The Instigator
wierdman
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
Thelaughingman
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points

Ban on sale of violent video games to minors

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
wierdman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/24/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,598 times Debate No: 19471
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

wierdman

Pro

The debate will go in the following order:

Round one: Intro

Round two: main round/ Case

Round three: CX

Round four: conclusion.
Thelaughingman

Con

Banning video games is bad mmkay....

There is no legitimate reason violent video games should be banned. There is more violence on the news, in museums and in the bible and these mediums affect children much more than games...
Debate Round No. 1
wierdman

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting the debate as well as the rules associated with the debate.

Violence is a re-occurring theme in our news. In response to these news, we often judge these teens without trying to find the origin of many attacks. Today, lets look at a major cause of teen violence as well as an irresponsible act performed by game stores or sellers of these games.

I offer the following definition: Violent video games-"game that includes video game�graphic violence, sex and sexism, violent and gory scenes, partial or full nudity, portrayal of�criminal behavior, racism, and other provocative and objectionable material."-->http://en.wikipedia.org... --> Often these games are rated M for mature and A for adults only.

Contention one: Teens Emulate violence in games.

Like their parents and there peers, teens as well as children of all ages often emulate video game activities. Within this game that they play, there avatar ids often seen doing stunts that would be considered impossible in real life. These kids in an effort to reenact these stunts as well as to prove to there peers that it can be done, often go ahead and replicate the stunts they see in the games. In the case of teenagers, these whom there minds are almost too easily controlled or manipulated often do things that passes jumping out of a building top, or even wrestling one another, what they are interested in is how to kill and dispose of a human body without detection. Some teenage then become an unstable hazard as they could easily demonstrate what they learned in there games when angered.

Paul boxer wrote in a July-1st 2011 article that "A few years ago, on Long Island, six teenagers were arrested after a crime spree involving break-ins, a violent mugging and a carjacking attempt. According to what the teens told authorities, they had been trying to live out the life of Niko Belic. Ever heard of him? He is the protagonist in the wildly popular video game 'Grand Theft Auto IV." http://blog.nj.com...

Contention Two: Youth who play these games exhibits an increase aggression

It is one thing for violent video game players to replicate the stunts seen on screen, but we find that these kids also exhibit aggressive behavior especially towards there family members. They are not only short tempered , but find it reasonable that if the characters of a video game is able to solve his or her problem with violence, then they can also resolve all there problems with violence. Violence often displayed at schools, at home as well as towards there peers. These random act of violence can also lead to long-term problems. Lets look at a linked graph: Play video game----->Aggression---->Violence---->lost of friends---->depression----> anger---->suicide!

"In experimental studies, children who view violent television shows or films — or who play violent video games — are significantly more likely to behave aggressively in comparison to children who view nonviolent television shows or films, or who play nonviolent video games. In long-term studies, individuals who consume violent media during childhood end up more aggressive as adults, in comparison with peers who consume nonviolent media during childhood. The studies that have produced such findings now number in the hundreds. The effects have been seen in children from urban areas, as well as suburban and rural areas; in the United States, as well as many other Western and non-Western nations."
http://futureofchildren.org...

conclusion: Sadly, I have not much time to conclude the debate however, giving the substantial reasoning, it is quite clear that a ban should be placed on the sale of violent games to minors.

Thank you and I await your response.
Thelaughingman

Con

There have been no scientific studies which have been able to prove a link between violent video games and teen violence. Therefore,with the lack of any credible evidence, the government should not prohibit the sale of violent video games to minors. Games which depict war and violence should not be restricted from being sold to teens based on that criteria alone.

Once again, with the lack of conclusive science there is no way to prove a connection between these games and violent acts. Thus there is no evidence to support legislation onmthis issue.
Debate Round No. 2
wierdman

Pro

Thank you for your quick response.

"There have been no scientific studies which have been able to prove a link between violent video games and teen violence. Therefore,with the lack of any credible evidence, the government should not prohibit the sale of violent video games to minors."

Here is your evidence: http://www.soc.iastate.edu... ----> Please read this carefully.

Argument: My opponent failed to provide his case thus going against the rules of the debate. In conclusion, My opponent looses on account of failure to follow the rules. Unless my opponent presents his case in the next round, then he looses.

Hope to hear from you soon.
Thelaughingman

Con

I am sorry for my last lack luster response, i spent a lot of time looking for credible studies on this issue in which i could debunk and honestly found none worth. My time debunking on an individual basis because none provided a good CAUSATION link between violent games most rely on subjective data which ultimately proves nothing.

In your paper which you provided i found a heavy amount of cause for concern....

The coding frame the paper lays out does not account for participants prior susceptibility to violence as well does not take into account the fact that participants who are predisposed to be violent or have violent tendencies will have an increased reaction violent video games because of the familiarity of the situations and the association between real world past and the games. These studies as well did not critique the fact that there is a correlational link between anti social behavior and the playing of video games. Antisocial behavior has been linked much more closely to violence and could easily be the explanation for these findings rather than the games themselves.

These studies used a variety of different gauges to measure aggression. The first was observed aggression such as participants pushing shoving ect ect. These measures are extremely subjective due to the fact that aggression is not always such an outward display and most people who resort to these kind of emotional outbursts exhibit anti social behavior which is the root cause of their problems. The next measurement was loudness or noise exhibited. These traits are swell much closely correlated with children who exhibit anti social behavior as well as children who have a lack of attention in their lives. With both these problems excessive video game playing could be seen as an escape or a way for kids to distract themselves from their own life. Once again a more root cause ties all these situations together much more clearly. The final measurement of aggressive behavior is reported aggression. This is extremely unethical and due to the fact that each participant will have different peers and teachers(study used reports from teachers on aggression) also the logical connection can be made that teachers will find students more aggressive if they are socially awkward and exhibit anti social behaviors. In many cases this will also cause teachers to think less of students do to the frustration and unwillingness to cooperate with authority which anti social people tend to exhibit.

Aswell the study digs it's own grave by breaking the data into three sets. Preference for violent video games, time spent playing violent video games, and video game playing in general. These all found an increase in violent behavior. This actually backs the theory of antisocial behavior much more than that of violent games because those who play a lot of video games but do not prefer violent ones would have a lot less aggression which apparently not true. This I'd awful science and reflects the ambiguity and bad science used in the field of social psychology. In many cases psychologists will pick topics which are controversial and Taylor make studies to prove themselves correct and cherry pick variables to create the results they desire. This can be seen in studies like the stanford prison experiment as well as the stanford psychological analysis on the effects of power.

As a side note these studies used a short term increase in blood pressure and aggressive thoughts as well as psychological arousal as modes of gauging aggressiveness. I disagree with those findings and attribute these to the fact that they are really really fun. I mean when you are playing a fun game if you do not have a raise in blood pressure and arousal then you are probably not having fun.

All these games do is provide an effective outlet for aggression for normal people. Just like sports have done for thousands of years. In every high school across the country men participate in a game where the object is to put on equipment and beat the snot out of there opponents. Aggression in those games is such a huge element and is encouraged in public schools as a way to relief themselves of aggression. These games once again encourage the actual acts of hitting hurting and pain of the opponents. This argument by the affirmative is just another way that the extroverted society is trying to demonize the introverted population for being different and engaging in activities that they would not find as constructive as jumping on to a field and actually hurting people. They would claim that venting through killing lines of codes in the form of humans does much worse damage to the human development then actually do damage to real humans.

Just because a few kids use this excuse as a scapegoat to remove accountability of their actions from themselves to other people does not make a legitimate claim to legislate against the freedoms of the average teen to play a game enjoy himself and cope with the stresses of a modern day in a constructive mindless way. The science used by the affirmative is flawed at best and in the opinion of this scientist to be total malarkey.

As well the burden of proof lies with the affirmative in the case. In any case where it is proposed to legislate against the right of individuals there must be a substantial amount of evidence supporting the decisions and should not be up to the dissent to provide reasons why they are beneficial because of the fact that in our society people are given the rights to do the things they wish as long as they do not violate the rights or laws of the society as a whole or other individuals. For a government to ban something based on false science and the personal convictions is unconstitutional unethical, and just plain wrong!
Debate Round No. 3
wierdman

Pro

Thank you for your quick response.

My opponent's attack on evidence is contradictory to his position in this debate as each attack supports my position of the topic.
"does not take into account the fact that participants who are predisposed to be violent or have violent tendencies will have an increased reaction violent video games because of the familiarity of the situations and the association between real world past and the games."

This is supportive to my case as it shows that violent video games have the tendency of rapidly amplifying an individuals violent acts. Finally, the study does not have to incorporated these aspects of the link between violence and video game, rather it does have to accurately describe "A" link between violence and video game-which it does.-

"The first was observed aggression such as participants pushing shoving ect ect. These measures are extremely subjective due to the fact that aggression is not always such an outward display and most people who resort to these kind of emotional outbursts exhibit anti social behavior which is the root cause of their problems."

Could it be possible that Anti-social behavior could be another effect of video games? The answer being an absolute yes. Immense amounts of studies have shown that kids often get use to the violence in games even enjoy these violence. Now at first, this kid might play these games for fun, but over a period of time, they start to crave these games thus leading to unusual amounts of time spent playing these games. This can be seen as a form or rather a remedial stage pf anti-social behavior which as time goes on progresses.
The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry wrote in an Aug. 2006 article "Children and Video Games: Playing with Violence" published in their Facts for Families information sheet series:
"These data suggest very strongly that participating in the playing of violent video games by children and youth increase aggressive thought and behavior; increase antisocial behavior and delinquency; engender poor school performance; desensitize the game player to violence." http://videogames.procon.org...

"These traits are swell much closely correlated with children who exhibit anti social behavior as well as children who have a lack of attention in their lives. With both these problems excessive video game playing could be seen as an escape or a way for kids to distract themselves from their own life."

These traits are not an excuse to sell violent video games to minors. The fact is that if these kids were as unstable as you describe them to be, then supplying them with violent video games is much like the government giving crack to a homicidal crack head. There are many games within there age level that can and possible will keep them preoccupied.

"The final measurement of aggressive behavior is reported aggression. This is extremely unethical and due to the fact that each participant will have different peers and teachers(study used reports from teachers on aggression) also the logical connection can be made that teachers will find students more aggressive if they are socially awkward and exhibit anti social behaviors. In many cases this will also cause teachers to think less of students do to the frustration and unwillingness to cooperate with authority which anti social people tend to exhibit"

Ones again, this should not be an excuse to sell games to minors. Rather than encouraging them to do something that can be hazardous to there mental as well as physical being, we should encourage them to seek valuable resources.

VOTERS:You should vote for me, because unlike my opponent, i have argued based on the topic itself and not based on the evidence provided.
2. I presented more evidence to support my case
3. My opponent not only failed to make a case, but also failed to refute any of my argument
4. I have offered good reasons as to why a ban on selling video games to minors is a bad idea.

Thank you.
Thelaughingman

Con

In fact my response did not provide contradictory evidence and here is why...

I stated that these games cause a much stronger response in people who are already violent. This is not contradictory to the point i am trying to make because to prove that the violent video games make kids violent there needs to be a certain level of innocents before the games are played. All i stated was violent people will find violent games more fun and it will look they they are becoming more aggressive then they already are, when in truth they are just venting their aggressive emotions by playing these games creating a correlation between games and violent but simply does not prove in anyway a causation link.

Your next argument is somewhat of a straw-man for the fact that there are a number of different things that can cause anti social behavior, as well the topic of the debate is to ban violent videogames. You would not be able to just ban violent ones based on anti social behavior because the games which cause that behavioral change are usually not ones that are violent, they are ones that provide an alternate life where people are social in that life and forget about the real one. Violent videogames such as war games and fighting games do not have nearly the same effect on those behaviors (e.g World of warcraft, everquest)

Once again correlation links and not justification for legislation.

I appeal to the voters now by once again laying out the claim that I have bested my opponent in every round for these reasons.

The burden of proof lied with pro position because of the fact this deals with the taking away of personal liberties.
With out good science any claim is just speculation and thus without the proof of science in this matter there is no harm in the status quo

The amount of evidence does not make for a sound argument. Proof by verbosity is a commonly used logical fallacy where the amount of evidence presented is held to a higher standard than that of quality information.

In making my case I have been accurate to the point and made a precise argument on why restricting personal liberties without a good reason is wrong. My opponent has provided bad science which is full of subjective holes which once again accurately describes his argument structure. My opponent hardly refuted any of my claims of bad science and thus he has conceded to the fact that the studies that make up the data for this debate are poorly constructed and can not be liked as a causal reaction but merely a simple correlation. i have read somewhere that There is a link between shark attacks and ice cream. This is not because sharks start attacking in response to ice cream, but because the two variables exhibit a common response to the warm season. Another example is strong correlation exists between the number of cavities in elementary school children and their vocabulary size. No one advocates eating more candy to increase knowledge though; these variables are both tied with age.

This is how my opponents whole argument has been lied out and simply falls apart at minor scrutiny
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by JakeBoatman96 5 years ago
JakeBoatman96
wierdmanThelaughingmanTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: As Con stated, Pro didn't use any sort of scientifical back-up.
Vote Placed by Cobo 5 years ago
Cobo
wierdmanThelaughingmanTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Tip to con. Arguments are worth more than sources, even though this was a good debate go for the main points not the small stuff.(BTW I don't know if i should give con sources since he did argue them fairly well)