The Instigator
alan2737
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
jvava
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Should teens be able to buy violent video games and why

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
jvava
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/21/2013 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,463 times Debate No: 39264
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

alan2737

Pro

I think we should because people don't commit crimes because of video games. If they did then so does movies, news, shows, and everything. that is why i say people should be able to play video games.
jvava

Con

Hello.

I am in the position that teens should buy violent video games with parental consent. Teens should not be allowed to buy these games without consent because parents can decide on what sort of effect it will have on their teens.

For instance, if a teen has reactsed negatively to violence in the past, than the parent has a right to refuse that their child play the violent game.

I believe that teens should be able to play violent games with their parents' consent. Otherwise, they should not.
Debate Round No. 1
alan2737

Pro

That is another thing there parents are responsible for what they can buy and what they cant but if that is where they release there stress and then they become better and at least they don't go around and take out there angry on other people and on people that don't have any way to fight back or start bulling people they get on there game and they start to work. and thank you for doing this this is for a school job.
jvava

Con

I am going to be in the center on this issue.

Although some teens can handle violent video games, some can not. Some, in studies, have become more aggressive and less-agreeable due to the playing of violent video games. My personal position is that we should not take risks; violent video games should be more strongly prohibited against teens than now. I believe that a parent can decide what is right for their children - but the teen should not be able to buy the game without parental consent.
Debate Round No. 2
alan2737

Pro

Yes you are right about not taking risk but yet we should because if we are going to grow up and let us do what we want and what we can do then we should be able to buy our video games if people are going to take care of themselves then we should be able to make decisions for ourselves. In my opinion I think we should no matter what.
jvava

Con

You confuse me, but I will reason with you.

Let me get my point across the voters: I think that parents should decide what is right for their children. This is different than what my opponent argues - that teens should be allowed to buy and purchase whatever they like.

My argument is that violent video games shouldn't be outlawed for teenagers, but should require parental consent to avoid things like increased aggressiveness and becoming less-agreeable, found in studies.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by kevind133 1 year ago
kevind133
Doti, well you sir have a problem, or don't know what you're talking about what so ever. Games are games, people have the choice to buy games or not, it's our life, our choices, even though you don't see much violence in a teen from just a video game... case closed....
Posted by Doti 1 year ago
Doti
No, they should not be able to buy violent video games. There is so much sadness and violence in the world right now; why promote more of it? Violent video games may have no connection to future behavior, but violence should not be looked at as a game, in any format.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 1 year ago
RoyLatham
alan2737jvavaTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: The negation of "teens should be able" is "teens should not be able." Con therefore agreed with the resolution, saying that they should be able to but with parental consent. Pro, however, accepted the resolution meant that in no case should teens be denied the ability. If both debaters agree that's the resolution, I'll accept that. Con then argued that some teens cannot handle violence. Pro responded that in general they can or that they ought to be able to. That doesn't rebut the point that some cannot. Pro would have to argue that there is no teen who cannot handle violence or if there is parents won't be able to judge it, and Pro didn't make that argument. Pro was very difficult to follow. His R2 had a run on sentence with seven uses of "and" -- possibly a DDO record. Use short, direct sentences. Neither side used sources, a serious deficiency in a debate that claims testable outcomes.