Should teens be able to buy violent video games and why
Debate Rounds (3)
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.
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.
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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 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||4|
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.
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.