Do video games cause bad behavior in children?
Debate Rounds (4)
1)Pro has burden of proof
2)Pro advocate video games and its benefit for children and their behavior
3)winner is determined by quality, development of arguments and forming of arguments, semantic etc.
I hope I express everything what is need. I hope my opponent accepts challenge.
Thank you, Bublifuk
Thanks to my opponent for proposing such an interesting topic.
I accept your challenge and agree that I must show how video games benefit children and their behavior. Keep in mind that I do not have to defend the resolution in my burden to its utmost entirety, but rather display how kids, being more than one, have some collective benefit to them and their behavior from video games. For clarity to the readers, even though he is Con, he is the one saying that video games are bad for children.
I now turn it over to my opponent to develop his case. Until then, enjoy this photo. :)
I thank my opponent for accepting. From my point of view I am sure about the winner because cameron is more experienced and and grasp English way better than me. However, I promise I won't give him any chance to get advantage.
I am going to start my argument with general introduction of topic.
2. relax within options
Video games relax children a lot. They forget their daily problems and focus only on game. But spending too much time leads to lack of sport. Lack of sport affect health. Bad health cause diseases especially obesity. Nowadays obesity is disease of affluence. Children often don't realize it. Realization always come when they become target of mockery. One quotation says "healthy body, healthy mind". In common sense it means if your body is healthy, your mind as well. In terms of children playing video games, fictitious characters in the computer are the only ones who practise sport.
3. Wrong values
Through video games, children are connected with whole world and to older people. Being connected with other people, children used to learn their habits and, significantly, their language and behavior. Even in virtual world children tend to follow the stronger one. No matter who he is they follow him because he has better score in the game, he killed more enemies. I remember I met one children on some forum, 3 months later he took up with bunch of guys, who behaved rude, and started to talk same rude way as they were because he had wanted to be friend with them. At that point he apparently practised that language in real life. Children under-age don't realize their behavior and language is being changing during the time they spend playing video games.
4. prospects in career
Bad behavior caused by video games affect daily life of children. But career and its future is one of the most important thing for them. They will have to work over 30-40 years over and over the same job. Thus vision of career is something which they ought to care about. In relation with career nothing is more important than grades at school. Unfortunately, school is long-term process which gradually become less and less serious for children so current video game which last only no more than few weeks occurs their mind more than grades. A study by Minnesota School on Professional Psychology found that children play video games more argue with their friends and teachers than their contemporaries who spend less time on video games. Study also show that they rather skip homework to spend more time playing games. Personally, In my classroom my friends who apparently spend their free time playing video games, are the most common guys who argue. Furthermore, their grades are the worst in the class. Everyday we read in newspapers about teenagers who slaughtered their own classmates due to their bad social problems. Presumably, they had been bullied, or put out of their group. The murderer was known for playing game called "Counter strike" every day. This results come from influence of video games on daily life.
In terms of influence of playing video games on behavior violence is the most blamed factor. Children exposed every day to violence start to get used to it as it was commonplace. And from that point violence causes bad behavior of them. According to Anderson and Bushman, 2001 "Children who play more violent video games are more likely to have increased aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, and decreased prosocial helping". However, not violent games don't result into this behavior. But children suffer from other cases I mentioned above. Video games bring children to unknown world which should be keep out of them. When they get accustomed to play violent games it is hard to stop them. Consequences take their parents who allow them to play it. But on the other hand parents wants everything for their children and simply spoil them. This could be one reason why children have become so aggressive. They must get everything they want to even though they are forbid to get that. The other point why children are so aggressive is that they are addicted to that game, literally they can't live without that. So they eagerly fight for that. Nevertheless exposing to the violent video games increase activity in the amygdale, which is involved in emotional arousal. So during each game children are exposed to emotional state. And children get accustomed to that state quickly. This exactly cause the reason why are children so aggressive. Due to violent games.
In few paragraphs above I have mentioned reasons why children are aggressive and other factors which cause them damage. It is more than sure, that exposing children to computer games have bad influence on them. It is matter of time when they began to increase their aggression and decrease their performance at school. Hereby I would like to share a table where is measured aggressive and pro-social behavior:
From the table is clear that the behavior is enhanced in weekdays,"pro-social behavior" suffered the most, and boys are more problematic than girls. I assume video games don't engage girls like boys. But teachers and parents are the victims who suffer the most of this problem.
That's all from me. I hope you guys like it. I am looking forward to see some votes in favour of me! Thanks again "cameronl35" for accepting the challenge. I look forward for his arguments.
Before I begin I would like to thank my kind opponent for presenting a well thought out argument. I think all the readers should commend him for his efforts, especially considering English is not his first language. His competitive but yet enthusiastic and respectful attitude is something more debaters on this website should emulate.
With that in mind, I'm going to dive into the rebuttal first. I'm not going to have a set case, for most of the reasons why you should affirm are going to be turns on his arguments. The arguments I'm making/turning are the last responses to each of his contentions.
I agree with all definitions and believe the cut off age for a kid should be somewhere around 15.
R1: Time (Addiction)
Con's argument essentially is that students spend too much time playing video games, thus lowering their social skills and wasting time that should be spent interacting with the family and doing other productive stuff. With this I have two responses:
1. Proving that kids play video games too much doesn't show actually why or how video games cause bad behavior. A kid can play video games as much as he wants to and still have great behavior around his peers and family. This argument is not contingent upon behavior at all.
2. Simple regulations and rules can be enforced to lower the time spent on video games. Perhaps this is an issue with bad parenting, not an issue of child behavior. If an eight year old kid gets addicted to something, is he really the culpable agent for playing five hours? The parent clearly should monitor their children much more extensively.
3. Children learn discipline and organizational skills when they determine how much time they will spend on video games and their overall daily activity. This is an essential life long skill. Throughout life there are plenty of temptations to waste time partying or doing drugs instead of school work. If a student can learn this skill early, it will have a great impact on how he or she behaves.
This argument is somewhat unclear but from my understanding I believe my opponent is trying to argue that kids become too relaxed and don't exercise enough. With this I have four responses:
1. Children are getting enough exercise. According to the NCSH "about 75 percent of children age 10 through 17 were physically active at least three days a week..The children who were least likely to get adequate exercise or participate in organized sports were African American, Hispanic, home-schooled, or lived in what their parents gauged to be an unsafe neighborhood."  Thus location and poverty are the true cause of lack of exercise, not video games.
2. There is no warrant whatsoever to prove my opponent's argument valid. It may seem logical, but clearly as the evidence shows video games aren't causing obesity and lack of exercise.
3. This argument, yet again, is not relevant to child behavior.
4. Relaxation is good for kids. Especially those in their teenage years, stress is rampant. Allowing children to relax more may lead to more time and energy for things such as physical activity, potentially benefiting them rather than hurting them.
R3: Wrong Values
Con here argues that children learn to behave poorly and rudely by following older people. With this I have four responses:
1. There is no warrant at all for this argument, so we really don't know if this occurs.
2. The argument isn't entirely relevant to video games. Con's only example focuses on a forum, which is obviously not a video game. The only video games where children would really have direct interaction with older people are MMORPG's and some other bigger games like Call of Duty.
3. There is no reason why young kids should be interacting with older people online. I don't believe it is proper or safe. Actually, it kind of creeps me out to imagine a 30 year old sitting behind a computer teaching a 9 year old "bad things". This is an issue of parenting that can simply be resolved with regulations and by not purchasing games that connect kids and older people. There are ratings on games for a reason, you know.
4. Children have an opportunity to socialize with other kids their age. That's something essential for building social relations and developing new friendships. This can have a great positive impact on child behavior.
R4: Career Path
Con's argument here is confusing. He seems to present two points: video games lower the grades of children and potentially cause them to kill people. The argument is rather disorganized so it's hard to determine the true nature of the argument. However, I have three responses:
1. There is no warrant to support either claim here. The only evidence he cites relates to increased arguing which is not relevant or a dire issue. After locating his evidence, the entire outdated study was on addicted video game players. Not only is this not applicable to the entire context of the debate, but anybody can make something look bad if you take evidence from those who are addicted to it.
2. The argument presented about children murdering others is entirely flawed. First off, this isn't an "everyday" issue. Second, the Klebold and Harris case he indirectly discusses was not even caused by video games but rather depression and intrinsic mental illness. The "excuse" was that playing games like Wolfenstein made them angry and want to kill. Humans always want to blame something else whether it be for murder or petty theft. This is not a valid argument. Correlation does not imply causation my fellow debaters!
3. Video games can raise grades. In a study done on undergraduate business students, researchers found that "the findings show that classes using the game had significantly higher means than those classes that did not use the game".  A study done in 2005 from the U.S. Congress-supported Ready To Learn (RTL) Initiative found that a curriculum that involved digital media such as video games could improve early literacy skills.  Keep in mind there are plenty of educational and simulation games that have proved to raise test scores and increase focus.
Here con's argument is very clear. Con argues that violent video games leads to more violence. I've responded to this earlier but I'll provide three here:
1. Violent video games are not all the video games people can choose from. Violent games were intended for mature people, not little kids. This is again a problem of parenting.
2. Con's evidence is highly flawed. If you read the entire article, it discusses how numerous studies have shown that violent movies also have an impact on emotional arousal. It is unclear as to how emotional arousal will have a concrete impact in terms of creating violence. Again, the article confirms that they aren't 100% sure of the impacts thus far.
3. Video games, including violent ones, can help prepare teenagers for an increasingly competitive global market. "The success of complex video games demonstrates that games can teach higher-order thinking skills such as strategic thinking, interpretative analysis, problem solving, plan formulation and execution, and adaptation to rapid change," the Federation of American Scientists announced in a 2010 report. 
Analyzing my burden we see that all I have to do is prove that video games (any kind) are beneficial to multiple children. Considering semantics are allowed, I have shown that children are learning discipline and organization skills, increasing social skills, reducing stress through relaxation, raising grades, and preparing themselves for their career. Thus, since I have concretely shown how children have benefited, I urge a Pro vote.
2. Blunt, R. (2009, December 1). Do serious games work?
I thank my opponent for answer. I appreciate his nice words at the beginning. I am happy that I am competing with him in this, at least for me, epic battle.
So I start off with supporting each of my arguments.
Time (Addiction) - relating to "time is relevant"
Firstly, Pro said he has 2 responses. Finally he had three. I won't mind it just want to highlight that Pro don't follow his declared structure.
1)I begin with quotation of my argument in second round "The most part of aggressive and pro-social behavior cause length of time spent playing computer games. Spending as much as possible time on playing video games change their habits and way of thinking". This automatically disprove Pro's argument "Proving that kids play video games too much doesn't show actually why or how video games causebad behavior". Furthermore, one website says "Exposure to media violence increases later aggressive behavior, since the brain has an automatic tendency to imitate an observed behavior." - from this quotation we can conclude, that as long as children play computer games, then they have automatic tendency to imitate an observed behavior.
2)From this response I can refer to article above, where I mentioned that time matters. Parents bought that game to allow children play it. Even one hour can influence children behavior just for that reason that children get in touch with violence. The more children play it, the more they get used to it.
3)I agree with this argument in general. Handling the time is very good advantage in life. But I don't agree, that children are able to handle it. I've browsed in one site and I found this quotation "Children with a video game addiction need their parents’ help in reducing the amount of time spent playing games." Thus I think children need parents to handle it. And this problem nicely joins this article with point 2),
Relaxation? - relating to "relax within options"
Pro starts with statement that He doesn't clearly understand the topic. I believe few sentences will enlighten it to him. Children leave their daily routines just for purpose to play games. They leave sports, homework and this cause them obesity or problems in school. This way I would introduce my article "relax within options". And now lets focus on your arguments:
1)In relation with obesity Pro supported his argument by presenting a study. But study continued that 15% of children who reported adequate exercise were overweight. This means that even though they have adequate exercise, they still become overweight. According to this study kids eat more when they play games along with not exercising they are becoming fat. We can just hope, that kids lose their weight on exercising three days a week as they said in Pro's study.
2)Pro's argument is disproved in article above. Children eat more when they play computer games.
3)Let's summarize the facts said above. According to studies children BECOME fat while they play computer games. They tends to eat more, spend less time exercising so they become fat. In relation to being fat I have bring another facts: "In other words, obese tended to be unhappy with themselves in various ways – including socially - not just unhappy with their appearance." This proves the fact, that playing video games make children fat therefore their behavior change.
4)I agree that relaxation is good for kids. Kids are growing so they need to relieve body. But not with computer games. Especially their eyes suffer. Prolonging playing computer games make eyes focus on screen and if children exceed some period, children are tired and eyes are red. Naturally we all know the feeling when we spend 4 hours in row playing one game. I sometimes do it when I play Age of Empires 2 and I become so tired that I rather go sleep earlier.
1)In connection to this response I thought that this is general known problem that children follow stronger one and used swear words learnt from him. I supported that argument by my own experience: " I remember I met one children on some forum, 3 months later he took up with bunch of guys, who behaved rude, and started to talk same rude way as they were because he had wanted to be friend with them."Thus I thought it is trustful proof. Hence I can bring this evidence: "When children are exposed to violence on TV and in video games, studies show they tend to become more aggressive themselves.". This argument also supports my main thesis.
2)This Pro's argument expose Pro's weakness in awareness of Video games. Most of the games contain "chats" where people can talk. In most of nowadays games children can join some clans where can they talk to each other. As I proved on article above being into touch with swear words learn them aggression and "bad values".
3)Older people don't teach children bad words deliberately that the first point. When children are allowed to play multiplayer games they get in touch with guys who use bad words every day. Most of case children teach bad words and values of games itself. So for that reason they are restricted for children but despite that 39% parents allow their children play age-restricted games.
4)To oppose you I will bring my own experience. My friend is talkative on facebook and when we play video games together but in real life he is introvert talks. Communication through keyboard and screen make children more brave to talk then face to face and it keep them away of real communication.
Career Path - relating to "prospects in career"
In my opinion Pro didn't read my argument thoroughly. My started and ended by "Bad behavior caused by video games affect daily life of children." and continued by children's lack of interest in their future which was the argument about. Killing people was just example of life proving my argument.
1)The warrant here were 2 evidences. My own experience and that study. Logically study describing children behaviour can't be outdated for the reason that computer games have changed during time just in field of quality of graphic, textures etc. As a example we can use Diablo and Diablo 3. Differences are mainly in quality of graphic. Your argument was rather offensive than constructive.
2)I agree that argument is flawed. But it accomplish its purpose. I used "children murdering peers" as a highlight to its problem which started to happen recent years. It is caused by the influence of video games. This whole argument you have built is entirely wrong because it doesn't relate to the main purpose of my argument. To support my argument that video games lead children to murder I've brought this example:http://news.softpedia.com...
3)My opponent presented a claim that video games raise grades by one study done on undergraduate students which included game which was made only for business purpose. But children don't play this types of games. Sorry Pro.
I have to be straightforward because I don't have many Characters remaining
1)According to Top-selling charts most of the games in TOP are violent games. This average apply to children as well.
2)Studies clearly say that emotional arousal MAKES children aggressive as the brain-scanning say.
3)This is clearly flawed. Emotional arouse make children act irresponsible. This contrast with logical thinking
I am highly sorry I couldn't bring more evidence becouse of option.
cameronl35 forfeited this round.
Hello voters and other guys.
As you can see my opponent has forfeited his opportunity. I urge you to consider this case and vote for me as I am still available to debate.
For the rest of my last argument on this topic I'll extend my last argument which I wasn't able to finish properly because of the characters restriction. I'll start from my opponent last argument "Violence".
In the second round this topic was my main argument for this issue. I am glad my opponent understood my interpretation.
1)As I said in prior argument. My opponent claimed that violent video games aren't only games which children can choose from. I agree but according to TOP selling charts besides game consoles violent games are the TOP ones.This table include games bought by mature people and children. But average of those games relate to both categories. Just It wasn't clear for me what Pro meant a problem of parenting. That children play violent games? Or that their parents buy them these games.
2)Pro's argument here is based on claim that emotional arousal doesn't have impact on creating violence. In this case I would like to bring a quotation: "an increase in emotional arousal – and a corresponding decrease of activity in brain areas involved in self-control, inhibition and attention.". This consequences leads to violence. Hence abnormal playing violent games results into violent behavior.
3)I am glad I can review my opponent argument because I spend few hours playing computer games and I am happy it isn't useless. But there are some "but". For instance World of Warcraft is MMORPG it brings to another reality, there are features which are supernatural. Every creature don't behave like real person. This doesn't give you experience to real life and if then not much. Better way to learn how to act in real life is to work with it not to play video games. But this argument deviate from the topic which I was talking about. Violent games are based on killing people being more cruel and cruel. This don't give you any experience into real life.
Summing this up video games especially violent ones cause bad behavior in children. Thus parents should avoid purchasing violent games to their children. They should rather talk children out of playing them. As I mentioned upper I am sad that my opponent didn't responded he may be didn't has time to bring more proofs to refute my arguments or he simply gave this up.
As this is my last argument here I would like to ask people to write some feedback on my English and way how I debate. To know how to improve it. Because this is the first debate here and I've started to debate because of wanting to improve my English. Thank you very much!
cameronl35 forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.