Grand Theft Auto 5 is too inappropriate for people 20 and younger
Debate Rounds (3)
I accept this debate and look forward to it. Please present your case.
I thank my opponent for his case.
I don't deny that Grand Theft Auto V depicts violence and atrocities; what I do dispute is the notion that people under 20 like, 18-year-olds, aren't old enough to handle the depictions.
Given that rated M games, like Grand Theft Auto Five (GTA V or GTA herein), is considered appropriate for people 17 and up , my opponent is proposing a shift from the status quo and thus carries the full BOP. Pro must demonstrate how GTA is too inappropriate for a majority of (or else is just proving some people, not people in general) 17, 18, 19 and 20-year-olds, not just children.
Let us also define "too" and "inappropriate," just to get a grasp on what Pro is trying to prove.
Too: Inappropriate: not appropriate; not proper or suitable 
With the understanding of what Pro is trying to prove, let's move on.
Pro's central case can be seen using the following syllogism:
P1. Games which depict X are inappropriate for people under 20.
P2. GTA V depicts X.
C. Therefore, GTA V is inappropriate.
In this instance, X would be the content Pro spoke about in Round 2. The point here to disagree with is P1, which is just not that feasible of an argument.
When people turn 16, they are given the ability to drive, pilot a glider, get married or register a civil partnership with consent, have coitus (as long as their partner is also 16+), order their own passport, and play in the lottery . When people turn 18, they can sue in court, vote and serve on juries, legally smoke, work without special rules or your parents' permission, heard off to college, go off to war, own and buy property, sign legal contracts, watch rated R movies (which they can actually do at 17), open bank accounts and apply for credit cards . Essentially, at these ages, society and the state entrusts a copious amount of responsibilities onto children. We entrust these because, around these ages, children need to accept social responsibilities as they are becoming legal adults . Society does in fact recognize that for people 20 and under, like 16 and 18-year-olds, are, on balance, responsible and becoming functioning members of society.
We trust 18-olds to vote and to serve on juries and to decide what happens to criminals, but Pro claims that they aren't ready to play a video game that depicts bad behavior. We trust 18-year-olds to own property, pay taxes, work without special rules and to get married, yet, as Pro argues, not to play Grand Theft Auto. We trust 18-year-olds to literally fight in wars and to shoot and kill enemies, but not to, as Pro argues, play video games with mature content. Pro must show that 18-year-olds, and others under 20, can't handle this GTA when they are entrusted with all of these other responsibilities. What makes GTA V so uniquely different from these other responsibilities society believes are appropriate for children? Until Pro answers this question, he fails to fulfill his BOP and his syllogism and conclusion fail.
Let's look at the other aspect of Pro's case.
"Thus, these might make some think that heists are easy and profitable in real life" (Emphasis Mine).
Could some come to think this? Very unlikely, by still possible. However, the resolution entails that Pro has to prove this would cause this effect for a large amount or majority amount of people under 20, or else he is simply proving that GTA is too inappropriate for some people 20 and younger, not people in general.
"The heists in the game depict actions which have already been mimicked by teenagers, children and young adults."
Again, Pro has to show that this causes these types of behaviors in a majority of people 20 and younger to show that it is inappropriate. Also, until Pro brings forward evidence proving this assertion, I ask that it be dismissed per Hitchen's razor .
Pro has failed to prove that GTA V is inappropriate for a majority of people under the age of 20, as he failed to show why people under 20, such as 18-year-olds, who are entrusted by society with numerous responsibilities can't handle GTA V. Pro has failed to present any evidence and sources, and thus fails to fulfill his BOP, and doesn't not affirm the resolution.
Over to Pro.
I thank my opponent for his response. Unfortunately, Pro has failed to address my criticisms against his case, and thus fails to uphold his BOP. I, hence, extend my criticisms and arguments. Let us now look at Pro's other case.
"I would like to introduce a recent event that took place to support my claims. Recently, a young adult killed his father and younger brother. While in police custody, the police were able to find that his actions were inspired by a video game, which took the young adult's simple feelings about his parent and sibling to an entirely extreme level. He felt the need to kill his family over a small argument."
While this case is obviously a tragedy, it fails to prove Pro's assertion. It is an anecdotal fallacy , as it takes an isolated event and tries to prove a larger assertion or case with it. Pro has not shown how this is true for people like 18-year-olds, or a majority of people of age groups under 20 (again, he needs to argue that this is inappropriate for a large portion of each age group, or else he is just showing it is inappropriate for some). Again, this isolated event does not tell the story for every person 20 and under, nor does it explain how GTA V is different from other privileges society entrusts 18-year-olds with (joining the army, owing property, going to college).
Furthermore, I take issue with Pro's assertion that the police can determine that it came from a video game. How can that infallibly be known? What if the malefactor told this just to get out or distract from his actual reason? At any rate, this is irrelevant, as Pro did not present a source to back up this argument, so we have no proof of it even happening. Pro could simply be making up this story out of thin air. With this, I ask that this whole point and story be dismissed per Hitchen's razor [7 of R2].
"The police were also able to find out that his favorite character in the game was Trevor, a crazy man who would kill someone in an instant with no rational reason; not even for a criminal"
While the character of Trevor is indeed troubling, this point doesn't, one, address my point about responsibilities in R2, two, mean much of anything in the scope of this debate, or, three, prove that this game is inappropriate for this group.
"For this reason, I would like to add, that teenagers, of any age, are likely to learn from this game. These people are at such a young age, where their brains are still developing."
While I don't dispute the fact that people 20 and under's brains are still developing , it doesn't mean much. People's brains develop throughout their lives. The brain of an 18-year-old is different from someone who is 21; the brain of a 38-year-old is different from someone who is 41. Pro still fails to show why we can't trust people 20 and younger, like people older than 17, with GTA V. There are bad apples all over the place, but a couple don't ruin the entire bundle. We trust 18-year-olds to fight in wars, shoot enemies, watch their friends be shot right before them and sustain actual injuries, both physically and mentally, but Pro still argues that GTA V is too inappropriate. How is war, one of the most horrific experiences a person can face, any less inappropriate than GTA V? Pro never address this and hence fails to uphold his BOP.
I ask that all of Pro's arguments in the comments be dismissed, as they have no bearings on what happened within the confines of this debate.
Pro was plagued by his resolution. Pro could not explain why GTA V is too inappropriate for a large amount of people 20 and under. He fails to address my criticisms of his case nor uphold his BOP, which he solely carried. Because of this, Pro fails to make convincing arguments and fails the debate. Pro couldn't show why GTA V is more inappropriate or not suitable for those 20 and under when they have other responsibilities and privileges that they are granted by society (such as those mentioned in R2).
The resolution stands negated.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro used unsourced anecdotes; Con, sources.
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.