The Instigator
Nahte42
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
maninorange
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Do kids imitate what they see on screen, cinema, videogames, etc. and if so should we stop it

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/30/2011 Category: Technology
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,321 times Debate No: 19593
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

Nahte42

Con

I'm not entirely sure if the title explains it but it is based ff the fact that people say that children imitate what they see on television and because of this we should cancel some shows and things like that which is a fact i will discuss because i believe it does not
maninorange

Pro





Greetings!

The first part of this debate, “Do kids imitate what they see on screen, cinema, videogames, etc.” is largely an evidence battle. I, as Pro, will be asserting that yes, children do, in fact, become more violent for watching violent movies or television shows or playing violent video games. I feel more than well-supported by the scientific literature here.

First, children who played violent video games were found to be more aggressive in the next months, regardless of nationality. [1]
Although the studies in the referenced meta-analysis likely used adults, given the similarities in reactions to various social situations between children and adults, I’d suggest that evidence of video-game-induced violence in adults could also be used as evidence of video-game-induced violence in children. [2]

I present two other studies which not only conclude that players of violent video games tend toward more violent behavior, but offer explanations of the mechanisms involved. [3][4]

Second, there are also multiple studies indicating the same increase in aggression linked to other violent media. [5][6][7]

Again, I feel as though the scientific literature supports my position here. Feel free to contest the evidence provided or provide counter-evidence for dispute.

The second part of this debate, “Should we stop it,” is a moral decision. However, I believe this is easily answered by asking ourselves if we want to predispose large numbers of the future generations to more violent behavior. I think any rational person would agree that this is not something we want for the future. Under a utilitarian stance, as the benefit of violent video games (short term pleasure) does not even come close to cancelling out the potential negative outcomes (a higher propensity for war, violent crimes, overall rudeness, crudeness, and douchebaggery), I suggest that, if it can be established with reasonable certainty that violent video games, movies, and television shows cause more violent behavior in children, they should be withheld from them.

[1] http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...

[2] http://www.soc.iastate.edu...

[3] http://web.missouri.edu...

[4] http://lol.medieraadet.dk...

[5] http://www.psychology.iastate.edu...

[6] http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...

[7] http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...

Debate Round No. 1
Nahte42

Con

HELLO! and I thank you for taking this debate, may the best and most logical argument win.

First You said : First, children who played violent video games were found to be more aggressive in the next months, regardless of nationality.

Yes this may be true but your using generalization meaning that every kid does so. In fact only a handful of children who played violent video games were to show aggressive behavior. And another fact, we are not discussing the fact if children become aggressive we are discussing the fact if they imitate what they see on television,cinema, video games, etc. Therefore it does not matter.

Next you said: Although the studies in the referenced Meta-analysis likely used adults, given the similarities in reactions to various social situations between children and adults, I’d suggest that evidence of video-game-induced violence in adults could also be used as evidence of video-game-induced violence in children. [2]

What it sounds like you're trying to say is that the aggressive behavior in adults can be imported to their children or children in general. This is a "monkey see monkey do"sort of this thing, as if a child uses a curse word because she heard her parent use it. They are doing it, but they do not know what they are doing. psychological behavior can be linked to parents just by asking a few questions. But a child des not go out and commit murder because he/she saw in a movie.

Now onward you then state: The second part of this debate, “Should we stop it,” is a moral decision. However, I believe this is easily answered by asking ourselves if we want to predispose large numbers of the future generations to more violent behavior. I think any rational person would agree that this is not something we want for the future. Under a utilitarian stance, as the benefit of violent video games (short term pleasure) does not even come close to cancelling out the potential negative outcomes (a higher propensity for war, violent crimes, overall rudeness, crudeness, and touchable), I suggest that, if it can be established with reasonable certainty that violent video games, movies, and television shows cause more violent behavior in children, they should be withheld from them.

Okay you have a good point but within the media they put simple warnings such a rating whether it is rated R movie or rated M game. they state that in those they have violence and crude behavior of sorts. this on the simple fact if the parents think that their children are mature enough to watch these. by that I do not mean if they are old enough but they can comprehend what they saw and understand why it is wrong. if they have moral values then they can understand the value of a persons life and go to seek to harm. the psychological definition of aggression is behavior leading to self-assertion; it may arise from innate drives and/or a response to frustration, and may be manifested by destructive and attacking behavior, by hostility and obstructionism, or by self-expressive drive to mastery. An innate drive is our instincts so to speak and we cannot control our instincts and as to the response to frustration is something only the individual person can choose on the spot and they would not have time to think of what happened on last nights law&order. and the attacking behavior can come from the environment though a tv and movie may go with it I see no reason hatred would manifest within one self because of television.



maninorange

Pro





The first part of this round will primarily consist of rebuttals. Statements in quotes which begin a paragraph are taken from Pro’s rebuttals in round 2. Some rebuttals have been supplemented by additional evidence.

After the obvious barrier, I will introduce another study regarding the second topic of this debate.

“Yes this may be true but your using generalization meaning that every kid does so. In fact only a handful of children who played violent video games were to show aggressive behavior.

I am in fact using generalization. However, by saying “…children who played violent video games were found to be more aggressive in the next months…” one need not conclude that children who play a violent video game are guaranteed to be more violent. When I make such a claim in reference to a scientific study, what that means is that children who play violent videos have a much higher chance of developing violent behavior. I do believe that is what is supported by the evidence. The American Academy of Pediatrics appears to agree:

“More than 1000 scientific studies and reviews conclude that significant exposure to media violence increases the risk of aggressive behavior in certain children and adolescents...” [1]

“And another fact, we are not discussing the fact if children become aggressive we are discussing the fact if they imitate what they see on television,cinema, video games, etc. Therefore it does not matter.”

Although the children do not always imitate the actions, they are imitating the violence and aggression behind the actions. I was under the impression that this is what we were trying to show. If we want an example of children imitating the action, there are multiple studies showing this to be the case as well.

“Television news violence also contributes to increased violence, principally in the form of imitative suicides and acts of aggression.[2]

Over 2 yrs, the experimental Ss were exposed to 2 treatments designed to reduce the likelihood of their imitating the aggressive behaviors they observed on TV… the experimental Ss were rated as significantly less aggressive by their peers…” [3]

“These results extend earlier findings that show children take causal and intentional information into account appropriately in their imitation.” [4]

Although I have complied with your wishes to provide evidence of the imitation of actions, I maintain that imitation of violence and aggression will be sufficient for me to claim that children do imitate what they see.

“What it sounds like you're trying to say is that the aggressive behavior in adults can be imported to their children or children in general. This is a "monkey see monkey do"sort of this thing, as if a child uses a curse word because she heard her parent use it.”

That was not at all what I was trying to say. I was saying that adult responses to violence do not differ so much from child responses to violence, and can therefore be indicators of a child's response.

“But a child des not go out and commit murder because he/she saw in a movie.

(Straw man)

“…within the media they put simple warnings such a rating… this on the simple fact if the parents think that their children… can comprehend what they saw and understand why it is wrong.

A parent deciding that it is okay to present his or her child with a violent video game or movie in no way testifies to the supposed maturity of the child.
Furthermore, as indicated in the studies I presented above, it appears that even among those who are purported to know right from wrong (adults), violence in video games and movies is nonetheless linked to aggression in real world situations. I can assume no better for “mature” children exposed to said violence.

“An innate drive is our instincts so to speak and we cannot control our instincts and as to the response to frustration is something only the individual person can choose on the spot and they would not have time to think of what happened on last nights law&order.

Aggressive behaviors are linked more with the sympathetic nervous system than the frontal lobes of the brain (which are responsible for our voice of reason and ability to think rationally). As such, these behaviors tend not to be thought out, but rash.

“…I see no reason hatred would manifest within one self because of television.

(Straw man)

OBVIOUS BARRIER

This is an excerpt from the abstract of a study from the Journal of Developmental Psychology:

…childhood exposure to media violence predicts young adult aggressive behavior for both males and females. Identification with aggressive TV characters and perceived realism of TV violence also predict later aggression.” [5]

Given this information, I, again, conclude that children should be limited in what they observe in the way of media violence.


[1] http://tinyurl.com...

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

[3] http://psycnet.apa.org...

[4] http://cocosci.berkeley.edu...

[5] http://psycnet.apa.org...

Debate Round No. 2
Nahte42

Con

Hello and I have limited time s I will have to make it short

You Say "what that means is that children who play violent videos have a much higher chance of developing violent behavior."

With Kids having a higher chance does not guarantee that they will become more aggressive and for a statement like that where a higher chance is incorporated there must be some sort of ratio. and you do not have to state one I am just stating that there should be one and it would have to incorporate; all children who have been known to play violent video games or television, who have actually became more aggressive, who did not, and which households did the parents explain to their children the differences.
and a ratio like that is hard to achieve

And I must now mention that I understand the aggression part of this debate

Now I may add that in the evidence you present in"[4]" it states in Children's Imitation of Causal Action Sequences 7 at the bottom last paragraph that
From the learner's perspective, the problem is that they observe an action sequence,
and then observe whether or not the effect is elicited [1] The word elicited means 
  1. Evoke or draw out (a response or fact) from someone by actions or questions: "their moves elicit exclamations of approval".
  2. Draw forth (something that is latent or potential) into existence: "war elicits all that is bad in us[2]

this goes into the fact of needing to obtain a reaction for a joke or a certain "shock value" and goes with my earlier argument that it also is the parents fault if the child is to imitate what they see on television. the parents have to state to the children that the reaction they are going to get by imitating what they saw or what will happen will be a lot more different then what they had seen.

from your last point said with the "OBVIOUS BARRIER" is that you conclude that children should be limited to what they watch. in the past limitations are set so things do not get out of control, but limitations are not needed when met with a compromise or a "win win" situation and all that means is that parents need to take time to talk to their children and their life
maninorange

Pro





I have no new studies to present, so this round will consist entirely of rebuttals and defenses of my statements. Statements in quotes which begin a paragraph are taken from Pro’s rebuttals in round 3.

“With Kids having a higher chance does not guarantee that they will become more aggressive and for a statement like that where a higher chance is incorporated there must be some sort of ratio. and you do not have to state one I am just stating that there should be one and it would have to incorporate; all children who have been known to play violent video games or television, who have actually became more aggressive, who did not, and which households did the parents explain to their children the differences.
and a ratio like that is hard to achieve

This does absolutely nothing to refute my claim that children who play violent video games or watch violent movies are far more likely to act violently. The fact that an exact ratio is virtually impossible to establish does nothing more than testify to the number of variables affecting the situation. I'm sure that you will find that the studies indicate that the ratio is quite high, however.

“it also is the parents fault if the child is to imitate what they see on television. the parents have to state to the children that the reaction they are going to get by imitating what they saw or what will happen will be a lot more different then what they had seen.”

This, whether true or not, is entirely irrelevant. The fact is that kids ARE imitating what they see on TV, which is what is to be shown in this debate.

“you conclude that children should be limited to what they watch. in the past limitations are set so things do not get out of control, but limitations are not needed when met with a compromise or a "win win" situation and all that means is that parents need to take time to talk to their children and their life

1) Most parents are not psychologists. Given that it is not likely that parents worldwide will suddenly start reasoning with their children on matters of morality, and simply limiting violent media intake is far easier, since violent media doesn’t impart any know great benefit to society, it would be far better to simply limit children’s exposure to it.

2) The problem with assuming that if parents simply talk to their children, the children will have a lessened propensity for violent behavior after watching violent movies is that even among adults, violent media is still positively correlated with violent behavior. Furthermore, you’ve not presented evidence that parents who speak to their children about violence before or after or during a violent movie are going to produce less violent children.

Extend all other arguments.

Debate Round No. 3
Nahte42

Con

I Understand children imitating what they is a bad thing. But The American Academy of Pediatrics has shown research that a child that has been educated in the media was less likely to be vurnerable to the violent aspects of the media. It is also the idea of simple logic that when talking to a kid about something it does make it better and help them[1]


Also I do realize that a ratio like the one I described earlier is nearly impossible to be made exact. I was not stating you had to give one.

Now I know that all parents are not psychologists but it does not take a psychologist to talk to a child and help them separate reality from fiction. and I know that not every parent will talk to their child about what they see on television but some will and that is what makes a difference in the type of child



[1] http://aappolicy.aappublications.org...


maninorange

Pro





Only one of my arguments was challenged in the last round. Accordingly, I will only respond to it and will close this debate with a few choice words.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has shown research that a child that has been educated in the media was less likely to be vurnerable to the violent aspects of the media. It is also the idea of simple logic that when talking to a kid about something it does make it better and help them …it does not take a psychologist to talk to a child and help them separate reality from fiction. and I know that not every parent will talk to their child about what they see on television but some will and that is what makes a difference in the type of child

“A child who has been educated in the media is less likely to be vulnerable to the violent aspects of the media.” Okay, I’ll concede that. But here we have “less likely.” This indicates that there still is an effect to be mitigated. Furthermore, your comments on parents helping the child see what is and is not okay in the real world is irrelevant, for the following reasons:

1) Not all parents lecture their children on such matters. In fact, although I have not a single study to support, I would venture to say that most parents don’t lecture their children on such matters.

2) Even among the children who are lectured and taught that the actions in movies and video games are not acceptable in the real world, there is still an increase in violent behavior. At this point, defending children’s playing of violent video games and watching of violent movies is silly at best, and culturally damaging at worst.

It is also the idea of simple logic that when talking to a kid about something it does make it better and help them” You would be quite surprised to know the number of people who are not only reluctant to speak to their children on these matters, but are willing to throw logic entirely to the side for the purposes of achieving what they think will be a desired effect.

Concluding remarks:

Throughout this debate, I have presented multiple studies demonstrating the link between observed virtual violence and real world aggression. I have also present several studies indicating that imitation plays a key role in this behavior in children. Furthermore, I have presented very good reasons for carrying out a cut and dry procedure of restricting what children watch. Lastly, I have shown that Con’s alternatives are futile attempts at correcting the damaging effects, and are far harder to carry out and enforce.

With this said, I assert, again, that not only do children imitate what they observe in video games and movies, it would be an appropriate course of action to withhold such things from said children.

Thank you for the debate.

Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
4 rounds..? Nah...
No votes have been placed for this debate.