The Instigator
THEVIRUS
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
corey561
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points

Are video game restrictions in need of changing/updating (violence)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 4 votes the winner is...
corey561
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/14/2013 Category: Technology
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,292 times Debate No: 29192
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (4)

 

THEVIRUS

Pro

After all of the school shootings and gun tragedies, everyone is pointing fingers. Video games are taking a lot of heat, and I believe they are singled out (it's more than one thing that got us in this mess). Still I believe there should be a change in the rules and restrictions, age related mostly, to better this issue.
corey561

Con

I believe that video games do not cause real world violence. Instead, they channel someone's energy into killing video game 'bad guys'. This is a stress reliever for people. People who do these mass killings have a psychological problem. It really isn't the video game industry's fault, but it is the person who is playing it and what he or she does with it. You have to understand that video game restrictions should not take place, because it does not lead to violence.

Take a look at this article and see if your opinion has changed: http://www.usnews.com...
Debate Round No. 1
THEVIRUS

Pro

I agree that it is a matter of who plays the video games, and I love gaming. I have an xbox 360 and play halo as much as I can. admittedly I am not old enough, but there is the true issue I wish to address. Nothing against you, but there's more to it than adding stronger age restrictions.
corey561

Con

"but there is the true issue I wish to address. Nothing against you, but there's more to it than adding stronger age restrictions."

I'm not understanding, is your 'true' issue that there's more to it? Since you do play a violent game have you became more violent because of these video games? I certainly wouldn't. These games are made for entertainment, not for real life advice. No one is telling you to run over twenty people and commit a mass killing. As for age restrictions, they are in place. Certain games are labeled with what the minimum age is. There is a guide for it here: http://www.esrb.org...

I'm looking forward to your response, but could you be a bit more specific so I can understand exactly what you're saying?

Thanks for doing this debate! :)
Debate Round No. 2
THEVIRUS

Pro

Sorry for not being clear. I think that there needs to be a new restriction guideline. I personally am tired of the kids can't do this or that kids aren't mature enough. Kids, especially teens, can make their own decisions.
btw do you have an xbox live gt? :)
corey561

Con

When you are proposing a new restriction guideline, what types of restrictions do you have in mind? Children who aren't mature enough to purchase a video game would typically ask an older relative for it. Usually, the older relative will know if the game is for the child. Teens who can make their decisions are responsible for those decisions that they make. If you go out and buy a copy of Halo, and you go up and start shooting everyone and doing all sorts of violence, that's not the video game's fault. It would be yours for taking the game too literally. Besides age restrictions, I don't think there should be more limitations in video games because it would become less enjoyable. If developers of a game get rid of all violence and make a game about peaceful activities, it would rarely appeal to anyone older than eleven. I'm curious to know, what other restrictions do you have in mind?

Ah, sorry about that, I play the Playstation 3.
Debate Round No. 3
THEVIRUS

Pro

PS3?! :)
Anyways, I think there needs to be a test, almost like a social, emotional, face-to-face and written test put in your name. Each year you can take the test but only once a year, and it will be to see if you are allowed to play those games. It isn't a teen that killed everyone in a movie theater, is it? Not all, but some teens are more mature than some adults, or at least smarter. In my opinion if those people who wanted to ban it actually cared they wouldn't bother putting in the time and energy needed. I think most problems could be solved, at least temporarily, by changing the restrictions. But it is more work and therefore hasn't happened.
corey561

Con

I don't believe there should be any form of test for a video game, ever. What could you really find out about a test. More importantly, maintaining those tests aren't free. It will be very costly and difficult to keep track of who took the test and who didn't. There would be ways to bypass this test. You could purchase the game on eBay or by a third party distributor. You could get your parent to purchase the game for you. This test would be a waste of time and money, and will be detrimental to the video game industry. Problems would not be solved, it will just create more problems! People should understand that video games don't have a connection to violence, and that restrictions such as tests won't provide accurate information. No company has the time and energy to perform background checks and tests annually for millions of gamers, simply because it might or might not stop the few psychologically impaired from thinking that real life is the same thing as their Halo game.
Debate Round No. 4
THEVIRUS

Pro

I see what you mean, but kids are more inclined to shoot someone because they "did it in the game so it must be ok". That is where there needs to be a better system to make sure gamers understand these differences and make sure that each gamer is mentally ok to play these games. I will start a new open topic, "Military Video Game Funding and Contest". hope you either agree or fight again. It's been fun,
-THEVIRUS
corey561

Con

As part of my final words, I'd like to thank THEVIRUS for debating with me. If tests and restrictions were made to just play a video game, I don't think the video game industry would do too well because of people not wanting to take these tests. I hope you understand that the cons very much outweigh the pros of having more restrictions for video games. Again, it has been fun debating with you and I hope that the voters will use their best judgement in deciding who is the winner.

-Corey561
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
Pro, you say "Kids are more inclined to shoot someone because they 'did it in the game so it must be ok'." Based on what do you ask us to believe this? This is called a bare assertion fallacy. What you say may or may not be right, but we can't simply accept it without evidence.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
THEVIRUScorey561Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: The conduct could have been better all around, though since it was friendly and balanced, I didn't penalize either side. Aside from that, Pro failed to make his case that correlation equals causation in this case. He also had the only instances of improper spelling and grammar that I saw. Con had more sources. For these reasons, those three votes go to Con.
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
THEVIRUScorey561Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: To win the debate, Pro would first need to show that teens playing violent video games causes real life violence, and second that changing the laws would be a good way to combat that. Pro presented no evidence in support of his first premise, while Con presented evidence to the contrary. Con also explains why laws wouldn't be an ideal way to enforce in-home behavior. Since Pro never presented anything more than his feeling that "kids are more inclined to shoot someone", I must vote in favor of Con in this debate, for convincing arguments and sources.
Vote Placed by rross 4 years ago
rross
THEVIRUScorey561Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro seemed more willing to discuss this issue than debate it. Maybe he should consider starting a thread in the forums. Con's arguments were clear, and he effectively dismantled pro's arguments such as they were.
Vote Placed by tmar19652 4 years ago
tmar19652
THEVIRUScorey561Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro never put forwards a feasible solution or premise.