Should children be able to obtain rated M (or above) games?
Debate Rounds (4)
I believe children should not be able to obtain rated M (or above) games because those games are made for adults, not for 13 year olds. They contain things that children should not be exposed to at such a young age. Most games that are rated M or up can contain more intense and/or realistic portrayals of violence than T-rated games (including blood and gore), stronger sexual themes and content, nudity, and heavier use of strong language.
Most of the time though, the parents don't even care about what their child is trying to purchase. 13 year olds should not be able to play games like Borderlands 2 and GTA V. Kids are exposed to so much violence nowadays. I do not believe the games desensitize or make the child violent, it simply introduces them to things they do not need to openly exposed to at their age. Plus they just crowd the servers with their annoying cussing and chronic complaining (if you're playing on a console). They see things they really shouldn't and it introduces (mainly young boys) to things like the wonders of boobs and how large they can be and than they get into pornography, which they are not allowed to watch unless 18+.
They probably will not go out and harm people and want to have sex, but it's introducing young children to those kinds of things. By letting children play these games, you're introducing them to a lot of illegal activity. GTA V contains murder, bank robbery, arson, drug use, gratuitous use of f-bombs and n- words, strip clubs, and tons of other forms of illegal activity. Mortal Kombat, Dead Space, Borderlands, Fallout, and Assassin's Creed are just an example of what young kids are playing today that are made for a Mature crowd. If they were made for a younger crowd, I guarantee that ESRB would have rated it differently.
PokemonGirl forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by republicofdhar 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||1|
Reasons for voting decision: The burden of proof in this debate was shared, as the resolution is normative. Con had the easier job here, because all she had to do was to explain the reasoning behind games that are rated R. However, she did not once mention what was so bad about children being exposed to such things. In her own words "it simply introduces them to things they do not need to openly exposed to at their age". This was not convincing. Pro's arguments were almost exclusively rebuttals, and so did not fulfil his burden of proof. Pro did manage to rebut Con's points, though. Therefore, neither side gets points for arguments. I'm awarding conduct to Pro because Con forfeited. Neither side used sources. Both sides were equally clear in spelling and grammar.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.