The Instigator
Con (against)
3 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
7 Points

Playing violent video games make people more violent.

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/3/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,104 times Debate No: 30903
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)




I'm just a 13-year-old kid from Hong Kong and I'm setting up this debating to collect the useful information from dear repliers, in order to help me prepare for my grand debate competition soon. Hope you could help me. There might be errors or points that lack solid evidence. Please help point them out. Thank You!

Playing violent video games make people more violent. This is certainly a joke. The true reason of such violent acts is actually all because of your family background, affection of the same age group as well as the mental problems of one. It is not what you think that when you are addicted to a game, you will start doing the same thing in reality just as the one you experience in the game. We have brains, for god's sake, which we are able (or supposedly) to identify and classify what is right, what is wrong. It is our responsibility to discover the black and white of human society. But however, in the process of learning how to do that, it is our parents who should have taught us well and control our acts, limiting us from doing something beyond our reach. So, parents do have a responsibility to build a supportive and steady foundation for the young, let them know that the fighting and punching, killing and stabbing, as well shooting is no good. Parents can do it by limiting the stuff that the young take reach, the games they play etc. On the contrary, nowadays parents are very caring. They buy and give whatever the child wants, just to keep the kid happy. I am thirteen only, and don't ever ask my parents to buy whatever I want. I can only do it if I can prove myself worthy to do so, otherwise, forget it. Well, playing violent video games make people more violent. Why do people say such thing? How do you define violent? If such statement stands, does it mean that a boring class would make people more boring (meaning the person would become not exciting)? Things don't go like that. A cause-and-effect relationship concept is the key of such misunderstanding. Boring doesn't mean you're boring, so does violent doesn't mean you're violent. Moreover, it is a matter of opinion and fact. How do you define violent? Does violent mean involving killing? Yes, in extreme cases, but otherwise, it is an intense in force, causing destructive or damage. If it is so, is Angry Birds a violent video game, since it is causing destructiveness for the Pigs. This is what we should understand, that is it a fact or opinion. Furthermore, we should also ask that how does playing violent video games literally make people more violent. Being violent is a matter of yourself, your heart, where it is your choice, a choice to be made by you, to decide whether you want to be bounty hunter, a killer, an assassin, or just rather a peaceful person. Last but not the least, we should also beware of the words of the motion --- "make". What does make mean? Well, make means to cause. It this motion, we lack the meaning of make, whether it is indirectly or directly. Therefore there are grey areas where we cannot debate clearly or just deciding to use one aspect. In such case, being a negative side, I would chose indirectly. This actually means that there is something else besides than violent games that causes people to become violent. The lack of control of parents, the lack control of the export of violent materials etc. Lastly, we should have a clear mind, of identifying good and bad, as well spread such message to others, especially the next generation.


I will accept your debate to help you prepare although I feel the same way I will try my hardest to disprove the theory that this is true or if it is even proven the fact that video games do not make people violent.

Why do they say violent video games make people violent?
The reason for this is because of the fact that people that play violent video games get so addicted to these violent video games that they lose themselves in these video games and lose between what's real and what's fake

Not everyone can handle violent video games. That is why violent video games are suppose to be for a mature audience. (17+)

If the person is correct on this article that and I quote - "The young men who opened fire at Columbine High School, at the movie theater in Aurora, Colo., and in other massacres had this in common: they were video gamers who seemed to be acting out some dark digital fantasy. It was as if all that exposure to computerized violence gave them the idea to go on a rampage " or at least fueled their urges."

Then that could prove something there although he goes more into detail that studies have shown it is unsure about the fact that video games were the result of this.

However people can get lost in what is real and what is fake. These are paradox's
par"a"dox [par-uh-doks] Show IPA
a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth.
a self-contradictory and false proposition.
any person, thing, or situation exhibiting an apparently contradictory nature.
an opinion or statement contrary to commonly accepted opinion.
This suggests there really is a conclusion to this yet and more research has to be done. US president Obama Proposes funding for game violence studies.

This article summaries the top 25 studies for violent video games that dates back to the 80s

Look at these studies and the conclusions. Some showed after playing violent games there are no difference from playing regular games without violence. Other tests showed teenagers acted out more aggressively after playing violent video games.
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks for accepting this debate.

Let me list a few points:

1. Japan is the world's largest video game industry. Inside of course may include violent games. However, according to statistics in the past few years, Japan is one of the countries that have the lowest rate of people becoming violent or performing violent behaviour. This can prove that playing violent video games don't really do much in being violent.

2. According to a 2002 US Secret Service study of 41 individuals involved in school shootings found that only 12% were attracted by violent video games, while reading violent books or watching violent films took 24% and 27% respectively. These numbers show that violent video games are not to be blamed.

3. According to a 2001 US Surgeon General's report, the strongest risk factors for school shootings centered on mental stability and the quality of home life. However, not media exposure (including games, movies and books).

4. * What actually causes people to become more violent is not video games, but the quality of the society, the social atmosphere. Video games only mislead you to a wrong way of thinking. They only misdirect you to think that maybe killing is right or something like that. However, not literally become violent, which is like beating or killing. Misleading ones thoughts is different than making you or causing you to beat or kill or become violent.

5. What make people more violent, is actually your mind, the hatred, the revengeful heart. Maybe you have experienced something not good. For example, being bullied by the entire class. Maybe making songs of you, putting a "kick my butt" sign behind your back etc. This might have made you very unhappy. However, you are now mature enough. You have got the power to revenge. So once you got such message of wanting to revenge, you have an uncontrollable force, a force that is strong and tough, which ends up into violence. So there's the answer, violent video games aren't the roots of violence of people.

BTW. Thanks for the sources you find. Anyway, could you send me some of your points if you were my side through this debate. Thanks.


1. One person acts this way while playing it so the other must act the same way while playing it. Is basically what comes from that.

2. According to this study your saying involved in school shootings and not exactly the shooters themselves. This could be 41 people that were there for it happening. Also here is a thing about that. One thing that few of these people have in common was they were addicted to violent video games. But just because one massacre didn't involve violent video games mean the others didn't as well? The thing about this is that of course not all massacre's and shootings happen over violent video games. We all know that. In fact the number one reason why school shootings happen is becausethe shooter has been being bullied. But if we talk about the shootings and massacres there is a chain of them that the shooter was addicted to violent video games.

3. Ever occurred that these people with mental stability lost themselves in a violent video game and therefore acted out a deep dark fantasy as I pointed out in round one. Saying more than less they shouldn't have been playing these video games to begin with.

4. But some studies as I shown in round one that some teens that played violent video games started acting more aggressively. It might not explain it for everyone but it does explain for the few that due. It would become something that is sub conscious then wouldn't it? Something your doing while not realize it. People have the same emotion to music. Happy song make you happy. Sad song makes you sad. Dancing song might fill your adrenaline fire you up. There are opera that are suppose to make people fall asleep and it does. So nothing could be triggered playing violent video games all of a sudden?

5. But if one whom get's so lost in a violent video game loses between what is real and what is fake and what is right and what is wrong then how do you know their actions afterwards. You don't. You can't predict how far it could be taken. Someone addicted to sports isn't going to become an athlete. Someone addicted to music isn't going to become a musician. Someone addicted to cars isn't going to become a mechanic or something that has to do with cars at least. So someone addicted to violent video games might be triggered to violence.

I'll be glad to help after this debate.
Debate Round No. 2


Well, I would like to thank my opponents for having the debate for me, and also said would help me afterwards. I am very grateful.

Now we enter the final round of the debate. Now, I would like to sum up my points, as well add a few points.

1. There have been studies at Harvard medical school that show there is no connection between video games (violent ones) and the acts of behavior.

2. We should have the mental capability to know right from wrong at all times. At no point in ANY violent video game does it tell you -" now go to your school and kill your fellow classmates,"

3. We must define the key words of the motion clearly. The word "make". Make can be defined as "cause", "forcefully allow somebody to become sth.". However in the motion, there is no clear instructions or markings than show which meaning does make mean. But no matter what, a video game cannot CAUSE you, it may INFLUENCE you. Influence is a power affecting a person, thing, or course of events, especially one that operates without any direct or apparent effort.
Therefore, yes, a video game CAN influence you to do bad things. BUT, they cannot CAUSE you to do things. you and you only can prevent yourself from doing things. for people to blame it on video games is an excuse to their mistake. This we should be bared in mind.

4. In life, there is nothing that can cause you to do something directly, without any other reason. Therefore, the reason of people being violent is actually more than just because playing violent video games. For example, family reason. Hence, we cannot just say that playing violent video games make people more violent.

5. Violent video games actually don't really do much in making people more violent. Let me give you a typical example. Have you ever watched Star Wars? Part of the content is quite violent. However, different people watching would result in different reactions. A young boy around 10 might jump around like a Jedi, slashing things in his sight. This is causing the boy to become violent. However as for a housewife, watching how the characters fight and fight, she would be bored to death and sleep eventually, rather than just being violent.

6. Also, it is not just about the player playing it habitually, but more than what it seems. It could be actually something before that caused him to be violent. Many of us have played violent video games, but do we see these people go around the streets beating people up or what. If it is so, the world would have been in a mess.

7. Moreover, it is not the violent video games that causes you to become violent, but actually yourself that causes a result in the end of the game. What do I mean? The thing is that what is your attitude when you play the game. Is it just for entertainment, meaning don't care how you play but just able to enjoy, or is it I must win the game, I'm gonna wipe out those zombies. If we carry a positive attitude at the beginning, for example I am just going to enjoy, not taking the characters in the game as idols. I know it is wrong to kill, but this is just a game, so no way of copying. If we carry such attitude, the "making", "causing" (whatever you call it) of people being violent would be reduced. Just as Spensor Johnson said in his book "Fish", choose your attitude. As writer Samuel Smiles said,"Sow a thought, and you reap an act; sow an act, and you reap a habit; sow a habit, and you reap a character; sow a character, and you reap a destiny". This saying is very relative to what I just said. If we don't set a correct attitude, we might as think that killing is cool. There you have sown a thought. Eventually, just as what Samuel Smiles said, you reap a destiny. Therefore, you destiny would be causing a massacre or being violent.

8. Most important, it is essential for us to know the point of playing violent video games, just as what I said from above, whether you want to take playing it as just a relaxing game from stressful work, or is it a game that you want to put yourself into it so deeply, that you might end up at the point of addiction. So it is important for us to prioritise things in front of us.

To conclude the three round debate, the most important thing is that we should clearly define the motion key words. Second of all, there is nothing that can make you be or do anything unless of a reasonable reason (except when the person has mental problems). Of what trouble that you got into is all because of yourself. It is us that we cannot control the noodles in our head to function properly, which we should be able to do. We should set up a true core value for ourselves, then from that, we can have a proper attitude and could decide things much more cautious and specific. From that, we won't end up thinking stupid ideas, twitching our minds to a world of messy logic, but on the other hand, follow the path that we have once set. Finally, we should be mindful of what we face. Just like the topic: violence. Violence is a no-good stuff, it could make you end up in jail or serious trouble. We should have the brain to identify what is what. We should also be able to ask ourselves why and Yes or No. Are violent materials good? Why should we follow that man in the game and go shooting around.

Therefore, I must clearly state that violent video games don't make people more violent, but it is our brains that decides the decision of letting violent video games make us becoming more violent. Violent video games are only sources of reference and an influencing material, not the thing that physically or mentally make you more violent.

And once again I have to thank my opponent for having this debate with me. It is a great opportunity for me to learn what I am weak at. Also I thank again for him agreeing to help me. I was wondering how you are going to help me with the points after the debate. Through this debate or what?

But anyway, thanks a lot! :)


Although my opponent shows a few observations about studies conducted which says violent video games has no effect on people, I gave the top 25 studies that dates back 30 years which is many cases showed after playing violent video games, people became more violent.

Shows that not everyone reacts to the things the same way. One reaction to something says that everyone should react the same way to it? I beg to differ. I was exposed math, I became enthusiastic about learning math, and wanted to learn more on it. Yet others felt like math was dull and boring. To a certain point after learning math they felt it rendered useless. I on the other hand was taking college credited courses in math in high school.

The point being is that not everyone reacts the same way to the same things. There are plenty of life examples that prove that theory. Just think about that before you decide to vote. Think about one thing that you were exposed to that led to other things and what made you not react the same way on other things.

At some point to some degree if more than one study shows that after playing violent video games made some teenagers become more violent but not all studies. Then I prove my theory that violent video games can lead to people being violent. I'm not saying all, but in these rare cases of people that have it proves everything I been saying this whole debate.

There are many different things in this world that influence people. Often musicians influence what people wear and how they act bringing in new terms etc. Along with many different things that comes from gamers terms. "GoML" If you are a gamer you should know exactly what that stands for.

So I ask you, did I not prove it with previous studies and research that violent video games can lead to people acting out more violently?

I believe I did. Checkmate.

Even though it doesn't effect the mass the same way, it hit impact on few people and influenced them to do so.
Brings me back to what I said before.

Musicians often are influenced to become musicians through others in the past or present.
But not everyone that's a music junkie suddenly wants to become a musician.
Point being said is that not everyone that listens with a lot of music, wants to become a musician themselves, but there are a select few of the mass that wanted to and did.

Many other prime examples such as actors and athletes.

So in terms, I rest my case.

I will message you tips on how to "hold more water" with you debate to make it stronger.
Although it was a pretty decent debate in your case.
No problem on accepting.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by christophertse 4 years ago
Thanks for the comments. Actually Reni-1_3, I have looked at your debate before, I actually used some of your points - the part about parents. However, isn't it not right to use personal experiences or using yourself as an example wrong? But anyway, thanks for the two comments.
Posted by Reni-1_3 4 years ago
I have a debate on my site as well about violent video games @christophertse feel free to read it and take points from it as well.
Posted by ExiOrca 4 years ago
First and foremost, type in paragraph. Most people do not like reading huge junk of text...
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by ConservativeAmerican 4 years ago
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Only pro used sources. Con made an overall argument that I think surpassed that of pro's.
Vote Placed by The_Master_Riddler 4 years ago
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: Okay, I was willing to give this debate win to Con, but Con had no sources whatsoever. This would make all of his arguments and refutations invalid, so it is only fair to give the argument vote and sources vote to Pro.