do have Western traditions, and one part of our Western traditions is called redemption, and for many people in our culture redemption is an important value." Why do we put those children in jail in the first place? Because they committed a crime. Was it serious? Of course since he got life sentence for it. Neither the police nor the victims family will show you mercy if you commit a murder. If we punish juveniles for their crime, how is it immoral i ask you? Here i fight back since i dont like to be pummeled. "1. We look at them as a child because as my Con 1 and Con 3-Sub A states, there are multiple factors that are behind why a child commits violent felonies, such as abuse, growing up in a bad environment, etc. That's not even mentioning the fact that "During the adolescence 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." At age of 13, you should be knowing that killing is wrong and that you get punished if you commit a murder. And with the rising mentality of younger ages, they should be knowing whats right and wrong at young age. You can disagree with me, but my claim still stands that they should be knowing it. "2. If we treat Children as Adults in terms of crime, we should treat them as adults in EVERYTHING, such as voting rights, alcohol and tobacco consumption, and serving in the armed forces. It would be hypocritical otherwise. Also, that narrow minded viewpoint doesn't bring in circumstances such as, as I stated, before abuse and growing up in a bad environment." I disagree here. We have these restrictions here to show those juveniles the differene between bad and good. We dont allow childrens smoke or drink alcohol. Why? Because its bad and unhealthy. As for jobs, the juveniles will be disagreeing with you xD (they dont want to work yet xD) Abuse and growing up in a bad environment doesnt force you to commit a crime. With killing all around you, its absurd to not know what killing is and if it is right or not. I guess i have to stop here since im running out of text... Source: http://www.time.com...

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

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.

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. <<<--

Sorry for forfeiting the round, I did have other debates to do and so I have run out of time. You said: People just kill animals for their goods and money and even if you Ban video games people will keep killing elephants for ivory. Yes,people kill animals for their goods and money, but in video games they show horrific violence. Humans kill the animals in video games in an abusive way. They kill animals for no reason. (not for their goods and money.) You said children were already bad before they played these video games,but Dylan wasn't a person that would kill someone,but when he played the video games his brain got influenced and he shot innocent lives. Also to make it clear,im not saying to ban video games I just believe that we need to be more strict with what we put into children's minds. Some things are so graphic and children shouldn't even be looking at this kind of stuff. Studies show that if you look at something so graphic or horrific you will get criminal behaviour or even be traumatised. Its not healthy for your brain. I know that even if you ban video games things like rape and murder will still happen,but if these games that promote these negative themes get banned, the rape and murder rates would go lower. (better than going higher.) I do know that not all video games have shooting in them,in fact some of them are educational. But like I said its not good to promote negative themes. Their companies that are to stop rape and murder but how can we stop it if video games are promoting these themes? I thank you for this debate and wish you good luck. But I still believe STRONGLY that video games do cause children to commit crimes. Thank you.


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

Open Challenge - 4 Topics

<Psychology> Consider a scenario where a 6-year-old child threatens to beat you up if you don't stop for ice cream. The parents don't intervene because they know the child's threat lacks substance. Now, replace the child with a professional wrestler, and you might be more inclined to pull over. Without a realistic threat, aggression doesn't translate to action. Playing violent video games like Grand Theft Auto may increase the desire to crash digital cars or engage in virtual fights, but it doesn't change the practicality of aggression. This concept is reinforced by a non-human example: if you show a moose videos of other moose fighting, it won't suddenly seek out a rival to challenge. The moose's chances of victory remain unchanged, so why should its behavior alter? This analogy helps explain why violent video games may not have a lasting impact on human aggression. People play games for the challenge, not the violence. Therefore, changing game difficulty could have a more significant effect on aggression than altering the level of violence.

<Difficulty> Andrew K. Przybylski of Rochester University conducted a series of seven studies to explore the link between violent video games and aggression. In the first study, 99 participants played two games: one non-violent with easy controls and the other violent with complex controls. Participants rated the game's violence, control difficulty, and their post-game aggression. Control difficulty correlated more strongly with aggression than violence. The second study compared two versions of Half-Life 2, one violent and the other not, with identical atmosphere and difficulty. Frustration with game difficulty was a better predictor of aggression than game violence. Study three, similar to two but with varied control difficulty in Tetris, found that those with harder controls were more prone to aggression. Study four replicated these findings. Study five gave 112 participants complex games, one violent, the other not, with half receiving practice time. Participants without practice showed more aggression, with no correlation to game violence. Study six had participants submerge their arms in ice water before playing Tetris at various difficulties. The harder the game, the longer participants wanted the next person's arm to stay in the water. Study seven interviewed gamers on their games and aggression levels. Game difficulty correlated more with aggression than game rating. These studies indicate that game difficulty, not violence, is a better predictor of player aggression.

<Empathy> Dr. Gregor Szycik's study focused on the long-term effects of video games

"Gangs, murders, and drug transactions happened before the gangster rap. Gangster rap may make this more popular but the problem is caused by outside influences. I play Halo and don't kill people like many A students in school have Pink Floyd's "Another brick in the wall" on their ipods. The drug revolution happened in the 70s making a sudden increase in drug use. Drugs affect poor people the most. Blacks were mostly poor." By popularizing it, children get in contact with it by their family members and/or older siblings. Getting in contact with it at a young age will of course corrupt the child's developing mind and would make the child incapable of sufficiently telling the good from the bad of things because he would have been hearing about shooting, stabbing, brawling, sex, and crime at such a young age. Yes they do need to know that these realities do very exist in the world, but there are certain ages that they need to hear about these when their minds are capable of comprehending. By banning this more aggressive genre of music, it would be much more easier for a child to not come in contact with it. On the side there will be 2 videos, from top to bottom it begins with Pink Floyd's "Another Brick In The Wall", then 50 Cent's "*%#! You". Unfortunately I was unable to post the lyrics due to 50 Cent's constant use of foul language, so I posted up the videos. Now, which one would a child most understand? I myself would be able to understand the words like "#%*! You" compared to "education" if I was a child, my younger brother would most likely agree..... He just did. But, I still did not understand 50 Cent's song through the lyrics nor through the music video. But I would say this..... I like the background images from 50 Cent's music video from 2:00 - 2:05, what a wonderful image of not promoting guns. As guns, drugs, and violence becomes more popularized by Gangsta Rap, more and more youths become involved in the world of gang violence and I just do not want the record companies and artists to constantly make money off of this. I would like to thank my opponent for putting up a very difficult debate, but I would like to apologize for not posting my argument up sooner for now I do not have enough time to reply to all of your arguments. I sincerely apologize for my very late timing. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.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.

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.

True, but besides the positive effects video games could have. There are also negative effects through the long usage of it. If you play it all the time straight, or even 10 hours straight chances are you will get a headache. From that the body is telling you what you are doing now is damaging. Also, the brain is a very important organ in your body you really don't want something to go wrong with it. The positive effects of video games can be gained in another ways. We exist for quite some time now even before video games. Within that it is perfectly possible to use another source for education that has the same effect as video games.

In this debate I will defend that video games do not cause violence. First round is for acceptance. Please only accept if you plan on finishing the debate.

No problem. First I am going to attack my opponent's framework. TV and video games distort reality. Just because something distorts reality doesn't make it a bad thing. My opponent must provide substantial evidence that the distortion of reality is bad. The majority of games children play are violent This may be true but this statement counters my opponent first contention that this distorts reality. Violent videogames show an unseen reality. It educates children on a reality unseen to the common person. Just because a reality is unseen does not make it a distortion of reality. it has been proven that tv and video games influence obesity rates First, my opponent needs to provide statistics that prove this. Second, just because something contributes to the obesity epidemic doesn't mean it should be regulated. Food increases obesity rates, however we don't regulate it. Thus, this is refuted. Now to my framework. Freedom of Speech. When you portray messages on television, it speaks a message. Whatever that message speaks, you are entitled to say it, with the exception of pornography, but that is a different reason. It has been proven that regulating what goes on television, with the Citizen's United Versus FEC, is unconstitutional. Parents decision The government is not liable to the parenting of children. If the government was to regulate what they thought was good, it would hamper the individual needs of the child, and for the government to regulate how long and what television the individual child watched would infringe upon 1st and 4th amendments (NSA!). Educational Purposes Many television shows are educational. If the government controlled how much television you watched, children might lose out on educational shows that would benefit them greatly. For these reasons, vote for me.

I'll accept your challenge. I hope to have a good debate. In this debate, I assume you are trying to prove a link between violent crime and violent mass media. I will try to disprove your statement of how mass media creates more violent crime. I disagree with your statement. You say media is a the main source for violent crime to begin. However, while media has become more and more popular over the last ten years, the FBI states that the estimated violent crime level of 2012 was 12.2 percent down from the 2003 estimated violent crime level- http://www.fbi.gov... Obviously, television and internet have been becoming more popular over these last ten years-so much that I can check the news from my smartphone and watch shows on a small, very portable tablet. Accessibility has been increasing, but crime has been going down. Therefore, I say violent media is not the leading cause of violent crime.

Thank you, ThaAwesome1. Good luck to you also. Video games do more harm to society then they do good for society. Unimaginable situations- Video games put their users into unimaginable situations that often represent true moral and philosophical dilemmas but keep their audience detached from the consequences of the dilemmas. If a person was in a situation where aliens were trying to destroy their planet, maybe they would actually put on a bionic suit, pick up a gun, and fight the aliens to victory or death, we don’t know. Perhaps from playing a video game such as Halo, they would be more likely to perform in the same manner as Master Chief. But it stands to reason that if a person were more likely to become enlisted in the Navy after playing this game, wouldn’t the same likely hood apply to the people who play Grand-theft auto to become a criminal. Is a person who plays Need for Speed more likely to become a street racer than someone who has never heard of the game? Lifestyle Advertising--The U.S. Navy endorses games like Halo because it is advertisement that encourages youngsters to become recruits. Every game is an advertisement for the lifestyle it portrays. Even if every GTA player does not become a criminal, their mind is being programmed during continued game play to condone things like drug use, sex trade, police murdering, reckless driving, car stealing, car bombing, etc. And if you don’t do it right the first time, you get a second chance, and as many chances as you need until you perform the task to the game makers satisfaction. Encourages Lethargy— The mind can process images faster than the body can react, but the mind does process every image it sees. The events that occur in the game are indistinguishable to the mind from actual events. This is proven by gamers claiming to have actually completed the tasks in the game. The mind tells the body that it needs the same amount of calorie intake to perform the virtual task as it would to perform the actual task. But the body isn’t putting out the same amount of energy needed to perform the actual task. The body while playing the video game is in a relaxed state exhausting a little more energy than it takes to sleep. Artificial Achievements – Games are riddled with artificial achievements, but the reality is that a disk goes in to console and come out the same disk. All the points and unlocks mean nothing to anyone else except the gamer. Why should they? Points are intangible and have no function outside of the game. They are locked away in a corruptible save file waiting patiently to be reawakened the next time the player chooses to access them. That is not the case in real life. Achievements come from labor and repetition and there is no one standing over you waiting to congratulate you for every little thing that happens. Real life achievements build on themselves and never leave, they apply to you all the time even if you switch careers. Achievements and points from one game do not carry over to another. If some people spent the same amount of time manipulating the real world as they did video games, we would have thousands of musicians instead of Rock Band, and farmers instead of Farmville, and city or park developers instead of Roller Coaster Tycoon and the like. Praise is like a drug, we yearn for it and we are willing to do whatever it takes to get it. It certainly is gratifying to get that praise when all it takes is a few moments kicked back on the couch. Unusable skills -- Why do the real thing when you can play the video game. Economically it makes sense, I don’t know the exact cost of the following things but I know buying the video game pretend version is a lot cheaper than snowboarding, motocross riding, race car driving, and going to war. But is the gamer actually getting the benefit of a knowing how to do the things they are gaming? No, they aren’t. It takes a lot of stamina, strength, and training to pull of the stunts performed in video games. This is where the mental degradation from video games comes into play. Not only are many of the stunts impossible for the imperial athletes, but all of the stunts are impossible for the gamer who may accomplish these feats with nothing more than a flick of the wrist, or thumb. The continued use of video games trains the minds to believe the only way to accomplish the given tasks are through the video game. Impaired Social Interactions – Life is real easy when others move instantly in your control. If you are person who doesn’t believe the tasks are actually being performed by you, but rather a proxy avatar, a true mental restriction has taken place. It is the same as saying the words of a dummy are not the words of the ventriloquist who operates it. The results between the dummy and the avatar are the same. If you say crawl, the avatar crawls. If you say kill, the avatar kills. There is no task (within the confines of the game) that your avatar will not do. More importantly, they will never question your decision making skills even if it means death. The avatar will never complain as humans do, and you don’t have to care about avatar feelings. You never have to check up on NPCs to see if they did the tasks you asked them to do. They just come back later and tell you whatever the game makers predetermined them to tell you. You don’t even get to decide what you say back to them. There is no yelling or dismissal of friendship, and if you do get to choose a response, the responses are limited. Yelling at a TV, or controller, or plant, or whatever else you take your frustrations out on do not affect the game play in the slightest. Try yelling another human, the responses change depending on your relationship with each other and combined personalities. These are my initial points what are yours.

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. <<<--

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