The Instigator
samigirl
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Nails
Con (against)
Winning
34 Points

Can violence in movies and violence affect teens/children

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/20/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 7,593 times Debate No: 9526
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (7)
Votes (6)

 

samigirl

Pro

Violence in the home can be frightening and harmful to children. Children need a safe and loving home where they do not have to grow up in fear. A child who has seen violence in video games and movies do not always become violent, but he or she may be more likely to try resolving conflicts with violence. A report released earlier this month again confirmed that seeing a lot of violence on television, in the movies, and in video games can have a negative effect on children: such as, Learning aggressive attitudes and violent behaviors, becoming desensitized to real world violence and developing a fear of being victimized by violence. And also many of the programs that children watch send the message that a conflict always involves a winner and a loser.
Nails

Con

First off, I think 'can violence in movies and violence affect teens/ children' has some major problems in it's wording. Theoretically, all you would have to do is provide one single instance where violence in movies has had either a positive or negative affect, regardless of how miniscule it is.
I'll assume from the wording of your argument that you believe violence has an overall negative impact on children (contradict me, by all means, if this isn't so) so I will argue that witnessing violence in movies/ at home as a child cannot be assumed to have a negative impact on children.
I find this to be an acceptable resolution (you can modify it to what you see fit)
Seeing violence in games and movies is harmful to children and teenagers.

First, violence can be eye-opening.

Watch any show on any children's network (Disney, Cartoon Network, Nickelodeon, etc.) and they all have the same things in common: any conflict within the show is only superficial and trivial, any conflict in the show is resolved at the end, nothing bad happens to any protagonist that isn't overcome. Kid's can't be sheltered like this and then released on the real world unprepared for hardships.
The violence in these video games doesn't even compare to the brutal realities of what is happening in the real world. We have wars, genocides, murders, natural disasters. We have crises that come up with no clear solution; ones that end up just making the world off as a whole. If children are fed for 18 years the fact that everything simply ends up hunky-dory, then they are going to suffer when they are released upon the outside world far greater than some 'loss of inocence' found in playing violent games. If they believe all people are good at heart, they are going to be cheated and swindled and stolen from. If they believe everything works out well in the end, they will be confronted with deep depression when the harsh reality hits them. Movies and games have to be realistic even if reality can be cruel, otherwise these kids won't be prepared for the world ahead.

Second, violence is not the underlying problem in these 'corrupting' games and movies.

Too many of the problems with 'violent' video games are attributed to violence rather than the underlying factors. What about games like Halo or Grand Theft Auto? The problem is not that there is violence involved, but that the violence is senseless and without cause. People are killed for sport or as part of a competition, or simply for the killer's amusement. The problem with these is not that the violence is there, but that the morals being taught in these games devalue human life and compassion.
For example, one movie I watched recently was 'Taken.' Here the purpose of the violence was not pleasure or competition, but for the protagonist to rescue his daughter from kidnappers. It shows significant violence and hardship, for example kidnap, prostitution, and torture, but it properly expresses that the senseless violence is horrible and objectionable and the only way that the 'good guy' uses violence is when it is necessary and for a more important purpose. In the case of this movie, there was incredible violence, and yet it still taught a strong positive message to children.
In short, think hard about what the problem is in these shows and games. Is it the fact that the violence is there or that it is being used to teach corrupting ideas to kids? Violence in itself doesn't corrupt these kids, it is the flawed morals being taught, with or without violence.

In summary, you ought to negate this resolution because:
1. Seeing violence can benefit kids by making them overall more prepared for the hardships they will face in life; and
2. Most problems with these violent games and movies have little to with violence and a lot to do with corrupt morals.
Debate Round No. 1
samigirl

Pro

samigirl forfeited this round.
Nails

Con

Nails forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by stfuss 6 years ago
stfuss
Definitely it have some effect, the action scenes that are with a gun, iron sticks and other instruments unlikely remind us and if we have any thing in our hand, we are going to roll as it is. In order to provide better parenting one should guide children about the consequences in detail, that make children to understand the things. http://www.troubledteensguide.com...
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
Yea, I probably should have posted something in that last argument. This was my first debate, so I didn't think I had to. Oh well, no use crying over spilled milk.
Posted by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
RFD:

B/A: Pro/Pro
Conduct: Tied. Both forfeited.
S & G: Nothing too detrimental or beneficial on either side.
C A: Con. Really the only side to present argumentation.
Sources: Tied. None used.
Posted by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
hahaha how ridiculous. I have been fighting since high school and have maintained a 3.6+ til graduation. Fighting is just a sport
Posted by silntwaves 7 years ago
silntwaves
hey person. i might accept this. once i get done with the debate im in. its cool :]
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Yeah, it's hard to say that there isn't an effect. Reword.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Well, there's no question that there's an effect.

Although one might conclude an opposite correlation...
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by MrHardRock 7 years ago
MrHardRock
samigirlNailsTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Chihuahuadogz 7 years ago
Chihuahuadogz
samigirlNailsTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
samigirlNailsTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
samigirlNailsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Justinisthecrazy 7 years ago
Justinisthecrazy
samigirlNailsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
samigirlNailsTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03