The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Is it harmful for boys to play war?

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: 11/8/2015 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 646 times Debate No: 82252
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




First round is acceptance.

I support the right of boy to play with guns and act out every role of soldiers in a war.
But I am sure it harms them to brutalize their friends!

You.. for some reason, don't see a problem with boys with plastic guns playing soldiers.


I accept. I look forward to a good debate!
Debate Round No. 1


Ugly brutal pornography showing young women with their anus forced open by a rape gang of big strong soldiers at the touch of a button for any 11 year old boy.
So in comparison a day in the forest, playing soldiers with his young friends seem harmless.
Even when violence and brutality is used by the stronger boys on one of the weaker boys.
Even when the mood turns ugly later in the afternoon, as the boys are to interrogate their captured P.O.W. HA HA pain dude!

So let them watch their extreme porn


Definition: Harmful-causing or capable of causing harm

As specified in your initial post, I am arguing that children should be allowed to play war.

Con seems to support and encourage young children being subjected to extreme violence and brutality. He first acknowledges that brutal pornography is available to young children, and then advocates them watching it, instead of playing war with their friends.

Brutal pornography can be very damaging to young children's minds, while playing around in the backyard with a plastic guns, pretending to shoot each other with toy guns can be no worse than watching violent pornography.

In fact, playing war can help kids get outside, which would limit their exposure to other violent media.
Scholastic finds that playing war is normal, and in some cases helpful. However, it cautions parents to keep an eye on their children to make sure the playing doesn't get out of hand.
Debate Round No. 2


Present to you the horror of evil, of sin, of hell; the wrath of God; the brutalities inflicted by human beings upon each other. (In almost every Latin American country, young boys are arrested by older soldiers and raped, abused for other kinky sex trills, even murder. And of course, even young boys are tortured.
And remember that those soldiers used to kids once too, not even that long ago, those spanish Bastards!

A dramatisation of how it is like to be under arrest, detention, interrogation, punishment, in a South American jail.
The boys would eat stuff like this up on the Internet, so better that they not also act it out irl okay?
Ref Note 4 * modern torture of an American G.i. Joe in South American on youtube url:
and also here:


First off, generally kids don't act out the most brutal acts of violence, as they are only kids, and aren't fully aware of the horrors of war.

I turn to the title of this debate: "Is it harmful for boys to play war?"
There are two ways in which this could be harmful: psychological and physical.
One risk, the actual physical harm from playing war is minimal. If a child comes home harmed after playing with a hurtful child, his parent's aren't likely to let him play with that other child anymore.

The other risk, psychological harm, is more likely to occur, although, it is not a very high risk. Watching these acts occur on the internet can cause as much harm as acting them out. As children don't typically act out the most violent acts, this diminishes the risks significantly. Viewing these acts on the internet can be more harmful than acting them out, as the children see adults committing these acts and they may think it is acceptable.
Debate Round No. 3


I am guessing the young women and men forced to suffer under the abuse of the Argentina soldiers.
.. but you say that the American Army and CIA thaught them how to torture?

Favorite torture worldwide in the 70's and 80's was stripping the victum naked, suspending him and torturing him with electricity + giving it to him, through his testicles! Yes all 20.000 volts. The Bastards!
Proof comes indirectly in this research:
Note 6 *

You bet young boys are interested in acting out torture:

Ref. Note 7 *


"Favorite torture worldwide" - You make it sound like many tortured others in their backyard. However, the tortures described in that book were comitted by sick people in organizations like the gestapo. That doesn't mean that every boy wants to torture others. In fact, your study shows that many nations, and thus the people in the nations, support banning torture. 5 nations have a majority, or at least a plurality, that supports banning torture altogether, even when innocent people's lives were at stake.

Your argument doesn't follow.
Debate Round No. 4


In countries such as India, Thailand, South Korea, Nigeria, Turkey, Iran, Russia .. the list goes on, does a majority of the people, favour torture. Used by the police or military against criminals and terrorists. To interrogate them, and to punish and humiliate them. The Bastards! The ordinary people. Your brothers and sisters.
Ref. Note 8 *

Images of Sadism is dangerous in early childhood.

Sexual sadism must be differentiated from normal sexual arousal, behavior, and experimentation. Some forms of aggression, such as beating your sexual partner, are, for a Sadist, within the range of normal behavior during sexual intercourse.
Ref. Note 9 *


"...criminals and terrorists" - Against criminals and terrorists in order to get information that could save lives. Against people who have done violent crimes. Not against a random person on the street.

"Sexual sadism..." Precisely, and yet you advocate to let children "watch their extreme porn" rather than play like normal children.

Thank you for the debate. Vote Pro! Con did not show any conclusive evidence that demonstrated that playing war was harmful, rather he showed some unrelated data. I showed from a reputable source that playing war, if properly watched, is healthy.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by ValosaBirdy 2 years ago
If I could vote, I would give spelling/sources to JernHenrik because he sited his sources while AtypicalHomoSapiens didn't. I gave AtypicalHomoSapiens better arguments because overall he just had a better case. in round to con simply says What could be going on and a bunch of "What if .... ?" question/statements. Pro laid out a case with definitions and he said why It's OK not what they could be doing.
No votes have been placed for this debate.