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

Should Violent Video Games Be Banned?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 4 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/24/2015 Category: Games
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 945 times Debate No: 70633
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (4)




Hello! This is my first debate. I am a 12 year old that has been doing research on how violent video games affect the brain. Of course, this is for a English embedded assessment, but I thought, why not? Make the world more educated.
Now, let me begin. Before I start, I want to inform you again, I am a 12 year old, first debate. Don't expect me to be,"a good debater."

First, I believe violent video games should be banned. If you are a common debater of this topic, you should know it links to aggression for both boys and girls. You think its easy if you can just monitor it, but actually, even if you monitor your child's gaming habits, the risk factor for driving up anger thoughts go up significantly.
"They start to expect people to behave more aggressively toward them, and they tend to see aggressive solutions as being more appropriate for solving problems."
My evidence? :
Continuing on, a Indian University decided to test this. They took in, I believe 44 males. They let them play violent video games for about 30 minutes, and discovered that violent video games increase your activity in the amygdale, a portion of your brain the size of a nut whose role plays in emotional arouse. This means their depression enhances currently during playing a violent video game. They also found out that it increases faster/higher heart rate, diziness, and nausea for young people.
Violent video games are actually almost twice as addicting. Because of this, the odds of these are even better(note these odds are bad)
-poor social skills can result to no friends
-time away from family, schoolwork, other hobbies can result to being lazy.
-reading less and lower grades can result to having a bad future due to poor academic skills.
-because of addiction, you exercise less and eventually become overweight. This increases many threats to your health.
-aggressive thoughts and behavior can make the gamer become a threat to everyone around him due to enhanced aggressive thinking due to violent video gaming.
Don't forget, both boys and girls, and even adults are affected by violent video games due to anger.
They even discourage, and lower self control.Let's talk GTA. For instance, it discourages players from exercising self control. In the GTA, players can steal cars, do a prostitute and kill her afterwards to get your money back, kill police, do robberies, and more. Rather then being punished for such behavior, players are often rewarded like health, money, whatever they do in that game. And it appears to be in Youtube that people record young children, "troll them," make them cry just for the fun of it! It appears to be a bullying center for teenagers, just because again, it is almost as twice as addicting as a non-violent game like Pinball.
Children also commit suicide. And not just children. A 14 year old that hung himself due to his gaming account being banned. A 12 year old jumped out of his apartment building just because his World of War account was banned for a week. A 7 year old decided to jump off a 19-story building because his gaming privileges were strapped off him. And it's not because of the side events that happen to them. If it did, it'd happen a loooong time before the term,"speed of light," was made.
I sincerely hope someone decides to debate with me. I am a violent gamer myself, I have glasses due to high exposure, and so I want to become experienced within a argument that I even would compete for.


I thank my opponent for instigating.

R1) Violent behavior

My opponent argues violent videogames cause violent behavior. She relies upon a few studies—one relying upon a sample of only 44 people. Although this is good for some fields of science, it won’t work here. In the videogame field, over 1 BILLION people play videogames [1.]. When a sample size of 44 exists when over 1/7th of the planet plays videogames, the small sample is likely not very representative of the population.

It should also be noted the majority of the evidence my opponent presents is in relation to teenagers. Although this may justify restrictions on teenage playing, a huge amount of gamers are adults. Eighty two percent of gamers are over 18 years old. It should also be noted most studies on violence focus on men, when 41% of gamers are female [2.]. Thus, even assuming it causes violent behavior in teens, we have no evidence of such an effect in relation to adults. As no information exists, we cannot argue for a total ban.

A comprehensive study using strong methodology argues that violent videogames do not cause aggression. Using analysis of crime trends and video game consumption, no effect was found—not even a small one. This means even assuming aggressive tendencies occur due to videogames, no aggressive behavior occurs. The second methodology used was laboratory. Although males often had aggressive behaviors, no “exposure to violent video games caused any differences in aggression.” [3.]. Again, female gamers have zero tendency towards violence. There is no proof older people become violent. And the effect on men is weak and no actual measurable violence increase occurs among them.

My opponent could justify banning games for teenage boys, but to ban it entirely is not supported by the evidence.

R2) Social skills

My opponent claims violent videogame lead to many social skill issues which harm the child. This may not be true. The APA has reviewed the evidence and has found violent video games may “boost children's learning, health and social skills” [4.]. It should also be noted to argue videogames cause isolation is simply untrue. The APA also found “70 percent of gamers play with a friend, and millions of people worldwide participate in massive virtual worlds … Multiplayer games become virtual social communities” [4].

R3) Suicide

This may or may not be relevant. High speed limits are becoming more common even though people die more often because of them. The benefits of the high speed limit—getting to work and back faster, convenience—simply outweighs the loss of life. And the loss of life in relation to cars is much higher than in relation to videogames. The joy of 1.3 billion people outweighs a few fringe cases of suicide or murder due to videogames.

Indeed, the game Black Ops acquired over $500 million alone. The videogame market in total is over 90 billion dollars [5.]. To ban violent videogames would be to put thousands out of work and significantly weaken the economy.

Debate Round No. 1


I'd like to thank my opponent for a great comeback. ( And just to be clear, I am a boy. )

I am sorry for not mentioning the fact that some of the evidence provided is by a director of the Center for the Study of Violence at Iowa State University. ( His last name is mentioned, it is Anderson. )

I also apologize for not mentioning other studies. For instance, on,
Susan R. Tortolero, PhD and coauthors from The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston School of Public Health, RAND Corporation (Santa Monica, CA), The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Atlanta, GA), and Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard Medical School (Boston, MA) did a study ( The number is not mentioned, but believed to be a average amount, say 100? ) They found out that fifth graders who played a high violence game had depression symtoms over a course of the year. I know(maybe unaccurate data) that about 97% of the youth play video games. This shows the addiction, my opponent also supports it with(possibly accurate) information. And again, because violent video games are addictive, it's very unlikely to monitor a child's gaming habits, also with the fact that people who have limited gaming privileges at the time, again commit suicide. Let me state again before you reply again, that if car crashes, and depressed/stressful events that occur to people commit suicide for it other then violent video games, it would have happened a long time ago.

The University of Valle d'Aosta(Italy), Unversity of Milano - Bicocca (Italy), and the University at Amsterdam, the Netherland ( the professionals that did the testing are Alessandro Gabbiadini, Paola Riva, Luca Andrighetto, Chiara Volpato, and Brad J. Budman <- may have spelled that last name wrong ) decided to do a test. They wanted to see if violent video games decrease self control( this again supports my reason of how violent video games decrease self control ). 172 high school students were involved, and they had to flip a coin to Grand Theft Auto III or Grand Theft Auto San Andreas) or a nonviolent game (Pinball 3D or MiniGolf 3D) . During their gaming for 35 minutes, the testers put a bowl containing 100 grams (3.5 ounces) of chocolate M&M . They said to the teenagers they can eat it freely, but high consumption in under a short amount of time is unhealthy. The results? The people who played violent video games ate 3x as much candy as the nonviolent gamers.
After the first test, they decided to do a 10 item logic survey where they can win raffle tickets to get items. The teens were told how many questions they got right, and they had the opportunity to take the amount of raffle tickets won(to see if the violent gamers would cheat.) They could win cool prizes, like a iPad. That's how much funding came into this study. They found out players who played violent games cheated over 8 TIMES more then the nonviolent gamers.
They also measured aggressive behavior ( More support for my aggressive theory ). The teenagers were able to blast their opponent( There really wasn't any. They were told that there was. ) with disturbing noises like a chalk screeching harshly on the board. " ..those who played the violent games chose to blast their ostensible partners with louder noises that lasted longer than did teens who played the nonviolent games."
Before I continue on, here is the website ;
From the website, it also says;"Teens in the study also completed the Moral Disengagement Scale, which measures how much people hold themselves to high moral standards in all situations. Some sample questions are "Compared to the illegal things people do, taking some things from a store without paying for them is not very serious" and "It is okay to insult a classmate because beating him/her is worse.""

I understand your position, as well. But high exposure to violent video games can result to bad eyesight. One of my friends told me I have a estimated 12/24 eyesight, and I know why. It's due to high exposure from staring at the screen. And again, this is almost not preventable, due to addiction and suicidal.
My opponent talks about ONLY the violent video games, said. Remember this, as well.
Also, if we took out the video game market, I believe it can give the economy a big hit, but the fundings can finally go to trying to use our money for more appropiate things.. not.. playing violent video games.. . And it does not mean we can ban the entire market. We can just take out the violent games.

A child like me? I am lazy, but academic. I have poor health, ( yes, I am kinda overweight. I believe 112 pounds for a 12 year old is pretty big ), and I am VERY aggressive toward my brother. I always tell him to keep it down with his skype calls very demandingly, and because I found out about this a week ago, I am disappointed.

Let's think about us and our children. Violent gaming, no one can argue with this, is a bad influence to our children ( I'm saying this in 3rd person view, wow. ), and children are our future. What can we expect if violent video gaming can take on to the next level?What if it went from violent video gaming, to something even more addicting? Then life would practically be about playing violent video games! It already went from video games to violent video games. Lets end this now.


My opponent’s research uses fairly small sample sizes. A sample size of 100, and another of 175 is not very significant at all.

An issue with most videogame research is that it is not longitudinal. That is, it does not track outcomes overtime. When I play a game and I die, sure, I rage. But the aggression lasts maybe for a minute. Likely the most comprehensive study tracked children for over a decade. The sample size was an astonishing 11,000. The study was tracking whether or not violent videogames would lead to mental, mood, or other behavioral problems later in life. Videogame exposure as young as age five was found to have no effect on child violence. Violent games did not cause emotional or educational problems, either. Indeed, other longitudinal studies have focused on television, not videogames. Overall, the study indicates videogames do not cause behavioral problems [1.].

My opponent claims those who play grand theft auto have more issues than those who play non-violent games based upon a small study. Another study compared videogames that were actually similar. The games were similar in many respects but simply differed in the amount of violence. The study found that rates of aggression was similar in the violent videogame group and the nonviolent videograme group [2.]. Why is this? Although it seems odd, it makes sense. The level of competitiveness, not violence, determines whether or not a videogame will lead to violence. This means regulation of competition, not violence, is a top priority if you want to reduce levels of harm.

My opponent claims games reduce eyesight and cites an anecdotal example. It is possible the person was lacking sight *before* they played videogames. Or, in many cases, it occurred *in spite* of videogame consumption. As you grow, so does your eye. And as the eye changes, so does sight. If you want another anecdotal example, take me. I play games a lot and am probably clinically addicted. But my eyesight is 20/10—20/20 is ‘perfect’ vision and you want the second number to be as low as possible. Also, 12/24 eyesight does not even make sense—the scale ophthalmologists use is 20/(number). Whoever said that doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

Pro suggests any economic hit would be temporary and the funds would be diverted towards more productive activities. But this may or may not be true. It is very possible children will merely watch TV all day. This is a passive activity, whereas videogames require thinking and it is very active. From a simplistic standpoint of wanting kids to think, spending money on TV rather than gaming would not be beneficial. It should also be noted TV is actually better correlated with violence than videogames are [1]. Unless my opponent wants to ban Netflix, the argument does not hold up.

My opponent says he has anger issues. I do not see how this is relevant to the debate. There is no way he can prove his anger is due to gaming. He likely would have these issues anyway because he is growing and testosterone is beginning to build up (I am under the assumption you are a male, though similar things apply to females).

To say “no one” can debate that videogames are bad is incorrect—I am. I have provided the *best* studies in the field suggesting videogames are not harmful to children. I provided evidence from the APA that they *improve* social skills as they are in and of themselves social activities. And any anecdotal evidence should be waived as it is not relevant in social science research—and I provided my own examples, anyway. There is no logical reason to ban violent videogames.

Debate Round No. 2


I suppose you have bested me. I surrender.
I do have to thank you, you did put up a good arguement. I'm actually having a debate similiar to this 2 days from now, and since they are near my grade level, it won't be as hard as a 3 year old veteran debating. Thank you. I have learned to look at my opponents information and counter it, not add on to it and ignore their counters. If you could, can you provide some information? I've already used about 20 sources and all I got is a page and a half , because symtoms are similiar. Most of them are anger ones.
Oh, and again. I'm a boy, if you still didn't read.
I did catch a flaw in round 1, you only spoke about video games, not violent video games.
My friend said I had 12/24 vision. I was 12, I wasn't a eyedoctor. xD


I thank my opponent for his concession. Depending on what side you are arguing just message me for info

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Based 1 year ago
Pro is such an idiot I'm about to jump off a bridge. Give the economy a big hit? What the hell are you smoking? Yea lets ban video games and have millions of people lose their jobs because you say so. You're an idiot. How about you get off this site and go run on a treadmill you fatass.
Posted by Sensanaty 1 year ago
I'm not entirely sure how some random civilian can just casually decide to "do war" because of a video game.

And if a person or if persons are prompted to hide a knife, go on the street and stab someone, there is something happening there that is not the influence of video games. No sane, rational human being, regardless of age, will have such psychotic and twisted thoughts only due to pixels dancing on a screen.

And killing IS hard. The physical act itself, maybe not quite so, as life is a very brittle and fragile thing that can easily be shattered by the smallest of things, however no sane adult will find the actual act of plunging a knife into another person an easy or desirable thing to do.

I have over 2000 hours in CS:GO, an online multiplayer game in which there is only 2 objectives (excluding the 3rd hostage one), to either plant a bomb, or kill everyone on the opposing team. I have never, not once on my life felt the tiniest glimmer of desire to grab a rifle and start shooting at people. My 1500 hours in Killing Floor, a very gore-filled game, has never made me want to grab an axe or chainsaw and start cutting people up. And I can say the same for a countless number of friends, family, and acquaintances.
Posted by YoungDebaterr 1 year ago
Violent video gaming can make permanent changes. If you haven't already, look at round 1, check my philly link. It explains some things that answer your question. Universities will answer your question? I'll put it that way.
Also, in my view, because we play violent video games over and over, repetition, we eventually learn to do it. Like practicing with a piano over and over. Even after many years, you can still atleast remember how to play. And killing? In this case, killing isn't that hard. You just literally hide a knife in your pocket, walk in the streets, immediately stab someone and your done. Those violent video games make you go further. It can make you a criminal mastermind. Like Black Ops or whatever COD, they talk about strategies on eliminating and winning a war. This also influences people to do war.
Posted by Sensanaty 1 year ago
Is there any proof, however, that violent video games will lead to a loss of control over an extended period of time?

Competitive games like Black Ops, Counter-Strike, Battlefield and more will, naturally due to the nature of the games, incite a bit of anger, frustration and so forth during playtime, and perhaps a short time after that. Anyone who has been in any competitive setting will know this. However, will this state of anger and frustration be felt for an extended period of time? Even an hour after playing the game?

All 'studies' seem to focus on the short window of time during play-time, and not an hour, or two, or more after playing the game.

And the frustration felt isn't limited to Violent games; Just take a look at a relatively new game, called "Offworld Trading Company". The game has 0 violence in it, yet consistently proves to be a frustrating, irritating and maddening mess at times.
Posted by YoungDebaterr 1 year ago
Stay on topic, please.
Posted by TheSymbiote 1 year ago
People admit that they are 12 year olds....
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 1 year 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: Conduct - Tie. Both had proper conduct throughout. S&G - Tie. Both had adequate spelling and grammar throughout. Arguments - Con. Pro conceded the debate in the final round. Sources - Con. Both sides utilized sources, however, I found Con's to be far more compelling, and of higher quality and quantity. This is a clear win for Con.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 1 year 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: Pro gracefully concedes.
Vote Placed by SlovakiaKentros 1 year 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had the advantage from the start, being that the whole argument of violent video games being banned is a ridiculous one. Secondly, Pro used opinion based arguments all the way through his first round. (The label that he put on himself, that he is "Not a good debater" doesn't matter when it comes down to Convincing Arguments and Reliable sources, which he failed to do on both. His arguments were thin and could (And were) easily rebutted by Con. The sources were few overall and didn't make sense why there were so few. The end however, i saw that he gave up to to incompetence. I'm still giving the Majority vote to Con for his excellent debate.
Vote Placed by Varrack 1 year ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Concesssion