The Instigator
aradhya22
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Tough
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points

Are violent video games good?

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 2 votes the winner is...
Tough
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/7/2015 Category: Games
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 561 times Debate No: 79490
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

aradhya22

Con

Violent video games are bad because they create violence in society. They have a psycological effect on the minds of people, which leads to violence and eventually to crime. It gives different ideas to kill people and harm them. Therefore it his promoting violence. Therefore violent video games are bad.
By the way, I am playing the devil's advocate.
Tough

Pro

Violent video games are good because they create violence in society. They have a psychological effect on the minds of people, which leads to violence and eventually to crime. They give different ideas to kill people and harm them. Therefore they are promoting violence. Therefore violent video games are good.

A more violent and aggressive species was around in the past, when our species originated and helped us kill off the weak and ensure only the strong and efficient remained to pass their genes onto their children but as time moved on, monogamy and other social constructs have reduced out ability to naturally select and evolve our species to be the best it can be and maybe create an even better one.

Violent video games are good because they are one of the few things fighting out p***y-culture and actually bringing us back to the real roots of human nature and excellence.
Debate Round No. 1
aradhya22

Con

Are you pro violence and crime? What are you trying to prove. Your argument is really petty. With violence the strong can also die. Are you pro eugenics? I'm sorry to say, but your thoughts are low and restricted. You are mistaken, violence does not bring us back to the real roots of human nature and excellence, but indeed one day, it will kill us all. And violent video games are contributing to that killing.
Tough

Pro

Absolutely, it will make the weaker species (us) extinct and make room for a newer and better one that we helped create. This is far better for the world and more 'good' overall.
Debate Round No. 2
aradhya22

Con

How can you be so sure that your so called newer species will be stronger than us. They would be as violent and would kill each other within days. And a trigger for such a situation would be violent video games. Your thoughts are really poor.
Tough

Pro

I know because they'd have evolved from fighting and ensuring only the strongest passed on their genes over time turning our species into theirs.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Rahjee 1 year ago
Rahjee
Aradhypa got his a** beat.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: imabench// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Pro took an easily winnable debate and still managed to screw it up by essentially conceding exactly what Con was basing his arguments on, and then trying to spin it as if it was somehow a good thing that video games cause violence... It is quite possibly the most asinine line of reasoning ever made on a debate, as pro not only basically argued con's case for him, but fell drastically short of meeting the BoP he set on himself that violence in society is somehow a good thing. Easy win for con, no contest

[*Reason for removal*] While the vote is clear on what matters, it appears to dismiss Pro's reasoning without any clear indication of what Con said that made it questionable. The voter doesn't explain where Pro fell short on his BoP, nor does he examine any of the actual arguments made by Pro beyond the concession. While it may be true that he never outweighed the harms of violence, the voter must at least balance those harms against the benefits Pro espouses, and not merely dismiss them as "asinine".
************************************************************************
Posted by xplsov 1 year ago
xplsov
Just want to say, this debate wasn't phrased properly in the very beginning. It should be more along the
lines of: Violent video games are bad for society. Phrased like a question, you're not agreeing or disagreeing with the topic at all. Also, it's so much more interesting when people actually present evidence to prove their point, and write more than 50 words each round. Also, "Are violent video games bad?" isn't even a debate on how they affect society, but rather asking for people's personal opinion on whether or not violent video games are fun. Please clarify what the topic actually is.

Also, hasn't this debate turned into whether or not humanity has the right to live on this earth? The first point for the con side was a promotion of violence in society, and then the whole debate went into talking about something completely different from the original topic. Please stick to the topic of the debate next time.

There has been substantial evidence to prove that violent video games desensitise people who play them, but it is still people who have psychological problems (most of the time due to other issues) who go on all these massive and horrible massacres we hear about on the news.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
aradhya22ToughTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Spelling and Grammar to Pro due to Con's grammatical errors in R1 and R2. For arguments I'm going to have to give this to Pro. The reason he gets this is do to him using the resolution to his advantage. This is a semantics game as Con never defined what "good" was. This led Pro to define it as whatever he pleased. Not only did he do that he went all the way and to actually run a Sparks argument and since Con didn't know how to respond to it Pro wins on that grounds as well.
Vote Placed by Balacafa 1 year ago
Balacafa
aradhya22ToughTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: To be honest this wasn't really a debate but since Con called Pro's arguments poor I'll have to award Pro the conduct point - reluctantly.