The Instigator
Omnipotent
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Lickdafoot
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points

Does violent games or media impose a threat to the children and their behaviors?

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  
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/29/2011 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,650 times Debate No: 18531
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (7)

 

Omnipotent

Pro

Okay, this is my first debate, so I'll be pretty new to its rules, but be understanding please !

So, does violent games or media impose a threat to the children (or yet all its players) in a mean of them having negative influences from them?

In my opinion, yes. These little things that anyone comes in contact with, can and probably will influence the person with or without their conscious awareness of being affected.
This may not be the only factor that drives some people to real dangerous actions, but it's one of, if not the most, the important factor that does.

There're numerous examples of this hypothesis coming true in the life that we live. Not only examples and events, but of scientific studies.

One question to answer is, "would one small, and seemingly harmless thing, do such a harm?"
And i would agree that it can.
Lickdafoot

Con

Challenge Accepted. I welcome the new member and am looking forward to an interesting debate!

My opponent set a resolution that is a bit vague, so rather than simply accepting, I will define some words and clarfiy what it is that we are actually debating.

"does violent games or media impose a threat to the children (or yet all its players) in a mean of them having negative influences from them?"


violent: caused by injurious or destructive force; [1]

media: the means of communication, as radio and television, newspapers, and magazines, that reach or influence people widely. [2]

threat: a declaration of an intention or determination to inflict punishment, injury, etc., in retaliation for, or conditionally upon, some action or course; menace. [3]

influence: the capacity or power of persons or things to be a compelling force on or produce effects on the actions, behavior, opinions, etc., of others [4]

So essentially my opponent is saying that violent games and media are putting kids at risk due to their exposure affecting the children's decisions. It is his burden of proof to show that violent video games and media are a main driving factor in children's destructive behavior. It is my intention to show that media and video games cannot be held accountable for the decisions of an individual.


1. http://dictionary.reference.com...
2. http://dictionary.reference.com...
3. http://dictionary.reference.com...
4. http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Omnipotent

Pro

Well as i've said before, it's not the only factor that drives them to do such violent acts, but are one of the important factors - exposure to violent activities (via media).

In studying human's behavior and to predict one's behavior, there would never be one factor that can predict his behavior, for there are factors such as one's moral, beliefs, and personality, that should be accounted for as well.

I believe that, exposure to such acts (through movies or games) in early ages can teach the kids unconsciously of "what to do in a situation".

In one article, a teenager, with no criminal record, had shot a police down, just as in Grand Theft Auto.
-----
"Attorney Jack Thompson, a long-time crusader against video-game violence, is bringing the suit. "What we're saying is that Devin Moore was, in effect, trained to do what he did. He was given a murder simulator," says Thompson.

"He bought it as a minor. He played it hundreds of hours, which is primarily a cop-killing game. It's our theory, which we think we can prove to a jury in Alabama, that, but for the video-game training, he would not have done what he did."

Moore's victims were Ace Mealer, a 911 dispatcher; James Crump, a police officer; and Arnold Strickland, another officer who was on patrol in the early morning hours of June 7, 2003, when he brought in Moore on suspicion of stealing a car.

Moore had no criminal history, and was cooperative as Strickland booked him inside the Fayette police station. Then suddenly, inexplicably, Moore snapped.

According to Moore's own statement, he lunged at Officer Arnold Strickland, grabbing his .40-caliber Glock automatic and shot Strickland twice, once in the head. Officer James Crump heard the shots and came running. Moore met him in the hallway, and fired three shots into Crump, one of them in the head. "
-----

This is just one example, so it doesn't generalize the whole statement as to "see, violent games lead to violent acts", and that we can't generalize over one correlations, but we can both agree that this has potential to leading someone into doing such things.

http://www.cbsnews.com...
Lickdafoot

Con

I thank my opponent for a speedy response!

I will be oppening with rebuttals of my opponents case, and then move on to a case of my own.

My opponent's case focuses mainly on one article about a young boy who shot 3 police. Given that the teenager played Grand Theft Auto, the correlation is an interesting one. But correlation does not equal causation, and the opponent has done nothing to proove that video games were the cause of this child's behavior.

If we give the article a good read, we see this quote "Moore had a profoundly troubled upbringing, bouncing back and forth between a broken home and a handful of foster families."

Doesn't it seem more likely that the harsh, unloving upbringing of the child is more responsible for his actions than a few hours spent playing a video game? In fact, it is most likely that an unloved child got enjoyment out of a violent game such as Grand Theft Auto because of his circumstances. This is a situation where the person was likely attached to this video game because of his identification to the violent nature, rather than the video game causing his violent nature. Therefore we can not put the blame on the video game.

Even if this were to show causation, we cannot say that one instance prooves that society as a whole is being effected in a threatening way. Remember that the use of the word threat in the resolution denotes a serious risk, meaning that video games would have to be one of the main factors in negatively effecting children. So far, my opponent has shown one misguided kid, but has not shown any threatening effects on a societal scale.


People generally know the difference betweeen right and wrong; reality and fantasy.

People generally understand that the video games being played, or the television show being watched, is fantasy. More important, most are able to determine that the acts they are performing on a video game are not compliant to what they should be doing in real life. One's inability to see otherwise generally points to some sort of mental incapabilities or gaming addiction, in which case the person needs to get help.

It's the parent's responsibility

We cannot control what a child will be exposed to when they are not around us, so it is our job to form a trusting realtionship in which we can guide the child to make the appropriate decisions. If we take the time to explain to a child what they are seeing in the media, they will likely have a firm grasp on the concepts associated with that outlet, and understand why it is not appropriate in real life situations.

It is also the paren'ts responsibility to monitor the amount of time children are spent watching tv or playing video games. If monitored properly, the impressionable child will be influenced by their parents actions rather than what they see in the media.

Here is a study that shows how parent's behaviors are linked to a children's amount of time spent playing video games. [1] Any effects that a video game have on a child's behavior are ultimately due to the neglect of the parent.

Tests are mainly inconclusive

Many meta-analysises have been done on the issue, and the results mainly point to a correlation not being prevelant.[2] Tests have been done by The Harvard Medical School Center for Mental Health, The Journal of Adolescent Health, and The British Medical Journal, and all came back with results that there is no link between video gaming and violence/aggression. In fact, many tests have been done to show how video games can improve spacial skill development, cognitive development, academic performance, learning, and many other valuable assets that help a kid find their place in society.

Conclusion

I urge you voters to think about children and their behaviors. Do they tend to model their actions after their parents? Is it really a video game's responsibility to teach a child right frm wrong, or is it the parents duty?

1. http://research.msu.edu...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Omnipotent

Pro

I agree with your saying that it's really hard to pinpoint one factor (such as violent games) would lead to such act. And right, correlation doesn't mean causation.

But, what if most of the correlations (violent media with kids) led to violent acts?
There are other factors to consider such as, their background, personality, morals, education level, social life, and more, but in most of the case, they seem to circle around this factor of violent game.

In one case is the Columbine shooting, that occurred more than 10 years ago.
It's said "The shooting resulted in an increased emphasis on school security, and a moral panic aimed at goth culture, social outcasts, the gun culture, the use of pharmaceutical anti-depressants by teenagers, violent films and music, teenage internet use, and violent video games." (1)
Could one ask that it may be social issues (family, friends) that caused this?
Maybe. And maybe that led to uses of violent video games in way to cope with stress. And by being more exposed to its violent hypothetical situations through video games, one could suppose that they were inspired from the game.
But the point is, in this causation, uses of violent video game is one of the factor, if not the one of the most important.

Another point to bring to surface is that, what kids see, they do.
"Bandura hoped that the experiments would prove that aggression can be explained, at least in part, by social learning theory. The theory of social learning would state that behavior such as aggression is learned through observing and imitating others. The experiments are important because they sparked many more studies on the effects of violent media on children." (2)

If children were exposed to such violent acts being played in a realistic situations (under games or medias), they may judge, with their conscious, right from wrong. But what they don't realize is the sub/unconscious effect it has.

Do you think watching pornography (video - sexual act [instead of violent act]) doesn't have any effect on man (even woman)? It results in poor relationship skills, compare their sex life with pornstars, and other social threatening events.

I'll conclude with this.
Why do some items/videos/games label it as, "do not try or imitate this at home" and they also claim of no responsibility.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Lickdafoot

Con

Because my opponent did not stick to the structure of the points I outlined, I will stray from that while trying to uphold some cohesion. Please note that my opponents only response to my argument was that he agreed with it.

Columbine

I'm glad my opponent decided to bring up Columbine. This incidence was the center for a lot of media attention. One interesting thing about this event was that Marilyn Manson took a lot of the blame; simply because he was a musical influence to some of the murderers.

I urge you to read this quote and watch this video where Marilyn Manson himself talks about the events.

"The two by products of that whole tragedy were violence in entertainment, and gun control. And how perfect was it that those were the two things that we were going to talk about with the upcoming election? And then we forgot about how the president was shooting bombs overseas, yet I'm a bad guy because I sing some rock 'n roll songs, and who's the bigger influence? me, or the president?..... nobody said 'well maybe the president had influence on this violent behavior.' No, because that's not the way the media wants to take it and spin it, and turn it into fear.... you're being pumped full of fear... a campaign of fear and consumption"

Oh, so now Marilyn Manson isn't so bad after all, huh? Well, he never was. He has sold over 50 million albums worldwide; yet all those people who have bought these records are not out killing people or committing any crimes. We see that it really has nothing to do with what entertainment one chooses to indulge in, but rather how they were raised to uphold moral standards.

Monkey See, Monkey Do

My opponent brings up the point of "monkey see, monkey do." This is true and we know that children model themselves after those that have the biggest influence on them. The biggest influence on a child is that of his family. Because it is already established that people have a general distinction between fantasy and reality, and that parents behaviors are the underlying cause of child video game addictions, we can understand the situation a little better. Children will respond to what they are taught and what is happening in their environment. If a child is modelling his actions from the parents, then it is up to the parents to teach the children healthy behaviors; not video games. Talking about violent actions, and regulating your child's time spent indulging in media can stop the child from emulating the negative actions seen on tv.

Conclusion

Should we condemn The Beetles for Charles Manson's killing spree? Should we condemn Marilyn Manson for Columbine? No, because violence and crime is rooted much deeper than one's entertainment mediums, and we need to be looking at the bigger picture of how we are running our society and how our parents are raising our children.

I urge you to consider whether my opponent has upheld his burden of proof; which was that video games and media are an immediate threat to our youth. I believe that he has touched on a subject where what he sees on the surface is not an adequate justification; there are underlying causes for child aggression that the media cannot be blamed for.

Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Omnipotent 6 years ago
Omnipotent
wow, thanks guys. I know i lost 0 to 22.... but i learned great deals of importance in arguing. Not only reasoning important, but organization and how you deliver it.
And you're right. It was my first post, and i haven't took much time to study much about my side :P
Posted by Lickdafoot 6 years ago
Lickdafoot
I agree, for a beginning debate, pro did good. I would suggest to him to spend a bit more time thinking it over; you brought up some good points, but sometimes waiting and letting it sink in (maybe wait a few hours and then read it back over, make some corrections) will develop those points a bit further. do a bit of research and use scientific evidence to back up your ideas. there are lots of studies and tests that talk about childrens exposure to video games which could have made your case stronger. overall, i had a fun time, this is an interesting subject. after reading it back over, i might have picked at you a bit; i hope you take that more as constructive than mean-spirited.
Posted by BlackVoid 6 years ago
BlackVoid
I think Pro can be pretty good with more practice.
Posted by Lickdafoot 6 years ago
Lickdafoot
you look sooo much like on of my friends. when i was reading your arguments, i was hearing it in his voice. haha
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Spritle 6 years ago
Spritle
OmnipotentLickdafootTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con killed it.
Vote Placed by thett3 6 years ago
thett3
OmnipotentLickdafootTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: See previous RFD's
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 6 years ago
Man-is-good
OmnipotentLickdafootTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Omnipotent pulled a classic correlation-causation fallacy in his arguments, and couldn't respond adequately to Con's rebuttal since he "agreed with it" but weakly tried to suggest that video games are one of the more important factors....
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 6 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
OmnipotentLickdafootTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's entire case went unrefuted. At first Pro focused on one single event rather than on statistical studies. Pro however comes back much more strongly in the second round, but still doesn't show a direct numerical corelation between video games and violence and also doesn't give sourced reasons why that corelation exists. Con did well to examine Pro's source to point out that his round 2 example was an exception rather than the norm. Clear Con win.
Vote Placed by dappleshade 6 years ago
dappleshade
OmnipotentLickdafootTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro deviated from the topic, Con was clear and concise. Good first debate though
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 6 years ago
BlackVoid
OmnipotentLickdafootTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro doesn't explain how the video games were the deciding factor in the violence the players displayed. He also only gives a couple isolated incidents, which isnt going to affirm the resolution in general. Also, the Parent Responsibility and Meta-stufy arguments went unrefuted. Grammar to Con for keeping the format of the debate.
Vote Placed by seraine 6 years ago
seraine
OmnipotentLickdafootTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's case was basically correlation=causation. The only reason he said that video games cause violence is that children can't differentiate between reality and fantasy.