The Instigator
Nerobrine
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Tyroneley
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Should We Prevent Children from seeing "bad" things?

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: 11/26/2015 Category: People
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 323 times Debate No: 83086
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Nerobrine

Con

I believe we should not hide things from children.One reason kids will do things one might consider "bad" (Watching porn,playing violent or sexual games,) is because people typically don't want kids to do such things. Here's an example, somebody in a room full of chests tells you not to open a specific chest in the middle of the room. You will most likely get curious and maybe even take a peak.The man scolds you for doing so and peaks your curiosity.Now,that rotting wooden chest looks like a golden diamond encrusted one.You lean over and smell the chest.It smells like adventure and unexplored territory now.A peek wouldn't hurt would it.Soon you open it when the man is gone,and by doing so you never wish to close it. You get addicted to the adrenaline.See what I mean
Tyroneley

Pro

Hello, I am going to be arguing with the statement of allowing children to view and play inappropriate content. Before going any further, I will state that I personally do not agree with allowing children to view and play inappropriate content, for logical reasons such as influence.

I would like to rebut on what the 'con' side has stated.

"I believe we should not hide things from children.One reason kids will do things one might consider "bad" (Watching porn,playing violent or sexual games,) is because people typically don't want kids to do such things."

People don't want kids to do these acts because they know that violent video games will increase a child's aggression, and if we allow children to watch porn, as they grow up to be adults, these now grown men that have been exposed to porn at a young age will objectify women, and women who have been exposed to porn at a young age will objectify themselves and tolerate sexual harassment from men. If you allow children to play violent games, their violence and aggression will continue to expand or increase in negative ways, and will possibly take the wrong perspective of killing people. There is also a probability that the child will be less caring and less helping in different ways, which is why we should NOT let children do such things at an age until they grow into a more mature form.
Referencing: http://www.drphil.com..., http://ikeepsafe.org...

"Here's an example, somebody in a room full of chests tells you not to open a specific chest in the middle of the room. You will most likely get curious and maybe even take a peak.The man scolds you for doing so and peaks your curiosity.Now,that rotting wooden chest looks like a golden diamond encrusted one.You lean over and smell the chest.It smells like adventure and unexplored territory now.A peek wouldn't hurt would it.Soon you open it when the man is gone,and by doing so you never wish to close it. You get addicted to the adrenaline.See what I mean"

Your example is invalid because it does NOT relate so closely to the main topic. In your example you're practically switching to another topic about adrenaline and chests. You are drifting away from the topic of inappropriate content being exposed to children. Adrenaline might be a good thing, yes, but as I said, AGGRESSION, INFLUENCE, MISCONCEPTIONS, shall I say more? Your example is invalid because it does NOT include any solid facts to help support your claim, which proves this example wrong.

To wrap up this round, children will be badly influenced by all the pornographic content and violent content, and they WILL resort to more violent and explicit actions in certain situations, which will lead to more violence and problems. This world already has enough issues going on, don't let children be more involved.
Debate Round No. 1
Nerobrine

Con

The point of that argument was to state that ruling that someone cannot do something can make them even more likely to do it,but obviously some cannot handle such stretches of the mind.No matter,I shall proceed.Aggression is not a con for the aggression they face is simply competitive aggresion which is very healthy for anyone,and no,a child will not mature with porn for they are still the same age(obviously).Additionally,twas you who said the "porn" would have women.I'm sensing misogyny.Watching two people copulate is a form of learning how biology works and key to finding one's sexuality(at ages 11 and up),and watching porn does not automatically make people drop their pants and tolerate rape.Human weakness does that my friend.4% of people in the US are sociopathic meaning out of every 100 children 4 will not be able to be caring.That may not seem like much.It is approximately 12 million people. Meaning 12,000,000 people will not be able to care. That means that whatever experiment you saw preformed (about kids being less caring because of violence exposure) is invalid due to the fact that most of the kids could have been already rendered emotionless.There are no misconceptions.Even children can tell the difference between a game and real life.If they can't then parents can simply tell them the truth.
In conclusion,these influences are not bad for they are either a)fictional representations of mankind not the real thing that even children could separate or b)very informative.While I do agree even adults need moderation with such things.
Tyroneley

Pro

Thank you for replying in such a short time, however there are some things I need to say first before I elaborate and/or justify my points (and possibly my earlier points).

The first thing I will say that you have not provided any evidence for any of your facts, therefore your statements and facts are invalid and does not stand up towards my argument.

If children were to play violent games consistently, they will resolve conflicts with VIOLENCE. This means that with almost any conflict they have, they will or most likely resort to violence, which should NOT be done. Despite the competitive aggression you might get, you will also get 'ordinary' aggression, meaning that they will produce hostile-like behavior, as-well as desensitizes killing. This means that children will be less sensitive to the deaths of other people, especially anyone he/she knows.

Children will have a 'fuzzy' or 'difficult' time differentiating between real and 'make-believe' things, as their young minds are still forming what is real and what is make-believe. Put this into perspective. If children believed in Santa Claus or in The Easter Bunny, how could they possibly understand that other villains or 'bad guys' in other video games look real, but not really real?

Referencing: http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

"Even children can tell the difference between a game and real life.If they can't then parents can simply tell them the truth."
Even after being told if this is real or not, they will STILL have trouble understanding, with my points already stated above, I think you would know what I'm trying to say.

"Watching two people copulate is a form of learning how biology works and key to finding one's sexuality" You do not learn much by watching one man and one woman grinding their bodies together and having sex upon each other, because you would not know any formal information, but rather just how they do such things. You do NOT learn any intellectual biology, as if you were to learn about sex and puberty, you would need to be EDUCATED properly at school or at home, therefore your statement falls.

Some children are very naive, and when exposed to porn and violent content, they will walk around school imitating their 'favorite scenes' and most likely get in trouble. There's also a probability that their minds will be perverted.

Again, provide evidence, or your facts will be useless against my argument, and it will simply vanish into thin air because you couldn't back up your argument with sufficient proof.
Debate Round No. 2
Nerobrine

Con

First of all,nothing is definite meaning even if I were to provide evidence there is a large chance that it would be false therefore taking information from me is just as reliable as taking it out Webster's Dictionary.
No test or experiment is accurate due to the fact that you would have to a)Test on everyone on earth and B)
Score 1 for Nerobrine
My second point is that we have law and things like cops and teachers so that when they do do such things they can be punished.Note the fact that we are talking about kids.Even if they did get violent enough to the point of murder or violence they will not do much and such behaviors are usually dissolved with maturity.My proof-personal experience.
You say such things as with links and websites,but where is your proof.In the end,we're both just idiots slinging opinions,and the bigger fool is just bringing in the opinions of others.
What is wrong with with rewarding people with virtual blood?Note that Huffington Post article was written by a mom...Not a psychologist.How do you not learn how to do something by watching.That's how many people learn as of this day and age because many schools are taking said subjects out of the curriculum.Not to mention that those classes aren't mandatory oftentimes...
Tyroneley

Pro

First of all, the point of an experiment or test is to 'ACCURATELY' find an answer to something, or to prove or provide evidence to a conclusion, or to disprove a hypothesis. Secondly, if you provide sufficient evidence, it's most likely going to be true, however if you provide insufficient evidence (such as Wikipedia) then it would most likely be false because it's a wiki, people change it.

Now, you said that you would have to test everyone on earth to prove an experiment to be acurrate or true, HOWEVER, for example, you didn't specify WHAT type of experiments by the way. Anyways, the Earth was proved to NOT be the center of the universe after an experiment was conducted, and people believe the Earth was the center of the universe for a certain amount of time. Now, listen. Psychological history of children CAN prove that children will have several (not all) negative impacts or outcomes after inappropriare content being exposed, and you said that the referencing I gave was written by a mother, and you supported one of your remarks based on experience, so I can say the same for my point because this is an experienced mother you're talking about, with a child, and with her history with her OWN child, she can know all the negative outcomes happening when her son is exposed to violent and inappropriate games or content.

You can learn without watching by reading books, or listening or participating in lectures about certain topics, NOT watch about actual pornographic content or inappropriate games. Listen, fictional war games have false stuff in them, and you're saying kids will learn this? YOU want them to learn false things about the world? About how things happen?

There are a history of children doing violent crimes and murders JUST BECAUSE of violent games. Proof?
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...

Plenty of more.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.