The Instigator
DebateMaster706
Pro (for)
The Contender
Alister_Illustratum
Con (against)

Are shooters morally wrong?

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Alister_Illustratum has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/18/2017 Category: Games
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 326 times Debate No: 102051
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

DebateMaster706

Pro

Today many shooters fall under the rating of M, or T. Shooters are morally wrong because you're picking up a gun and shooting another human or living creature. Is it right to simulate war? Even in rated E shooters war is only something caused by provoking or being provoked. War itself is not morally right, trying to turn it into something fun is terrible. If you gave every character in the game a backstory, the game would be more emotionally in depth. Why make wars fun? War is a terrible thing, making it fun is sad in a way. Shooters are also wrong because it allows adults to let kids play games that are way outside their age. They should make ages more clear. If you go to game stop and ask for your preorder for a rated M game, if you say that this game is for my 5 year old, they won't let you buy the game because it is like giving alcohol to minors. This means they should make the ESRB ratings more strict and make sure kids aren't buying M or AO games under aged. Another immoral thing about games is their tendency to be inaccurate, like killing 20 people with ease. This, in a way, is disrespectful to the war itself, making war heroes historically inaccurate. Another thing that is wrong with shooters is their strong language. This might not be a big problem for adults, but for kids, it can catch on real quick.
Video games can also make certain audiences violent. In games, they throw unrealistic amounts of blood, gore and more violent references. Shooters can change peoples life in the wrong ways even including PTSD. Just because it isn't reality doesn't mean it is good, it is the thought of shooters that are the main problem.
even if a shooter is trying to be historic or educational, it is very inaccurate and is a terrible source for facts. I have never seen a historically accurate game.
for instance Battlefield 1, playing as a real character who fought in WW1, and they overexaggerate taking out about 50 men in less than 30 min.
Alister_Illustratum

Con

In my case, I will telling you why shooters are not morally wrong. First I will be negating many of my opponents claims then stating my own. I will also like to say that I will try to link my sources to my arguments below my case. I will now move on to my opponents case.

I would first like to point out one of my opponents point of age. Yes kids are playing these M rated games, but it is up to the parent to decide if their kid is mentally prepared to play them. It is the players job to retain a since of reality and know that those games are not part of this worlds workings. He then goes on to say kids are buying games under aged. They are not taking into consideration that you need proof that you are 17+ to buy physical copies of M rated games and AO games. Digital copies on stations like X-Box and Play Station can be completely monitored and restricted by the parents via parental controls. Also, since the age of people is irrelevant to whether or not shooters are immoral, this argument should be drooped in future rounds to make room for more relevant information. I will now move to the next point my opponent makes.

"Another immoral thing about games is their tendency to be inaccurate...", this is directly from my opponents case. This quote shows that my opponent thinks that things like T.V shows, movies and clips from even You tube are immoral because of their inaccuracy. My opponent fails to recognize that the companies making these games are trying to make a profit and are selling their games in the entertainment field, much like the previously mentioned entertainment sources. My opponent trys to back up his inaccurate argument by saying that gamers can kill tens of people with in minutes. This depends on a few things, what difficulty are you playing and what game? The difficulty setting on many games such as Battle Field and Call of Duty are there to not only provide more challenging game play but in a lot of cases make things more realistic. The second factor is what's happening. If you only kill 20 people while defending a WW1 German trench from a full scale British attack then you would have kill hundreds if not more. The machine guns used in the German trenches are powerful enough to cut a man in half as they sprayed over the thousands of charging bodies. We can see this in many of the WW1 battles. The first day of the Somme Offensive amply illustrated this, although the lesson appeared to be lost to the British high command. On the opening day of the offensive the British suffered a record number of single day casualties, 60,000, the great majority lost under withering machine gun fire. These numbers only increased as the battle progressed. The easiness part can be seen in the Gulf War when the United States lost only 1 M1A1s Main Battle Tank to friendly fire. So the unrealistic features of many video game shooters do not make them immoral because of the reasons they are made and the fact that some scenarios are can actually mimic actual results and scenarios. I will attack my opponent point of respect.

My opponent attempts to make the point that these game do bad to our men and women fighting for our country. Seeing as though my opponent fails to relate morals and respect we can drop this argument entirely to.

Now that I have covered my opponents points, I will move on to some points of my own. First I would like to clarify that as the Neg, I am arguing that shooters are not morally wrong so I will bring up evidence to support those claims. The main reason why shooters are not morally wrong is the simple fact that shooters cover to broad of a spectrum of game play to be deemed immoral. Boom Blox is a shooter game where you try to earn points by shooting blocks to get points. Hunting simulators are games that mimic a real life sport. These games simply can't be labeled immoral if they are so simple and in cases like Boom Blox, kid friendly. Other games that include killing people are a bit different.

Game like C.O.D and Battle Field can be quite outgoing in their violence and gore, trying to make their games better one way or another. Things like health regeneration and easy modes make war seem like a piece of cake, but these games often time can show you war is not that easy. Completing many of the C.O.D games on their hardest level of veteran can often result in a lot of anger. A video will be posted below to show you just how "easy" it is to kill all those guys(Swearing does happen). To continue, these game in most cases don't involve the player committing torture, rape, or other such indecencies. The games focus on the combat and stories allowing for a better experience. Yes, some games do include rape, torture and other actions of equal or greater... darkness, for lack of a better word. However, the shooting part is not that immoral.

I will now conclude my round one case with a small summery. First I counter all my opponent main points on why shooters are immoral. Then, sing both personal and cited sources, I made the claims that shooters are to wide of a type of game to all be considered immoral. Many shooters are simple games or reflect and simulate sports, and that in some cases, games have not been able to get nearly as bad as the actual battlefield. Before I leave off, I would like to state again that as the Neg, my job is to prove that shooters are not immoral and not prove that they are moral. So, for the reasons and evidence stated above(sources below), I ask for a vote in the Negative, thank you.

-Parental controls Argument: X-Box: https://support.xbox.com...
Play Station: https://www.playstation.com...

-Age requirements: www.esrb.org/ratings/faq.aspx

-Machine Gun argument: http://www.firstworldwar.com...

-M1A1 MBT Argument: Ex-US Army Cav Scout NCO and Instructor

-C.O.D 4 Vertern Campain Video: https://www.youtube.com...
Debate Round No. 1
DebateMaster706

Pro

To begin my cross examination I would like to inform you that this is one of my early early debates which is why I may seem bad in form.

To start off I would like to begin discussing your thought on since it is "inaccurate does not mean it is immoral." It is immoral because it is disrespecting what actual happened. The developers could make the game more accurate. for instance, they could make reloading more accurate place ammo in realistic locations, and have more real details to the event.

Second of all, I would like to ask what do you think is going through the heads of the developers when they create a scene that can be inappropriate to most viewers. Wouldn't if the devs think immoral and implement their immoral thoughts into the game that the final product would be immoral.

I know I have little info on my cross examination but I would like my first question to be answered.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by RR-MKIV 9 months ago
RR-MKIV
Your*
Posted by RR-MKIV 9 months ago
RR-MKIV
Take them with a grain of salt and all of you're issues are resolved.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.