The Instigator
Tmdog3758
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
A341
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Ban the sale of violent video games

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...
A341
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/11/2014 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 763 times Debate No: 63061
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

Tmdog3758

Pro

First rule is acceptance. Nfl rules applies. Please share resources.
A341

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Tmdog3758

Pro

http://www.neisd.net...
These are the rules that go with an LD topic such as this p,ease provide by them and no plagiarizing. Please also share sources. I will do so likewise. Let's begin!
-Here is what some of the people out there have to say:
"Violent video games are teaching are kids to be violent. It is a known fact that we learn by repetition. By allowing children to play violent video games it starts to desensitize them at an early age to the effects of violence. These games were originally designed for military training to help soldiers overcome their hesitancy in shooting the enemy."
-"Video Game Violence and Why It Should End Video games these days are now just shooting and killing. Children play these games for entertainment and I know that they are fun, because I play them too. But this is a serious thing. Children do not need to play violent games because games can influence children to do so. People say,"Oh, my son promised to never act like that," or,"Tyler loves these games and he keeps asking for a BB gun". The BB gun may be just for fun, but soon he'll get a real gun. Violent video games like MWF3 or Call of Duty or Assassins Creed are insults to military men. They're at war, fighting for our country, and you've got your butt on a couch, laughing at people who are getting shot on a video game. This is a serious offense to soldiers. And what if you played these games and someone you love is in the military. Would they feel offended. Go on. Ask yourself. They are insulting, bad for children, and brutal."
-"Those Who voted 'No' are delusional fools. It's plainly obvious, video games make people of all ages agitated and aggressive.
-I've seen it in my nephews and niece and there are countless studies available at your finger tips.
The vast majority of respondents to this article are delusional people with absolutely no sense of what's going on. Now that is a cold hard fact and highly unfortunate that there are so many video game addicts."
-"Yes violent video games should be banned!! Police have linked several violent cases to violent video games. For example a 8 year old boy oblivious to the real life fact that if you shot someone in real life they would die and not come back, took out a gun and shot is grandmother. His grandmother did die and did not come back. He is now facing life in prison after juvenile hall of course for something he didn't realize was bad in the first place. Video games pump things into children's heads so bad these days they have no way of knowing the difference between real life and video game life."
-Now let's talk some philosophy.
-Posted by Mike LaBossiere on June 27, 2011 Leave a comment (21)Go to comments
I have been using my budget-cut based summer break from teaching to do various home improvements. The point of mentioning this is that I have been alternating between baking in the Florida sun and being exposed to "second hand paint fumes" (as opposed to directly huffing the stuff) as such, my writing might be a bit off. I have checked for any obvious weirdness (well, weirdness beyond the usual sort), but I apologize in advance for any heat/paint induced lapses in logic. I blame the flying frogs that seem to be infesting my house now. In any case, down to business.
-The supreme court recently ruled that California"s law banning the sale of video games to minors that "depict serious injury to human beings in a manner that is especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel." The ruling was, of course, based on the first amendment.
-Being both a gamer and an ethicist, I have thought (and written) a fair amount about the banning video games. On the one hand, a very reasonable case can be made for placing age based restrictions on video games. While studies of the impact of virtual violence on children are hardly conclusive, it seems reasonable to accept that exposure to virtual violence can have an impact on how the child thinks. As Aristotle has argued, people become habituated by what they do. Children are, of course, even more likely to be influenced. They are more receptive than adults and tend to lack the cognitive resources that adults are supposed to possess. As such, it seems reasonable to keep young children away from violence-even the virtual sort.
-On the other hand, there are reasonable grounds for rejecting such bans. First, there are reasons for doubting that such games have a significant impact on children. The psychological studies are open to question and, of course, humans seem to be naturally prone to violence ( the stock "we like violent games because we are violent, we are not violent because of the games" argument). When I was a kid, long before violent video games, we spent a lot of time playing war. While the effects were not very special (cap guns), we certainly did act out killing each other. When violent video games came along, they simply allowed me to do what I had done as a kid (play at killing) only with ever better graphics and effects). As such, banning violent video games to protect children from the influence of violence seems like something that simply will not work, thus making such a law unnecessary.
-Second, there is the matter of freedom of expression and consumption. While minors do have a reduced right of freedom of consumption (they cannot but alcohol, tobacco, guns or porn), imposing on their freedom only seems justified when it protects them from a significant harm in cases in which they lack the judgment to (in theory at least) make an informed choice. Even if violent video games have a harmful impact, it can be contended that the harm is not on par with that of adult vices such as alcohol or tobacco but rather on par with junk food. So, just as it is sensible to think that children should not eat junk food, yet also think there should not be laws banning children from buying candy bards, it seems sensible to think that although young kids should not buy violent video games, there should not be laws against doing so.
-Third, there is the matter of what is fit for the state to control and what is fit for parents to control. There are, obviously enough, matters that should be handled by the state and those that should remain a matter of parental choice. Alcohol, guns and tobacco are so dangerous that it seems reasonable that the state has a interest in keeping children away from these things by force of law. There is also a category of things were the state should aid parents in making choices, such as diet and exercise, but where the state should not intervene except in extreme cases. As noted above, I am inclined to put violent video games in the category of junk food. As such, parents should be informed about what the games contain (which is already done by the rating system) and the choice of whether or not their children play the games or not should be up to them. Naturally, children who lack parents or whose parents are dangerously incompetent will fall under the domain of the state, but these would be relatively rare cases."
http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com...
-BY ERIK BRUDVIGViolent media has existed as long as human history and the debate over how or when to control it is as hotly contested as ever. With the trend towards greater realism and graphic content that began in the 90's, videogames have found themselves the focal point du jour. But how much of an impact have these violent videogames had? We'll take a look at the psychological, political, and economic issues surrounding violent videogames and try to make sense of it all. No matter which side of the fence you sit on this argument, it is important to know the facts.
-Selling an Image
Anybody who has been playing games for the past five years must surely have noticed the recent and accelerating trend towards "thugsploitation" games. The success of Grand Theft Auto III assured us all that we'd be seeing a steady stream of imitators hoping for their own piece of the pie. Over the top violence, sexual themes, and drug references have become commonplace in videogames and certainly take more than their fair share of the mainstream press's time. But how far has this "even negative press is good press" philosophy taken these games? Eighty-five percent of all games sold in 2005 were rated "E" for Everyone, "T" for Teen, or "E10+" for Everyone 10+. (Entertainment Software Association) Additionally, only one (Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas) of the top 10 grossing games for 2005 was rated "M" for Mature. That's not to say that these top selling games are suitable for all ages. Seven of the top ten games of 2005 have some form of violence listed as a descriptor by the ESRB, but it certainly speaks volumes about what the impact of the steady stream of Mature games is on the consumer side. Nintendo, a company always concerned with the content of games appearing on its systems, may be on to something more than just being "kiddy." Despite the relatively small market share these Mature games have garnered, it hasn't stopped our lawmakers from latching on to them and turning them into a political focal point.
-Public Policy
With all of the uproar surrounding the Columbine shootings and other similar tragedies, as well as the Hot Coffee controversy, lawmakers have been quick to propose legislation that would limit the access of violent material to minors. Violent game laws have been proposed or considered in Kansas, Utah, Michigan, Maryland, Indiana, Washington, Illinois, California, Germany, and recently, the U.S. Senate. So far, none of these proposals have become a reality at your local videogame store.
-read more @ http://www.ign.com...
A341

Con

If someone plays a lot of a superman video game will they think they can fly?

Rebuttal

"Violent video games are teaching are kids to be violent. It is a known fact that we learn by repetition. By allowing children to play violent video games it starts to desensitize them at an early age to the effects of violence. These games were originally designed for military training to help soldiers overcome their hesitancy in shooting the enemy."

This is simply untrue. Altered versions of doom and America's Army were used to train soldiers in team work not killing.

"Video Game Violence and Why It Should End Video games these days are now just shooting and killing. Children play these games for entertainment and I know that they are fun, because I play them too. But this is a serious thing. Children do not need to play violent games because games can influence children to do so. People say,"Oh, my son promised to never act like that," or,"Tyler loves these games and he keeps asking for a BB gun". The BB gun may be just for fun, but soon he'll get a real gun."

Yes this is sort of correct a person who likes first person shooters may want to get a gun. Please show me how guns increase violence.

"Violent video games like MWF3 or Call of Duty or Assassins Creed are insults to military men. They're at war, fighting for our country, and you've got your butt on a couch, laughing at people who are getting shot on a video game. This is a serious offense to soldiers. And what if you played these games and someone you love is in the military."

Which is why so many "military men" play video games [1] and furthermore why video games are used as PTSD therapy.

"Those Who voted 'No' are delusional fools. It's plainly obvious, video games make people of all ages agitated and aggressive."

As a gamer I have been described as aggressive but I have never been described as agitated.

"I've seen it in my nephews and niece and there are countless studies available at your finger tips."

Where are these studies?

"Yes violent video games should be banned!! Police have linked several violent cases to violent video games. For example a 8 year old boy oblivious to the real life fact that if you shot someone in real life they would die and not come back, took out a gun and shot is grandmother. His grandmother did die and did not come back. He is now facing life in prison after juvenile hall of course for something he didn't realize was bad in the first place. Video games pump things into children's heads so bad these days they have no way of knowing the difference between real life and video game life."

There is no link for this but it sounds like a case of serious and abnormal delusion not caused by video games.

Most of the rest of your argument actually supports me either that or it's simply news reports with no evaluation of the facts.

My argument

The case for the ban of violent video games seems to be based on the assumption that violent video games cause violence whereas in fact the increased use of violent video games has shown to have no noticeable effect on the murder rate [3].

Furthermore what is a violent video game? There is no often adhered to definition and I think this causes a problem as it allows for censorship of controversial content.

[1] http://uk.ign.com...

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

[3] http://thepublicintellectual.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Tmdog3758

Pro

Defenition of violent video game: (Violent video games) Controversies over video games center on debates around video game content and the potential for it to negatively impact player attitude and behavior. ... http://en.wikipedia.org...

1: My argument of, "Video Game Violence and Why It Should End Video games these days are now just shooting and killing. Children play these games for entertainment and I know that they are fun, because I play them too. But this is a serious thing. Children do not need to play violent games because games can influence children to do so. People say,"Oh, my son promised to never act like that," or,"Tyler loves these games and he keeps asking for a BB gun". The BB gun may be just for fun, but soon he'll get a real gun." My opponent actually agreed with this.
Q:
A:

1: The largest study of gun violence in the United States, released Thursday afternoon, confirms a point that should be obvious: widespread American gun ownership is fueling America"s gun violence epidemic.
The study, by Professor Michael Siegel at Boston University and two coauthors, has been peer-reviewed and is forthcoming in the American Journal of Public Health. Siegel and his colleagues compiled data on firearm homicides from all 50 states from 1981-2010, the longest stretch of time ever studied in this fashion, and set about seeing whether they could find any relationship between changes in gun ownership and murder using guns over time.
Since we know that violent crime rates overall declined during that period of time, the authors used something called "fixed effect regression" to account for any national trend other than changes in gun ownership. They also employed the largest-ever number of statistical controls for other variables in this kind of gun study: "age, gender, race/ethnicity, urbanization, poverty, unemployment, income, education, income inequality, divorce rate, alcohol use, violent crime rate, nonviolent crime rate, hate crime rate, number of hunting licenses, age-adjusted nonfirearm homicide rate, incarceration rate,and suicide rate" were all accounted for.
No good data on national rates of gun ownership exist (partly because of the NRA"s stranglehold on Congress), so the authors used the percentage of suicides that involve a firearm (FS/S) as a proxy. The theory, backed up by a wealth of data, is that the more guns there are any in any one place, the higher the percentage of people who commit suicide with guns as opposed to other mechanisms will be.
With all this preliminary work in hand, the authors ran a series of regressions to see what effect the overall national decline in firearm ownership from 1981 to 2010 had on gun homicides. The result was staggering: "for each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of household gun ownership," Siegel et al. found, "firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9R43; percent. A one standard deviation change in firearm ownership shifted gun murders by a staggering 12.9 percent.
To put this in perspective, take the state of Mississippi. "All other factors being equal," the authors write, "our model would predict that if the FS/S in Mississippi were 57.7% (the average for all states) instead of 76.8% (the highest of all states), its firearm homicide rate would be 17% lower." Since 475 people were murdered with a gun in Mississippi in 2010, that drop in gun ownership would translate to 80 lives saved in that year alone.
Of course, the authors don"t find that rates of gun ownership explain all of America"s gun violence epidemic: race, economic inequality and generally violent areas all contribute to an area"s propensity for gun deaths, suggesting that broader social inequality, not gun ownership alone, contributes to the gun violence epidemic. Nevertheless, the fact that gun ownership mattered even when race and poverty were accounted for suggests that we can"t avoid talking about America"s fascination with guns when debating what to do about the roughly 11,000 Americans who are yearly murdered by gunfire." http://thinkprogress.org...

2: "Video Game Violence and Why It Should End Video games these days are now just shooting and killing. Children play these games for entertainment and I know that they are fun, because I play them too. But this is a serious thing. Children do not need to play violent games because games can influence children to do so. People say,"Oh, my son promised to never act like that," or,"Tyler loves these games and he keeps asking for a BB gun". The BB gun may be just for fun, but soon he'll get a real gun."
Yes this is sort of correct a person who likes first person shooters may want to get a gun. Please show me how guns increase violence.
My opponent totally agreed with me on this subject.

3: I gave you websites. Obviously you did not read al of my arguments whereas I am examine all your arguments at least 3x over.
A341

Con

A341 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Tmdog3758

Pro

All arguments still stand. Please vote for me
A341

Con

My apologies, vote pro.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by A341 2 years ago
A341
Please try and stick to a few main points next time.
Posted by Ja50n 2 years ago
Ja50n
IMO video games do not cause violent crimes. Consider this, currently hundreds of thousands of people play video games, if so shouldn't there be hundreds of thousands of violent crimes happening right now because people get influenced by video games. Of course not, because it is ridiculous to state that video games directly cause and influence violent behaviors by people. In fact in some cases, video games can relieve stress and mental health issues simply by playing.
Posted by A341 2 years ago
A341
To reply I have put your argument into a google dox and formatted it so I can read it.
Posted by Dheu 2 years ago
Dheu
To Pro:

Oh man! Could you format your arguments next time? Big wall of texts are simply ugly to read. Some spaces in between points would be appreciated!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by mdc32 2 years ago
mdc32
Tmdog3758A341Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Pro practically plagiarized his arguments, but Con ff'd a round. Tie on conduct, rest to Con.
Vote Placed by TheTom 2 years ago
TheTom
Tmdog3758A341Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture, and pro put much more work into his argument.