The Instigator
stephannoi
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TheOpinionist
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Should children be allowed to play violent video games ?

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 1 vote the winner is...
TheOpinionist
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/21/2015 Category: Games
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,206 times Debate No: 77975
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)

 

stephannoi

Pro

Hi oppionist I made up a new debate challenge.In my opinion I think children should be allowed to play any games as long as they don't neglected their school homework.Also there are some studies point out that there is no link between aggression and behavior problem that cause by video games.Video games don't make kids violent,youth violence has been on decline on abou t 40 % since the release of popular violent games.
TheOpinionist

Con

Thanks to stephannoi for the challenge. I will be debating Devils Advocate here, meaning that while I agree with Pro, I would like to try debating the Con side. Round 2 can be used for arguments, and we can rebut in Round 3. Also for the sake of fairness, I will make no new arguments in the last round, so that Pro can rebut to all of my contentions. I will reserve the last round to only respond to Pro's arguments instead.
Debate Round No. 1
stephannoi

Pro

No studies has proven that it cause violent behavior among children.And in fact,according to the statistic youth violence has been on decline since the release of popular violent games.As you see those school shooter,most of them describe themselves as a mental I'll or psychopath.They would commit crime anyway even without video games.So video games has no effect on them.
TheOpinionist

Con

Thanks Pro. Here is my case against allowing children to play violent video games.

My case relies on a few premises-
1. Children are impressionable
2. People are influenced by media
3. Video games are a popular form of media
Conclusion: Children are influenced by video games

Justifying Premise 1: "Children are impressionable"
For this argument, human beings under the age of 18 years will be referred to as "children."

Children are very impressionable. Scientists at the Society for Neuroscience meeting (2012) in New Orleans reported that: "teenage brains can be impulsive,[1]" "but adolescent brains are also vulnerable, dynamic and highly responsive to positive feedback.[1]"

While I will touch upon some of the other traits later, the important one at the moment is the teen brains responsivness to positive feedback. In the brain, we all have things called "dopamine receptors." Without getting too technical, dopamine is the primary neurotransmitter involved in the reward system in the brain [2]. Dopamine is fired when something rewarding happens to you (ie. you beat the final boss, or a level you've been working really hard on). This means that when you are rewarded in games, you end up wanting to play more. In a game where you are rewarded for senseless violence, such as Grand Theft Auto 5, Rockstar Entertainment makes the player want to commit more in game acts of violence for more rewards.

Armed with this knowledge, we have established that the child's brain is manipulated by positive rewards in games.

Justifying Premise 2 "People are influenced by media"
This is a given. With the extreme popularity of social media, even radical terrorist groups can recurit over Twitter [4]. Media influences the populous' actions and thoughts.

Justifying Premise 3 "Video games are a popular form of media"
The 2015 League of Legends World Championship had 32 million live viewers [5], roughly 16.5 million more than the Heat/Spurs NBA Finals. The International Dota 2 Championship (2014) was aired on ESPN3. The top subscribed user on YouTube is PewDiPie, a man who films himself playing video games. I think premise three has been justified...

Conclusion: Children are influeced by video games
If people are influenced by media, and video games are media, then people are influenced by video games. Violent video games negativley influence children who are in a period of long term brain development. The information children are exposed to in their early years is crucial to how they'll turn out later in life, and nobody wants a bunch of CoD and GTA addicts in public office.



Sources
1) http://www.npr.org...
2) https://en.wikipedia.org...
3) http://www.cnn.com...
4) http://www.cnn.com...;
5) http://na.leagueoflegends.com...
Debate Round No. 2
stephannoi

Pro

But you also have to look at other factor that make people to become violent such as having abusive parents,family violence,being bullied,having mental illness,being neglected by the parents.It all depend on the environment that shaped our behavior.If you have a bad parents,then no doubt,you would obviously become violent/aggressive.Media alone can't influence people to become violent.And all the studies that shows that there is a link between violent behavior and playing video game,they do not look at other factors.In reality video game don't make people violent.Please look up on the statistic.
TheOpinionist

Con

Thanks for the argument, Pro. You dropped my contention, though.

Do you concede that video games are a catalyst for violent behavior? If the answer is yes, then you have to explain why they should remain in the hands of minors. If the answer is no, you have failed to provide any tangible evidence, but rather have told me to "look up on the statistic," as if you couldn't do so yourself. Regardless, my contention is unaffected, and your argument works against you.

I will take this round to rebut my opponents Round 2 statements. Everything he has said about different causes for violence is true, but my point stands that violence in media contributes to a violent generation. The argument he makes works against him as well, as it shows how crime rates' correlation with game sales (as well as many other statistics) are inaccurate. Pro has completely failed to fulfil the BoP, necessitating a Con vote.

Conclusion: The ESRB rating system is largely ineffectual in keeping mature content out of the hands of the wrong demographic, and the possession of violent video games by children does nothing but harm them and those around them.

I had a few more arguments that I wanted to make, but I'll leave it to the voters to decide if they were actually necessary. I'd like to thank Pro for this debate and the voters for considering both sides fairly.

Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheOpinionist 1 year ago
TheOpinionist
lol I could never advocate the work of Satan (enters preachy tone of voice)
Posted by TheOpinionist 1 year ago
TheOpinionist
Thanks to Cotton_Candy for the vote! Yeah I guess my argument could have used some work, but I don't do Devils Advocate often
Posted by stephannoi 1 year ago
stephannoi
I also have made up a poll about how to prevent school shooting.Maybe you can have a look at my poll.I will send you the link.
Posted by stephannoi 1 year ago
stephannoi
I would say the best way to reduce violence in society is just like I said ,stop bullying,stop family violence,improve better mental health quality treatment.
Posted by TheOpinionist 1 year ago
TheOpinionist
From now on, please refrain from making arguments in the comments section of the debate, as it cheapens the importance of each round and sways the voters unfairly.
Posted by TheOpinionist 1 year ago
TheOpinionist
They are inaccurate in representing how violence in media directly affects people
Posted by TheOpinionist 1 year ago
TheOpinionist
1. I said that the statistic was irrelevant, not inaccurate. It is not a good source for the debate because of other factors that influence violence.
2. You should have said this during the debate.
Posted by stephannoi 1 year ago
stephannoi
If you are trying to argue with me that video game cause violence then please give me some evidence according to the statistic. Because making a conclusion without base on statistic is ineffective,unreliable,and inaccurate.Those studies that you mention does not have any proof according with the statistic.
Posted by stephannoi 1 year ago
stephannoi
You just said that the statistic is inaccurate,that is simply not true at all.The statistic has been measured by scientist and by police force and normally scientist don't lie to us.
Posted by stephannoi 1 year ago
stephannoi
Sales of video games"has increase during 1995-2008.While juvenile murder rate has been on decline up to 71.9 % and the arrest of all juvenile violent crime has been decline 49.3 % in the same period.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cotton_Candy 1 year ago
Cotton_Candy
stephannoiTheOpinionistTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: CON's syllogism of how children are influenced by video games went un-refuted. Also PRO in his case states "Media alone can't influence people to become violent.", this is not the same as saying "media can't influence people to become violent". Even though PRO might have tried to mean 'Correlation without causation' his statement implies that he partly concedes to CON. CON, even if he showed children are influenced by video games, he failed to properly establish why such an influence should warrant a prohibition of violent video games for children, altogether. I feel PRO could have made a better attempt in this debate for his case. Anyhow, weighing out the argumennts, as I see it, CON is the obvious winner. I encourage both parties to get in touch with me about issues regarding this vote, if ever one arises.