Should children be allowed to play violent video games ?
Debate Rounds (3)
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," "but adolescent brains are also vulnerable, dynamic and highly responsive to positive feedback."
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 . 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 . 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 , 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.
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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cotton_Candy 1 year 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||3|
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.
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.