The Instigator
dathc
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
SnaxAttack
Con (against)
Winning
2 Points

Does violent games make people become violent ??

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 1 vote the winner is...
SnaxAttack
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/18/2015 Category: Games
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 872 times Debate No: 82750
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)

 

dathc

Pro

Hi , snax attack i challenge you to my debate.it's about video game.Yes video game including other form of media violence can turn people to become violent.According to some studies,they make a brain scan ,control group between non-violent player and violent player.It shows that violent player show less activation in areas involved in controlling emotion and aggressive behavior.Non-violent player does not have this affection.
SnaxAttack

Con

I accept the challenge, and will prove that video games do not cause violence but actually benefit those who play them.
Debate Round No. 1
dathc

Pro

Many active shooter admit that they have been played violent games beforehand they go on killing spree.Such as one case ,adam lanza he play violent games since he was a kid and his mother never care what for activities does he do.I mean playing violent games since he was a 6 years old is absolutely insane.Video games just affected children so badly that it could turn them into evil.
SnaxAttack

Con

My opponent makes the argument that many active shooters for school shootings shot up a school because of playing violent video games, but my opponent neglects other facts besides playing video games. For this example, we will discuss about Adam lanza since my opponent brought him up for this debate.

First off, my opponent makes a claim but fails to provide any source. So we will not know if this is true or not, and because of this cannot be proven evident enough. While my sources will clear up this issue, where according to journalist Aaron Katersky (1), he states that Adam Lanza had multiple crucial impacts in his life before the shooting. Example is losing a close friend, and having continuous fights with his mother. Personally, we must look at other events besides him playing a video game considered "violent".

The video game he did play was Mass Effect, which for those who do not know is a space RPG. Is there combat? Yes, but the weapons used are not based off of real guns but blasters. Far different, and is hard to make a claim that those who did commit a horrific crime did it because of a video game (2).

Me personally, I play lots of video games; but how many are truly violent? Looking at the definition of "Violent", it states: "Marked by extreme force or sudden intense activity (3). This "Sudden intense activity" can actually be applied to 98% of video games on the market. Even the child friendly ones like Mario or Sonic the Hedgehog, and the fact is that many kids play these games; and or adults. They have played these games, yet have they shot up a school or done a horrific crime? No, they did not and is ridiculous to claim video games as the lore for causing violence.

Instead of blaming one thing, we must look more in depth before video games is considered an option. Just because someone plays a video game does not mean they will do a crime.

Sources:
1. http://abcnews.go.com...
2. http://www.cracked.com...
3. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 2
dathc

Pro

Yes but video game is a training simulation for shooting.Military often use it for training before going to war.And besides yes he have mental health problem but due to he ineffective in distinguish between fantasy and reality so therefore video game make him confuse and can have an negative effect on him.
SnaxAttack

Con

In this round, my opponent states "Yes but video game is a training simulation for shooting. Military often use it for training before going to war". First off, a few key words that my opponent fails to understand about video games. My opponent makes the argument that video games are a training simulation. Actually, they are not a training simulation but more so a form of entertainment like TV or Movies (1), which why not consider these factors?. They are not necessarily a simulation. Secondly, my opponent makes the assumption that all video games are shooters. Most games are not shooters, and any type of video game does have some sort of violence like I stated in the previous round.

My opponent makes the claim that the military also uses video games, but once more fails to provide a source. Because of this, its questionable of whether or not this is reliable. also, I must bring up common sense that just because one plays a video game does not mean they know the real deal. One example is the famous Call of Duty, just because you play it does not mean one will know how to shoot a gun correctly. And even if the military used video games, it is for a good cause not necessarily bad. Video games have actually been able to promote really good benefits to the player who plays the games. Examples include: Better coordination, have stronger memory, and have improved vision (2). There is more if you would like to check source two.

As it is seen, video games do have many benefits and is not necessarily the cause of all violence. Then my opponent states: "And besides yes he have mental health problem but due to he ineffective in distinguish between fantasy and reality so therefore video game make him confuse and can have an negative effect on him". First off, my opponent stated that Adam Lanza had a mental health problem, but that doesn't mean video games got him confused between reality and fantasy.

Adam Lanza was said to have a condition called "Asperger's Syndrome" (3). Now a little bit of a personal backstory, my younger brother also has Asperger's and he plays many games himself. He plays Call of Duty, Halo, Minecraft, and Mario. Has he ever been violent, no and did not shoot up a school. With Adam Lanza's case, there are other factors besides just video games that made him shoot up a school, which my opponent failed to Rebuttal. Those reasons are more relevant, instead of looking at only one thing. Once more, I argue that instead of blaming one particular area in the case; look at other things besides blaming on one common trend.

Sources:
1. http://www.cnet.com...
2. http://www.businessinsider.com...
3. http://time.com...

Debate Round No. 3
dathc

Pro

If you think it's not video game fault,then what are the main cause that make adam lanza crazy ??
SnaxAttack

Con

Like I stated earlier, Adam Lanza had a trouble life growing up. In the second round, I stated: "While my sources will clear up this issue, where according to journalist Aaron Katersky (1), he states that Adam Lanza had multiple crucial impacts in his life before the shooting. Example is losing a close friend, and having continuous fights with his mother". These factors can easily play into someone shooting up a school, not a video game.

Source:
1. http://abcnews.go.com...
Debate Round No. 4
dathc

Pro

Yes i understand how he suffer during childhood but many kids being bullied doesn't mean they have go to school and shoot people.According to chicago studies shows that regularly playing a violent video games lead to brain change.It desensitize young men to violence .Some evidence suggest that frequent playing violent video game can affect behavior by making people less sensitive to the abhorrent aspect of violence said jeffrey binder,a neurologist with froedtert hospital and the medical college in wisconsin.I will give you the website link. And please read the fact.They were divided into two group one that play violent games at home for 10 hours over a course of a week and control group that did not play violent games.Those control group who were not play violent games does not result in brain change.http://www.jsonline.com... some people have mental illness but that does not always mean they will commit crime.
SnaxAttack

Con

Opening up to my opponents conclusion, he states: "Yes i understand how he suffer during childhood but many kids being bullied doesn't mean they have go to school and shoot people". same thing can be applied to video games, where even though someone plays it does not necessarily mean that they are going to go shoot up a school.

In this final round, my opponent finally puts a source in that video games does cause violence. In an experiment, it states that kids who do play violent video games do get violent. However, i will disprove my opponents statement that video games does not cause violence. Stated by Randy Dotinga (1), "And even if spending a lot of time playing video games every day may alter the way kids act in everyday life, 'All observed behaviors were very small in magnitude, suggesting only a minor relationship at best and that games do not have as large an impact as some parents and practitioners worry,' said study author Andrew Przybylski". As it is seen, video games have such a minor impact that there are no violence easily seen.

To conclude the debate, my opponent makes many claims but fails to provide evidence. Because of this, his arguments cannot be truly valid while I provided evidence, and Rebutalled against many of my opponent's statements. For this reason, I urge voters to vote Con!

Source:
1. http://consumer.healthday.com...;
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by snkcake666 1 year ago
snkcake666
@elli

But what studies????
Posted by ellie.phillips1101 1 year ago
ellie.phillips1101
As some studies have shown, violence in games has led to violence in adulthood. However there are other contributions into what makes someone violent aside gaming. Genetics, upbringing etc have also been associated with violence.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: fire_wings// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: This will be a very short RFD. I will give Con the sources point because he was the only one to use sources in this debate. I will give the argument point to Con also. Pro argues that people admit they played video games. This is a bad argument because there is no sources to provide this. Con's argument was about he play video games. He tells the definition of violent and says it is about the games options. The other arguments were refuting Pro by saying there was no sources in his rounds. In the end, I will give this debate to Con because Pro could not support his arguments with evidence and also could not refute Con, while Con refuted Pro. This is a very easy win to Con.

[*Reason for removal*] Source points are insufficient. The voter needs to do more than just say that one side had sources while the other didn't. If one side was the only one that had sources, the voter merely needs to point to the importance of those sources in their arguments, but without that, the voter just seems to be voting on who had the most sources rather than any substance.
************************************************************************
Posted by Rahjee 1 year ago
Rahjee
Wow, the instigator is going full retard. He's using every flawed argument off the internet.
Posted by snkcake666 1 year ago
snkcake666
I appreciate contributions from both sides of the debate. My vote would be cast in favor of the contender for providing substantial evidence, philosophy, and logic. The instigator suggested his view but failed to provide but a single source which he did not explain in detail.

Unfortunately due to a minimum requirement of participation in three debates, I cannot cast my vote at this time.
Posted by snkcake666 1 year ago
snkcake666
Contender used decent example of ethos. However, I might state that not all video games necessarily contain violence, even if the majority do (e.g. Flower, Journey, educational space simulation games, etc.) The sources are well listed, and arguments are presented fairly well (flowing in logical order and sustaining a solid conclusion). The grammar and phrasing are slightly awkward on occasion, but this can be overlooked for the sake of the internet-argument setting.
Posted by snkcake666 1 year ago
snkcake666
Instigator has failed to provide studies, sources, philosophies, or a logical explanation in round three.
Posted by snkcake666 1 year ago
snkcake666
Contender, nice job with the sources. However, I might add that your opponent's argument is a correlation. Until the challenger can address the claim as a proper experimentation, supported by studies or a logical philosophy, then you have the right to take advantage of this.

Instigator, your argument may prove to have a solid foundation if you can provide the studies you referred to in your opening. However, these must be more than simple correlations for the sake of your argument's stability. Feel free to use ethos, but make sure that you can support the stance with logos as well.

@BlackFlags That strikes me as a rather rude comment. I may inform you, formal debates require sources for provable claim. And while you are correct to state that the study itself will do, a source to the study itself is preferable. Logical philosophies can prove to be immaculate arguments, but in this situation, we are dealing with an example of behavioral psychology, which has been accounted for in innumerable studies and experiments.
Posted by BlackFlags 1 year ago
BlackFlags
You should specify the study.

Don't worry about posting a website link, like these idiots will try to pressure you into doing (dumbasses)
Posted by snkcake666 1 year ago
snkcake666
If you mention a study, it is expected that you provide your sources.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by twsurber 1 year ago
twsurber
dathcSnaxAttackTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's case appeared to be more circumstantial which CON's was more specific.