The Instigator
stschiffman
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Tokano
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Are Video Games Responsible for Real World Violence, and Should They Be Regulated Strictly?

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: 4/3/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 711 times Debate No: 89120
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

stschiffman

Pro

Since you clearly disagreed with the comment I made on video games (see the link below), I would like to challenge you to a debate on the subject.

This debate, should you chose to accept it, will cover two topics; whether or not video games cause real world violence, and whether or not the government should regulate video games much the same way it regulates alcohol and tobacco.

Round 1 is for acceptance only.
Rounds 2-4 are for arguments and rebuttals.
Round 5 is for last rebuttals and closing statements, aka summaries of everything we said in our arguments. No new arguments allowed in the final round.

If you want to reread our comments on the subject, click the link below.
http://www.debate.org...
Tokano

Con

I accept your challenge. Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
stschiffman

Pro

I would also like to add that my debate only concerns violent video games, aka M and Ao rated games. E, E10+, and T rated games will not be part of this debate. I apologize for not clarifying this in round 1. Now for my arguments.

Keep an open mind when looking at these statistics

60% of Middle School boys who play M-rated video games will hit or fight another student in a given year. A mere 39% of Middle School boys who do not will do the same. For girls, those percentages are 40% and 14%. If video games are not the problem, wouldn't these numbers be the same.

Here are some names you're probably familiar with; James Holmes, Jared Lee Loughner, Anders Breivik, Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, Adam Lanza. All these men have two similarities; they were all responsible for horrible mass shootings, and they all played violent video games as kids and as adults. Anders Breivik even went as far as to admit that Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 helped him train for the massacre.

Now for the next part of the debate: Should violent video games be regulated in similar ways that alcohol and tobacco are. Personally, I don't see why not. It's illegal for parents to let their kids drink, smoke, or smoke legally acquired marijuana (in states that allow it), and in many states parents cannot give their kids guns, so I don't see any reason why it cannot be made illegal for parents to give their kids violent video games.

Sources
http://videogames.procon.org...
http://www.charismanews.com...
Tokano

Con

I’m perfectly happy to restrict my arguments to violent video games, however I should point out that games that are rated AO are typically games where their sole purpose is pornography. I see more violence in Mario Kart (which is rated E) than some sex simulator that’s rated AO. However, I will concede to ignore the fact that games like Mario Kart (E), Okami (T), and even Tony Hawk (T) are violent.

There are many flaws in the statistics you’ve provided simply because you did not give context and speculated based on an overly broad statement. An APA review states that while they found that violent video games increase aggression, it cannot be linked to physical violence. In fact, on page 4 of the PDF linked in the APA's article it says "All four meta-analyses reported an adverse effect of violent video game use on aggressive outcomes, with an effect size greater than zero, and a narrow range of unadjusted effect sizes (.14–.29)." [1]

This means, unless I am woefully misinformed on how percentages work, that less than half of one percent of people who play video games are acting out based on what they’ve seen or done in a video game. In fact, Dr. Andy Przybylski, from Oxford University’s Oxford Internet Institute, has dedicated much of his time, energy and resources to get to the bottom of this debate and has concluded that “if you look at the evidence it looks like when violence is in some [other] form of media like film it actually might be much more influential for those who consume it compared to games.” [2]

If we are able to accept what Dr. Andy Przybylski has concluded then the end of the APA’s report that states on the top of page 27 of the PDF document is also true. On that page is says that "No single risk factor consistently leads a person to act aggressively or violently. Rather, it is the accumulation of risk factors that tends to lead to aggressive or violent behavior (Berkowitz, 1993; Eron, Huesmann, Lefkowitz, & Walder, 1974; Ferguson et al., 2013). Each risk factor increases the likelihood of such negative behavior (Sameroff, Bartko, Baldwin, Baldwin, & Seifer, 1988). The research reviewed here demonstrates that violent video game use is one such risk factor." [3]

The evidence so far, has not satisfactorily linked violent video games to violence in the real world. Another study, as reported on by the Telegraph, has said that children who play single player games are more adept when it comes to problem solving and reading; it also continues to say that children who play multiplayer games are less likely to be socially awkward. [4]

Each person you’ve listed was mentally ill and by no stretch of the imagination typical for gaming, gamers, or even people for that matter. There is substantial evidence than some of those listed were politically motivated, had religious motivations, were mentally ill and did not receive the proper medical treatment despite alarming behavior. Your source is a Christian motivated propaganda machine that didn’t use any scientific research; they just linked irrelevant facts together to try and demonize an industry that doesn’t conform to their belief system. As stated by C Phillips [5] in the comment section below your source, you can find something that links everyone.

Moving on to the next part of the debate, I personally believe that the regulations and restrictions on the ability to obtain a video game are enough. Video games that are rated M require you to have a government issued ID to obtain, stores that disregard this are heavily fined by law enforcement. The real issue is that parents of young children do not know what the ESRB is or how they rate games -- they think to themselves “oh, it’s just a video game” and buy it for their child anyway. It is up to the parent to be aware of and understand these ratings, then to decide what type of entertainment is appropriate for their child, not the government. As there is no proof that video games are as harmful as alcohol or drugs, there is no viable argument that the government needs to be involved further. This divide comes from people who have played video games and people who have not. The people who have not played video games are more likely to believe they are harmful while the people who have played video games are far more likely to believe they are a beneficial to stress relief. [6]

Sources:

http://www.apa.org... [1][3]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk... [2]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk... [4]

http://www.charismanews.com... [5]
https://today.yougov.com... [6]
Debate Round No. 2
stschiffman

Pro

"An APA review states that while they found that violent video games increase aggression, it cannot be linked to physical violence."
Then how do you explain the middle school violence statistics I gave in round 1?

"This means, unless I am woefully misinformed on how percentages work, that less than half of one percent of people who play video games are acting out based on what they"ve seen or done in a video game."
Just because they're not directly acting out based on what happened in the games does not change the fact that video games are linked to aggression and dangerous behaviors, like the mass shootings I mentioned earlier. Not only do these games impact the shooters, but like Anders Breivik, they actually make them more accurate and better killers.

'Another study, as reported on by the Telegraph, has said that children who play single player games are more adept when it comes to problem solving and reading; it also continues to say that children who play multiplayer games are less likely to be socially awkward."
This is irrelevant. This is what's referred to as a red herring; it's merely a distraction from the debate, not an argument.

"Each person you"ve listed was mentally ill and by no stretch of the imagination typical for gaming, gamers, or even people for that matter."
It doesn't matter if not every gamer is involved in such behavior. Only 10% of smokers will ever develop lung cancer, does that mean the link between lung cancer is a lie. What you need to understand is that a gamer n saying "I played video games, why haven't I shot up a school?" Is no different from a smoker saying "I've smoked for years, why don't I have cancer?" or a driver saying "I never wear my seat belt. Why haven't I died?"

"There is substantial evidence than some of those listed were politically motivated, had religious motivations, were mentally ill and did not receive the proper medical treatment despite alarming behavior."
First off, very few of them had any political motive, and as far as I'm aware none had a religious motive. And I'm not denying their mental health was a factor, but so were the games they played. When people play these games, they start to lose empathy, and start to crave violence even more than they already do.

"Video games that are rated M require you to have a government issued ID to obtain"
I know. But the problem is, parents buy the games for their kids. This ties into one of your other points "It is up to the parent", but I don't think it should be. No one in the right mind thinks to themselves "It is up to the parents to give their kids cigarettes", so why is that our policy with video games that could make them more prone to violent behavior.

"As there is no proof that video games are as harmful as alcohol or drugs, there is no viable argument that the government needs to be involved further."
I never said they were AS harmful, but they are harmful. After all the evidence I've put out, that cannot be denied.

"This divide comes from people who have played video games and people who have not."
This is yet another logical fallacy. Just because I don't play those games myself doesn't mean I haven't done my research on the subject. This is like saying that only drug addicts should get a say in our drug policy.

"Your source is a Christian motivated propaganda machine that didn"t use any scientific research"
What source? ProCon.org certainly wasn't biased; in fact, they had arguments for your side in that same article. And we both cited different articles from Charismanews, so clearly that wasn't the "Christian motivated propaganda machine."

One last thing before I turn it back to you; 90% of pediatricians agreed or strongly agreed that violent video games increase violent behavior among children.

Sources
http://www.livescience.com...
http://videogames.procon.org...
Tokano

Con

I looked at your source for those statistics and I’ve looked at mine. Your source, may have used a different methodology than the APA and their study. However, I put a little more faith in the APA’s study because it has been peer reviewed; which means that other scientists have looked at the study and concluded that their methodology and findings were logical and correct. I was unable to find evidence that the study used by your source was peer reviewed. [1]


Yes, the APA concluded that violent video games result in higher levels of aggression, however aggression does not necessarily lead to physical violence. If you actually read the report I sourced then you would also note that the APA’s report also concluded that there is no single risk factor that leads people to act out. It is the result of several risk factors and poor choices that lead people to act out. [2]


It’s strange that you reference Anders Breivik then continue on to say that you aren’t aware of a religious motivation. Please do not reference cases you are not familiar with as it makes me need to work much harder to educate you on the person and then tell you why you’re misguided. Anders Breivik was a coward and a Norwegian ideological, political, and religious terrorist. He blew up a van killing 8 people and when that wasn’t enough he went on a killing spree that targeted Muslim children at a summer camp. He ended up wounding 319 people and killing 77 people in those attacks. [3]


Anders Breivik later cited that Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 was his training simulator [4] -- which, I can tell you from personal experience is a very ineffective training simulator. The game doesn’t take physics into account and is completely broken in terms of realism. I know this because my Kill/Death ratio in that game is something like 1.7. I played that game for countless hours and being a gun owner myself, I didn’t notice even a slight improvement in my accuracy after playing the game. Anders Breivik may have used it to desensitise himself to the idea of murdering another human, but it most certainly did not help him with accuracy. Especially when you consider he spent countless hours at a shooting range -- using real guns to improve his real life accuracy. The source you gave claiming that video games improve accuracy doesn’t take into account firearm recoil, weight, wind, gravity, etc... It is fundamentally flawed and therefore not accurate. It also was not peer reviewed or else the study would have been dismissed for these fatal flaws.


You then said, without citation, that people who play FPSs start to crave violence. There is no evidence to support this theory and I can show you thousands of people around the world who play Call of Duty, Destiny, Battlefield, Battlefront, and Titan Fall who do not “crave” violence afterwards. They are normal, everyday people, like you and I. In fact, like the Telegraph article you said was “irrelevant” stated, it helps make people less socially awkward as those are primarily multiplayer games with lackluster and boring campaign modes. Being socially accepted is something that reduces the feeling of being an outcast and marginalized thus reduces the number of suicides and violence altogether.


Moving on to your next “argument”, you’re doing what you accused me of by using the article from the Telegraph. You’re attempting to distract from the debate at hand and move it in another direction. However, if you want to use hypothetical claims of insistent ignorance, then you should look at the source I ironically linked from your Christian source. It’s a comment by C Phillips and it points out exactly what is wrong with your source.


Instead of your source being fundamentally flawed, it is now your argument. You seem to think that the government knows what is best for our children. If at the age of 16 in most United States territory, we are allowed to drive a quarter ton death machine on wheels at our parent’s discretion, should we then tell the parent “we trust you to decide if your child can be behind the wheel of a car, but not to discern reality from fiction?” Obviously not, that is appalling oversight. Why not take it one step further and say “we don’t like how CNN is influencing national opinion, here is a new government approved program that only says what we allow it to and this is the only media you’re allowed to access.” That is what you risk by saying parents cannot decide what type of media and entertainment our children are allowed to consume -- it’s one step away from controlling the parents. Children are not and should not be owned or controlled by the government.


Yes, video games can lead to an increase in aggression, but so does high school, hormones from puberty, and people saying things we disagree with. Does that mean we need to ban high schools, puberty, and the First Amendment?


No, that’s not a logical fallacy. That is a studied fact. If you actually clicked on my sources and did the reading for yourself, you wouldn’t be attempting to dispute that.


Again, your last claim had no source and therefore is irrelevant.


Before I move this back to you, here is some interesting data for you:

Before April 2012, 162 million copies of the top 10 FPS games at that time have been sold. Using your own propaganda-source, only two of your 14 murderers ever admitting to playing any of those top 10 FPS games. [5]


Sources:

http://www.apa.org... [1][2] Pages 28 - 49 is all the material they referenced from others and the names, positions, and qualifications of all the people who reviewed their work. Page 27 is the end of their conclusion.

https://en.wikipedia.org... [3][4]

http://www.vgchartz.com... [5]
Debate Round No. 3
stschiffman

Pro

"...there is no single risk factor that leads people to act out. It is the result of several risk factors and poor choices that lead people to act out."
I'm no denying that there are other factors at play, like mental health. But it doesn't change the fact that video games are part of the problem. Situations where video games really are the straw that broke the camels back are rare, but they do happen.

"It"s strange that you reference Anders Breivik then continue on to say that you aren"t aware of a religious motivation."
I did a little research on him, and from what I've founded, you're the one that needs to be educated not me; his motivation was the amount of immigrants (Muslim and non-Muslim) flooding into Norway. "People will understand me one day and see that multiculturalism has failed. They (Norwegians) risk being a minority in their own capital in their own country in the future."

"Anders Breivik later cited that Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 was his training simulator [4] -- which, I can tell you from personal experience is a very ineffective training simulator."
Your personal experience with that game does not classify a valid argument. And even if that one particular video game is not a good training simulation, that doesn't prove other games are not. Just look at the Heath High School shooting in 1997; a fourteen year old high school student named Michael Carneal with no military training entered his school with a handgun and fired at a group of eight praying students. Of the 8-10 shots he took, he got three hits, each one a hit, three of them kill shots. This is truly extraordinary, as trained police officers in active shooter scenarios only hit their targets 20% of the time. How did Carneal do it? Because hours of video games (namely Quake and Doom) made him a better shooter. I know this debate is about video games, but it should also be noted that he was obsessed with the shooting scene in the movie "The Basketball Diaries" and the Stephen King book "Rage".
Will video games turn everyone into a sharpshooter? No, they won't, but nothing will. That's a concept you need to understand. Not everyone affects everyone the same way. To some people, like you, video games are merely a past time. To others, they give them that extra little bit of motivation they need to carry out an attack like that.

"That is what you risk by saying parents cannot decide what type of media and entertainment our children are allowed to consume -- it"s one step away from controlling the parents. Children are not and should not be owned or controlled by the government."
Okay, I think it's safe to say there is a huge leap between outlawing kids from having access to M rated video games and turning into a totalitarian state. No, Big Brother is not watching you, and taking violent video games out of children's hands won't start it. And your analogy about driving was completely flawed; not only do we make kids pass a written test just to start learning how to drive, but we have to make them pass a driving test to make sure they can, which they can only do at the age of 16. It's not as as simple as "Here's the keys, don't get in a wreck."

"Before April 2012, 162 million copies of the top 10 FPS games at that time have been sold. Using your own propaganda-source, only two of your 14 murderers ever admitting to playing any of those top 10 FPS games."
That's what I'm trying to get clear to you; not everything affects everyone the exact same way. Only 10% of smokers will ever get lung cancer, does that mean there is no link between cigarettesg and lung cancer? Also, the word "admitting" comes to mind in that sentence; how many killers in the past, not just mass shooters, but all killers played video games and simply never admitted it? Probably countless.
Another example; on Interstate 40, two brothers took rifles and fired on innocent civilians, killing one and injuring another. They admitted to "trying to recreate scenes from Grand Theft Auto." And once again, these are just instances where the killers admitted video games game them their inspiration; just think of all the times killers simply never talked about their gaming.

And I find it strange you bring up the American Psychological Association, considering in its August 2015 resolution on violent video games, they said "WHEREAS many factors are known to be risk factors for increased aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition and aggressive affect, and reduced prosocial behavior, empathy and moral engagement, and violent video game use is one such risk factor. Playing a violent video game isn't going to take a healthy kid who has few other risk factors and turn him into a school shooter, but it is a risk factor that does drive the odds for aggression up significantly." Couldn't have said it better myself; video games are rarely the only factor, but they are a factor nonetheless.

There'a great book you should read called "Control" by Glenn Beck. It's about how, despite what the media claims, gun ownership is not responsible for these tragedies, the games are. Despite all the years Americans have kept arms, these mass shootings are only a modern thing? If not video games, why? I really feel it will change your stance on violent video games. I used his book for some of my arguments in this round, like the Heath School Shooting.

By the way, I read your message in your friend request. If you ever want to debate me again, just challenge me.

Sources
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.theregister.co.uk...
Tokano

Con

There are a multitude of factors, as you’ve conceded. However, you seem to think that video games are a much more risky than child abuse, drug abuse, socioeconomics, mental health, etc… The whole point of this debate is for you to prove that video games contribute to real world violence in a meaningful way. All you have done is give me a list of 14 murderers who happened to enjoy video games. There were only two people on your entire list who ever admitted to playing any of the top 10 FPS games ever made before April of 2012. That list also failed to mention that all those shooters were men; does that mean all men are going to go on a rampage at some point because they have a penis? It also forgot to mention that everyone on that list has drank a glass of water in their lifetime; does that mean everyone who drinks water is going to take up arms and slaughter innocent people? That article you cited and your arguments thus far do not convince me that isolated incidents are to reflect and punish the gaming industry and community as a whole. You are using the same tactics others are using in politics right now where you blame all of Islam for the actions of a select few.


In the case of Anders Breivik, carrying out an attack on or an attack in the name of a religion is the definition of “religious motivation”. His attacks were primarily on the Muslim children of Islamic immigrants. His motives were nationalist and religious, not because a video game told him it was a good idea. If he were to act out what he saw in Modern Warfare 2, he would have been attacking malls filled with Russian civilians, not summer camps filled with Muslim immigrant children.


On the contrary, our very own observations and experiences are much more valuable than the writings of others. We ourselves can personally attest for our own experiences, we cannot verify that any research has ever been done unless we actually took part in the research. We merely take it on faith that the experiments they conducted were not tampered with or even that they actually took place. Therefore I very strongly believe that our personal experiences classify as valid arguments.


You bring up the case of Michael Carneal, a kid who was diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic. Again, his mental state brings everything else into question because as you even stated, not everyone is affected the same way. If you allow me to interject my own experience here, I can personally attest that Quake and Doom are ineffective training simulators. They are both drastically different than real life because in Quake III, you need to aim the Railgun’s crosshairs approximately 3 cm to the left of your target to hit them squarely in the chest. This is due to the games failed assumption that all TV’s are the same size. The same problem occurs in Doom, you need to aim approximately 1 - 2cm to the bottom of your target to hit your target in the chest as well. These games also don’t take weight of the gun, recoil, gravity (bullet drop), stamina, adrenaline, footing, etc. into account. This is because they are not training simulators, they are video games. Now, if you want to make the argument that twitch action shooters can desensitize the mentally ill to killing another human, then I can’t argue with that. There is insurmountable evidence that this can occur in people who cannot distinguish fiction from reality; and in the case of a paranoid schizophrenic, this very well may have happened.


Now, as for his “untrained” accuracy… If we assume that playing violent video games desensitises the mentally ill, then we also have to assume that they will also always go for a killshot instead of non-lethal. If, when entering the classroom, he made all the students line up or get into a group in a corner of the room, this would account for his high accuracy. This isn’t so much that Michael Carneal had the unerring prowess of a trained killer, but more or less that he had the hunter’s instinct to minimize his risk and maximise his results. This is also, in part, the students fault for complying with his demands instead of dispersing or charging the gunman. If there was resistance, his accuracy would have been much lower. If, instead, it was a blitz attack on students who were sitting at their desks spread out across the room, this would also be most opportune for the killer because the reaction time of the unsuspecting students would be diminished.


In regards to your allusion to those two brothers, you’re attempting to remove and supplement your own idea of psychology here. Team killers are almost always dominant and submissive; the submissive one would help carry out the will of the dominant one and is usually the one who is caught first if they have the opportunity to run from the police. In interrogations, the submissive one will always say that the dominant one told them to do it and they did it out of fear or love for that individual. The dominant one will be proud of his inspiration once he’s admitted to a crime. He would want the world to know what inspired him and why -- not try to hide it. This same concept holds true almost across the board -- they are proud of their inspiration.


To your final point; you use Glenn Beck as a source of information. Allow me to tell you why Glenn Beck is an incredibly inaccurate source for anything video game related: Glenn Beck said back in 2014 that the Ubisoft game Watch_Dogs “teaches children how to hack”.[1] The way you hack things in Watch_Dogs is by solving very easy puzzles… That’s not how real hacking works. Real hacking (very condensed) is about finding backdoors into websites and servers then exploiting that weakness to gain privileged entry and copy (sometimes encrypted) files. Then, if the files are still encrypted (despite having entry to the system you’re hacking) you need to find the encryption key. The encryption key is the sum of two large prime numbers divided to make another large prime number so that you can unlock the information you stole from a weak point in the server. Watch_Dogs is a rotating puzzle; not the division of two primes that are thousands of digits long each. Not the use of finding backdoors in websites and their servers. He fundamentally misunderstands how hacking works because he is of the generation that is woefully ignorant of how computers work -- it’s not his fault that he doesn’t understand them, it is his fault that he opens his mouth on subjects he doesn’t understand.

You may agree with Glenn Beck on other political issues, he does raise some good points every once in awhile; but you should utterly disregard anything he has to say when it comes to technology.


While you seemingly want to only focus on the very limited and unproven acts of violence that has happened where perpetrators, victims, and news people spin the real story to push their agendas, I would like to make the appeal that video games have done much more good in the world than they have done harm. For example, we have Daigo Umehara [2], a Capcom Cup winner and several time Evo champion donating their winnings to a scholarship that would help young gamers able to afford college in a field they love. Then we have educators like CGPGrey, a YouTube content creator, who spends countless hours making highly accurate, entertaining, educational videos. CGP Grey has admitted several times that he spends copious amounts of his free time playing World of Warcraft, which is one of the games listed on your Christian propaganda website as the primary cause for someone murdering other people. People like Joe Vargas (AKA AngryJoe), another YouTuber, have made astounding leaps and bounds in the realm of video games and the gaming community -- he reviews games fairly, he gets interviews with people like Major Nelson from Xbox and asks them important questions that are seemingly uncomfortable for them, he was one of the louder voices in the #FucKonami movements after their treatment of Hideo Kojima. Then, if you go on Twitch, I guarantee that you will find several streams where all of the donations they get go directly to charities that help the less fortunate. The gaming community isn’t about violence, murder, or who can beat Cho’s score. It’s about being a community, being decent human beings, and bonding over what all of us love. You wanted to dismiss my cited argument earlier that video games help children’s critical thinking skills and their personal skills, but I think you are very wrong to dismiss those cases as a means to try and blanket the entire gaming industry as poisonous for society.


Sources:

http://www.polygon.com... [1]

http://shoryuken.com... [2]

CGPGrey YouTube: https://www.youtube.com...

AngryJoe YouTube: https://www.youtube.com...

Twitch: https://www.Twitch.tv...
Debate Round No. 4
stschiffman

Pro

As per the rules of this round, no new arguments, only my last rebuttals and my closing statement.

"All you have done is give me a list of 14 murderers who happened to enjoy video games."
You're right, all I've given you is a list of 14 ordinary people that video games turned into mass murderers...and proven statistics that prove middle school children who play violent video games are more likely to assault other students, and the proven fact that 90% of pediatricians believe violent video games are harmful to children, among other facts I have cited. Your blatant denial of these scientifically and statistically proven facts is just that, denial.

"On the contrary, our very own observations and experiences are much more valuable than the writings of others."
As I've said before, no, they aren't. Your personal beliefs about the video games do not change scientific facts. If an NFL player says "I don't believe football causes concussions" are we supposed to immediately disregard the scientifically proven data that shows football causes concussions. If a cell phone user says "I don't believe cell phones impair driving" are we supposed to deny all the science that proves using cell phones while driving causes accidents? Point is, when personal beliefs and science don't agree, I will pick science every time.

"If, when entering the classroom, he (Carneal) made all the students line up or get into a group in a corner of the room, this would account for his high accuracy."
Tell that to all the trained police officers, who, like I said earlier, only have a 20% accuracy percentage in mass shooter scenarios. This kid couldn't have been that lucky with a handgun, he had to have had some way of training.

"If there was resistance, his accuracy would have been much lower."
Unarmed people cannot possibly resist a man with a gun pointed right at them. Unless you just so happen to be as fast as the Flash, resisting would only get you shot sooner. I know this is irrelevant to the debate, but I had to point it out.

"But you should utterly disregard anything he (Glenn Beck) has to say when it comes to technology."
No, I shouldn't, and neither should you. Trust me, you should read this book, it has plenty of useful information. I'm not going to share much of it, as that would violate my own rule about new arguments in the final round, but trust me, you should read it.

"I would like to make the appeal that video games have done much more good in the world than they have done harm."
First off, much of that paragraph is about nonviolent video games, which I specifically said this debate was not about. Second, so what if nonviolent video games award a few kids scholarships? That doesn't change the fact that violent video games lead to the deaths of other children. Overall, that whole paragraph is irrelevant.

Tokano, thank you for debating with me. Over the course of this debate, I have learned a lot about the subject in general, and have had a lot of fun debating with you. If you ever want to debate me again, feel free to challenge me.
Tokano

Con

As per your rules, no new arguments, however I will respond to the points you have brought up using my last argument using only what you and I have presented so far.


Your wording of the statistic you keep citing “that 90% of pediatricians believe that violent video games are harmful to children” is misleading. I looked at your source and I looked up the source that they used for this claim and I found their wording of it completely different. The article basically confirms the APA study I was citing earlier; that it increases aggression, not violence. You are trying to change the wording of the source to fit your notion that violent video games are harmful. Aggression isn’t harmful; aggressive acts of violence are harmful. I’m not denying that aggression can be caused by violent video games, I do disagree that video games are the escalation needed to commit an act of violence though.[1]


You’re choosing which science to believe because you’re only accepting of science that verifies your pre-existing beliefs. Do you think so little of yourself that you actually believe that our personal experiences aren’t influenced by science? NFL players would never say “I believe football cases concussions” because it’s obvious that football doesn’t cause the concussion. Being tackled with helmet to helmet contact cause concussions. Someone driving while talking on a cellphone saying “I don’t believe cellphone’s impair driving” are typically the same people who believe multitasking doesn’t reduce concentration. Thus, their beliefs aren’t grounded in science because they are spending less time observing and thinking than attempting to multitask.


This points to a fundamental problem within our police force if your claim of 20% accuracy in trained officers is correct. There is no reason why someone should be allowed to carry a badge and a gun who only has 20% accuracy. However, I have done some reasearch and I have found that police academy accuracy training is among the worst in the world. As it turns out, people who shoot for recreational purposes, hunters, and other enthusiasts typically have a much higher accuracy than anyone who receives training from the police academy. If the gunman we’re discussing had access to a shooting range or was able to shoot in his own backyard, then this would account for higher than “normal” accuracy. I hope this doesn’t count as a new argument, as it is in response to your argument -- however if you view it as one, please let me know in the comments and we’ll ask people to disregard it.[2]


Unarmed people absolutely can resist a gunman. Where I work it was required that we learn how to distract a gunman till help can arrive. Shout things, throw things, and if it isn’t working; run in a random pattern to safety. If you’re blocked in and have nowhere to run, as a last resort, charge the gunman. Like you, many people thought that was an insane idea, but they explained to us that most gunmen are cowards and by taking away their ability to control the situation, you will effectively be in less danger than if you allowed him to have control over you. The more people who charge him, the better; he may be able to shoot some of the people charging him, but there is no way he could shoot all of them.


Glenn Beck is not a psychologist, did not go to school for computer science, does not have a background in electronics and believes the Bible trumps science. He is a fear mongering “reporter”. You say that you pick science every time, but you use a source who refuses to accept science.


Actually, my paragraph used examples of people who play very violent games. Daigo Umehara played Street Fighter, which is rated T for “Mild Language, Suggestive Themes, and Violence”. Daigo is a huge name the fighting scene, which includes Mortal Kombat (the reason we have the ESRB), Dead or Alive, Killer Instinct, Guilty Gear, Marvel vs Capcom, Injustice, etc.. CGP Grey played World of Warcraft, which is rated T for “Blood and Gore, Crude Humor, Mild Language, Suggestive Themes, Use of Alcohol, Violence”. AngryJoe plays everything under the sun, almost all games include some sort of violence. Almost all of the streams on Twitch are of violent games; those players collect donations for personal use as well as for charities. Those people who you think are hurting children are collecting money to help children -- I wouldn’t call that “irrelevant”.


I have also really enjoyed our debate, Stschiffman. This happens to be a topic I am well informed on and take a little too personally (being a lifelong gamer). I hope that some of my arguments made you rethink or double down on your position rather than having no effect at all. I also extend that same invitation to you; if you ever want to debate me again, just challenge me.


Sources:

https://news.osu.edu... [1]
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com... [2]
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.