The Instigator
stephenyoo1995
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Darryn_Stylees
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Parents should not buy war toys for children.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/9/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 10,842 times Debate No: 6850
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

stephenyoo1995

Pro

Hi, I'm Stephen Yoo and this is my first speech on the proposition side, on the motion that parents should not buy war toys for children. I'd like to start by explaining exactly what a war toy is. From the Swedish Toy Council, "War toys are playthings which are used to solve conflicts, gain power, or win through the use of violence and imagination. Their aim is to destroy and kill."

Next, I'd like to go on to my contentions.

Contention 1

Toys are for fun, and not for violence. At an early age, children should be exposed to mentally and physically supportive toys, NOT toys that induce violence!

Contention 2

Children at a young age are easily influenced. Reasonless violence is nothing but sinful and immoral. It is neither educationally nor physically stimulating, and does not even support the child by instilling respect in any manner! Children with war toys learn violence, and they begin to look at life as a two sided deal: our side, and their side (like in war.) War toys cause children to solve problems with fights and makes them more violent.

Contention 3

War toys separate minds from reality~take kids to a fake, fantasy world. A second grade boy killed a girl in his class with his parents' gun which he brought to school from his home. CNN reports that he expected his classmate to just "pop back up" like action figures do. Kids are playing with toys that kill real people. They don't understand that people don't get back up like they do with war toys. They don't understand that the world can be extremely cruel.
Darryn_Stylees

Con

Well pretty much your argument is highly flawed ..
No offense mate..

:P
You think that after playing with toys that kids believee people just "pop back up" ? Well that one example represents about 0.000000000001 % of the kids that have played with war toys. So the fun of millions of children the world over should be forfeited because of one individual who was probably going to end up in jail anyways.

Children have been playing with war toys for years and will continue to do so. Now im not saying let your 1 year old kid play with a bb gun .. But as children grow up and begin to understand the world a little better, allow them a little bit of fun while they are young and carefree.

Lighten up buddy. Seriously .. I'm sure you probably played with war toys as a kid, and as far as I know you aren't a psycho killer..

Do you really think that what adds up to years of enjoyment and bonding should not occur because of a few individuals ?? Thats like saying don't allow pwople to have cars because once this guy on CNN caused an accident because he was going too fast.

Sorry if my argument lacks much structure , i wrote it in about 2 minutes haha :P

But honestly ?? come on buddy...
Debate Round No. 1
stephenyoo1995

Pro

You said, "You think that after playing with toys that kids believee [sic] people just "pop back up" ? Well that one example represents about 0.000000000001 % of the kids that have played with war toys. So the fun of millions of children the world over should be forfeited because of one individual who was probably going to end up in jail anyways."

Well, that one example does not just show one case, as I have many more sources and many more examples that back up the same theme that children with war toys make kids go into their own fantasy world. If you would like them, I will address that in my next speech.

Also, the fun of millions of children is not the only thing at stake here. What is at stake here is not only the lives of our future leaders, but also the innocence of our children. Also, you have no proof that this second grade boy even ever went to jail, let alone would have gone there without the aid of a war toy; thus, your assertion is a flawed assumption.

Also, that children have been playing with war toys, and that they will continue to do so is not relevant to this topic at all. We are debating whether parents SHOULD buy war toys for children, not whether parents ARE AND WILL CONTINUE TO buy war toys for children.

Finally, I am not trying to say that children should be deprived of years of enjoyment; in fact, that's exactly what I am standing for. I am standing for toys that kids can really enjoy, without having to shoot Bob, or kill Joe, or blow up Mrs. Williams. I am standing for for toys that are not violent, and I am standing for the bright futures of our children.

And also. Please cut the repeated "buddy" comments. They are detrimental to this debate.
Darryn_Stylees

Con

Detrimental to this debate ?? You having a laugh ?? haha bro just remeber "Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious."

Anyways...

Sure bring out your statistics , surely since the kids have played with war tooys then that is the cause of the violence. Never mind the hundreds of other things that youth are subjeted to every day, never mind lack of acceptable parenting, just blame it all on the fact that they played with inanimate objects. There is no real research which shows that playing with war toys leads to violence. None.

So please whip out your factbook, honestly, I'm interested. . .
Debate Round No. 2
stephenyoo1995

Pro

stephenyoo1995 forfeited this round.
Darryn_Stylees

Con

Darryn_Stylees forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Bray 5 years ago
Bray
whoa, whoa, whoa darryn, you say not all kids will be violent after playing with war toys?

what about not all kids ending up obese since there's unhealthy food in schools?

just because some do, doesn't mean all will.. and it shouldn't be ruined for those who don't.

you contradict yourself.
Posted by Communist_support 5 years ago
Communist_support
go darryn!!!!! you the man!!!!!!!!
we should have made the prem team
everyone reading this just watch we will reach the world finals!!!!!!!!!!
MR SMAAAAAAAAAAAAALLEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by stephenyoo1995 5 years ago
stephenyoo1995
Oh yeah...

I forgot...

I was thinking of making it children under twelve years of age. Thanks for the suggestion!
Posted by TheSkeptic 5 years ago
TheSkeptic
If you define the minimum age of "children", then I'll probably take this.
No votes have been placed for this debate.