The Instigator
CookieMonster127
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
superbowl9
Pro (for)
Winning
32 Points

Kids playing Gta

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 7 votes the winner is...
superbowl9
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/16/2014 Category: Games
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,030 times Debate No: 59057
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (7)

 

CookieMonster127

Con

Kids should not be allowed to play Gta!
superbowl9

Pro

An interesting premise you have here, CookieMonster. I assume you mean all kids (people below the legal age of majority, which is eighteen in the United States and most other countries), which includes people over 17 years old. This voids the use of the ESRB ratings given to the games as evidence that no child should play them, which is (I hope) not at the heart of what this debate was about in the first place. The more interesting issue (and the one I hope we will be debating about) is whether or not the series is appropriate for children. The Grand Theft Auto game series is a mature and graphic medium of expression, however, gamers everywhere still appreciate the entertainment value it has to offer. Censoring it by any means, legal or otherwise, to people who can handle this type of content and have a wish to play these games is not is it the correct action to be taken. There is no reason for these games to limited to adults just because you personally do not find them to be material suitable to children. Kids have minds of their own and need to judge for themselves what they can and cannot handle, and making some of these choices while they still have the guidance of their parents or guardians to fall back on is of the utmost importance. This way, when they get into a real-life scenario at an older, adult age, such as whether or not they should watch a gory movie, they have previous experience and knowledge to fall back on. Saying that kids should not be allowed to play Grand Theft Auto is unreasonable and I am quite interested in hearing your arguments to the contrary.
Debate Round No. 1
CookieMonster127

Con

Gta can effect a childs future a LOT! I know kids in school that play GTA AND they are always getting in trouble fighting and may be expelled! It takes over their lives and can change their whole personality! Heres an example. Lets say there is a really nice boy called Thomas. Thomas is 10 years old and he has lots of friends! Thomas's parent's buy him GTA for his birthday. Thomas gets addicted to this game! When his parents tell him to stop playing Thomas gets really annoyed and starts swearing his head off! When his friends call for him he tells them to go away! Thomas dosen't bother showing up to his sports teams training. When he goes to school he is rude to teachers and classmates and dosen't work! Eventually Thomas loses all his friends, He is never happy and can't get a single question right in school!
superbowl9

Pro

Thanks for responding, Cookie.
I'll begin my rebuttal.

"Gta can effect a childs future a LOT!"
This has never been proven. There is no evidence for this claim, but as it is more a lead-in to your argument, I'll stop there and move on to your other claims.

"I know kids in school that play GTA AND they are always getting in trouble fighting and may be expelled!"
OK, this is probably true, but your logic is incorrect for a couple reasons here.
1) This is anecdotal evidence. There's no proof that this is really the case, and even if it is, this is only your experience; other people could have wildly different experiences. Just because you know a couple kids in your school that this happens with, it doesn't mean that every person who plays GTA gets in trouble for fighting and/or is expelled.
2a) Correlation does not imply causation. Let's say that this anecdotal evidence is true. Some kids in Con's school who play GTA are getting expelled or suspended. This must mean that GTA is causing them to be suspended, right? Wrong. There are a variety of other factors, almost too many to count, that could and do have an influence in these children's behavior. They could have abusive parents, or lack self-confidence and bully others to make up for it. This is most likely the case, as they probably play other video games that contain content just as graphic as GTA if not worse. GTA is not the only cause, even among video games.
2b) This also brings up another issue having to do with correlation not implying causation: whether or not violent video games lead to violent behaviors in the real world. There is absolutely no evidence to show that people shoot up schools or stab people or do a variety of other nefarious things because of violent video games. Sure, the vast majority of these people play violent video games, but there are far more people who play these games and don't do these kinds of things then there are that do. Also, all these people who do violent crimes all seem to bathe, brush their teeth, and drink water. Does this mean that bathing, brushing your teeth, and drinking water cause these violent crimes? Obviously not. So do violent video games influence bad behavior or violence? No. Nobody who has never thought about killing someone before picked up a copy of GTA V, popped it in, saw the graphic content, and thought, "Well, that seems like a good thing to do in real life." True, these games might give people ideas about how to kill people and might influence one or two crazy people to carry out their insane plans to harm others, but the vast, vast majority of the people who play GTA aren't insane and are not influenced in this way. Censoring something that has so much entertainment value for so many people just to prevent one or two insane people from engaging in violent acts is not the correct thing to do. These people will most likely just find some other catalyst for their violent feelings or get access to these games through a black market. By censoring the games, you'd only be hurting the people who you don't need or want to hurt.

"It takes over their lives and can change their whole personality!"
Again, the only evidence for this is anecdotal. There is no evidence nor any studies (to my knowledge at least) that point to this conclusion that playing Grand Theft Auto changes someone's entire life and personality for the worse.

"Heres an example. Lets say there is a really nice boy called Thomas....He is never happy and can't get a single question right in school!"
This example is pure hypothetical. I could say the exact opposite, like so:
'Let's say there is a really nice boy called George. George is 17 years old and he has lots of friends! George's parent's buy him GTA V for his birthday. George really likes this game, and remembers to play it responsibly by taking reasonable breaks! When his parents tell him to stop playing, George realizes that they are correct and that he has been playing for unreasonable amounts of time, so he plays outside! When his friends call for him he politely and respectfully returns their calls! George becomes a star athlete because he spends so much time outside. When he goes to school he is nice to his teachers and classmates works diligently! Eventually George becomes the most popular person in the school, is always happy, and gets perfect marks on all his exams!'
It doesn't prove anything.
Debate Round No. 2
CookieMonster127

Con

Sorry this is my first time on this website!
I give up : (
superbowl9

Pro

It's my first time as well :)
Thank you for the argument, Cookie.
Extend my previous arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TedTheAtheist 2 years ago
TedTheAtheist
Oops, I meant Con's
Posted by TedTheAtheist 2 years ago
TedTheAtheist
There is absolutely NO evidence whatsoever to support the pro's argument that GTA, not to mention any video game, does ANY damage at all to any kids.

I'm so tired of people assuming watching a movie, reading a book or playing a video game will somehow corrupt children.. or swearing.

People are just stupid.
Posted by superbowl9 2 years ago
superbowl9
Haha, well said neveragain.
Posted by neveragain 2 years ago
neveragain
Children still have moral conscience and can decide right from wrong, assuming different is absurd. Children are not mindless drones that are so impressionable that a video game guides their future actions, if this were the case all children who have played a violent game should be on a murderous rampage jumping off buildings doing 360 no scopes.
Posted by near 2 years ago
near
What is this? It's the parent's duty and responsibility to teach their kids values. Why forbid everyone when only a few are affected?
Posted by Armadillosushi 2 years ago
Armadillosushi
The thing is, even if everyone in the world agreed with Con, they'd lose points on grammar, conduct etc. No prizes for guessing the winner of this one! Hopefully Cookie can use this as a learning experience and learn from Superbowl's excellent rebuttal.
Posted by Xaphiir 2 years ago
Xaphiir
GTA is simply a little bit of a more fancy version of something like the childhood game of "cops and robbers".
Posted by MrSurvivor 2 years ago
MrSurvivor
Con actually thought it would be an easy win but actually Pro has much more evidence while Con is just using rational thinking.
Posted by TheBunnyAssassin 2 years ago
TheBunnyAssassin
Con is screwed.
Posted by ben671176 2 years ago
ben671176
Well Con can't produce good arguments, Pro is probably going to win.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
CookieMonster127superbowl9Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by Paradigm 2 years ago
Paradigm
CookieMonster127superbowl9Tied
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: I am giving the arguments vote to Pro because Con surrendered. There is no need to analyze much of this debate.
Vote Placed by Domr 2 years ago
Domr
CookieMonster127superbowl9Tied
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 Checkmark1 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: FF
Vote Placed by Free_Th1nker 2 years ago
Free_Th1nker
CookieMonster127superbowl9Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made much stronger arguments, forcing con to forfeit. Spelling/grammar equal; neither used sources.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
CookieMonster127superbowl9Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
CookieMonster127superbowl9Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: concession
Vote Placed by Siladheil 2 years ago
Siladheil
CookieMonster127superbowl9Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither side used sources. Victory given to Pro for forfeit.