The Instigator
BossAtheism
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
TimothyDrewFlms
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Are First Person Shooters bad for kids?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/20/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 839 times Debate No: 72087
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

BossAtheism

Con

TimothyDrewFilms, If you accept. You will be defending your position on why first person shooters are bad for kids.
TimothyDrewFlms

Pro

Not to say that there are absolutely no positive aspects to first person shooters, but the majority of facets of first person shooters are negatively influential upon children who have no experience with real war, guns or injury by weapon because it gives them false ideas about what real war is like and contributes to their ignorance about real war.For the majority of children ,these games cause increased aggression due to the fact that these games give them the idea that they can kill anything that gets in their way or anything that causes them to be annoyed, i have seen this in my own smaller brother and other smaller children, some may argue that this is a healthy outlet for kids that are naturally aggressive, but this does not aid in stopping their aggression, but it is rather a temporary relief to it.
Debate Round No. 1
BossAtheism

Con

Im sorry that you may see this in your family. But you Do not just get to say First Person Shooters are bad for kids based upon your personal experience.

As for the increase of aggression. I completely and totally disagree. Its not my fault that some children are poorly raised and are taught irrational things. But it is NOT the First person shooters fault.

No one is claiming FPS's to be a permanent relief to aggression. Obviously you play video games for a small amount of time. Then that amount of time is the relief. The escape from reality. The chill session.

So listen, I strongly think that we should both clarify our positions. When you say FPS's are bad for kids. What EXACTLY do you mean? Please be specific. And list the negatives. I understand the things you just said. About false visions of war. (Which by the way, I also completely disagree with you on.) Im sorry but not many kids think Halo is real war. You understand that First person shooters isnt just Call of Duty and battlefield right?
TimothyDrewFlms

Pro

If I debate then of course I am going to use my own personal experiences and observations to aid my discussion, otherwise I would not be able to relate to the situation, as for you saying that its not your fault that some children are raised poorly, those are the children we are talking about in this argument, (just to clarify, I mean children between the ages of 5 and 12), because if a parent was trying to raise their child "properly", then I don't think they would allow them to play violent shooter games at that age. You argued that no one claimed FPS games to be permanent relief to aggression, supporting my argument (if you had read my argument thoroughly, you would have noticed that I said "temporary relief"). If you have played an fps, which I'm sure you have, then you would know that the violence is rewarded, and usually, the more violent the act, the more praise the player receives (e.g Head shots would achieve more points/reward than killing by shooting multiple times anywhere else in order to kill), and it is quite obvious that the more reward a player gets (Hence the more violently they play the game), the more frequently they will do it to achieve that reward. You mention that not all FPS games are realistic enough for kids to consider them war, agreed, Halo is definitely a lot less realistic than COD or Battlefield, but the same rules apply, the more violent you play the more you are rewarded. Tests were done on children and the boys who were assigned to play violent video games came out more aggressive than the kids who did not play violent video games but rather, merely watched (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...). You asked for a list of some of the negatives of first person shooters, here are a few : Promotes violence, rewards players for playing more violently, creates aggression in players, allows players to relate to violent characters and killers.
Debate Round No. 2
BossAtheism

Con

Yes but unfortunately Personal experience is unreliable and anecdotal.

Okay so that main paragraph is pretty much, "Kills are rewarded in games, so kids may be more likely to appeal to violent acts"

http://www.themarysue.com...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
http://www.cbsnews.com...
TimothyDrewFlms

Pro

The second 2 links have little to do with violent video games and are more with video games in general.
I understand that personal experiences can be unreliable, but my "personal experiences" (because I went to a day care when I was around 13 during the holidays), where kids brought their Xboxs and played Call of Duty and Halo, then proceeded to (over a few weeks) all go out and buy BB guns and air rifles and pretend they were criminals running around shooting each other, even hurting each other and taking pleasure in that (although this may just be co-incidence), this also seems to happen with my cousins, and friends of my cousins, siblings of my friends etc, so I would not base an argument simply off one experience.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.