The Instigator
Edvin_32178
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
PeriodicPatriot
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

Should violent video games be banned for people who are not 17 and up?

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 2 votes the winner is...
PeriodicPatriot
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/1/2014 Category: Games
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,194 times Debate No: 45056
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (22)
Votes (2)

 

Edvin_32178

Con

In my opinion I think that violent video games should be banned for kids who are not 17 and up. If you disagree with me by all means debate with me. UNLESS YOU. ARE A BIG FAT COWARD!!!!
PeriodicPatriot

Pro

State your case.
Debate Round No. 1
Edvin_32178

Con

We'll I'm not gonna post my sate because I'm gonna wait for you if you agree or disagree I already stated that in my opinion violent video games would be banned foe underage kids
PeriodicPatriot

Pro

Well, I think they should not be banned. This is the opportunity to show parents that they are not kids, they are mature, and would take themselves seriously. Here is a video on why they should not be banned. Also, please specify more. Here are the questions I'm asking:

1. Do you want a specific country or the whole world?
2. What kind of violence do you take to be banned?

http://m.youtube.com...

Debate Round No. 2
Edvin_32178

Con

Well wheny you said that violent video gammes shouldnt be bannedto show parents that the underage kids are mature. Well the problem is that thekids could get tomad and lke scream and yell. Which is anotherway of saying that the kid was raging. The games im talking about are shooting games, killing games. etc. I think that any violent games should be banned in the whole world. It is still bad to play shooting games because it it true that if kids play a lot f violent video games they will anna fight or kill when the underage people play a lot and then they will becme addicted and kill agian in the future.

Now I will wait for your post.
PeriodicPatriot

Pro

"It is stiI bad to play shooting games because it it true that if kids play a lot f violent video games they will anna fight or kill when the underage people play a lot and then they will becme addicted and kill agian in the future."

So what? I've seen 11-12 year olds smoking in the streets. Either way, if violent video games are banned, it is taken as cruelty, rather than a punishment for boys (or girls).

"Well wheny you said that violent video gammes shouldnt be bannedto show parents that the underage kids are mature. Well the problem is that thekids could get tomad and lke scream and yell. Which is anotherway of saying that the kid was raging. The games im talking about are shooting games, killing games. etc."

According to online news, Osama bin Laden was actually inspired by Call of Duty.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk...

"I think that any violent games should be banned in the whole world."

That's not how it works , buddy. Each country can ban violent video games if they feel like they need to.

"Now I will wait for your post."

These are my rebuttals. My rebuttals are my arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
Edvin_32178

Con

So what you agree with me. You said that Osama Bin Laden was inspired to kill because of Call of Duty. So you think violent video games should be banned because from what I see on the streets everyday are kids doing bad stuff which is not good for them. So like you said kids age 11-12 smoke there gonna die because of how smoking could kill you. Thus making me correct because it seems that you are agreeing with me thus making me kind of like the one who is right about violent videos games be banned all over the world.

So now let me see your post.
PeriodicPatriot

Pro

Please. If someone is playing violent video games, it's more the person than the video game. For example, if a teenager was shooting because of a video game, would the police believe a video game caused the shooter to be all psycho? No. What I am saying is that it's the person who's being all violent is why they're being violent, not because of some violent video game. I think kids and teens can control their behavior without some video game controlling their brains. Here is a scenario.

Scenario 1:

Brian was playing a video game. The next day, he played some more violent video games. That night, he went drunk and carried a gun. He robbed a store and threatened to shoot them. He shot the clerk anyway. Someone called the police, and the police took Brian away. Of course, Brian was saying that a video game told him to do those bad things. The police didn't believe him, and thought it was one of his 'drunk phases'. Brian has 4 years of prison.

It is the person, not the video game.
Debate Round No. 4
Edvin_32178

Con

We'll I don't know if you know but it is proved that if people play a lot of violent video games they will start killing for real. Example A teenager was playing a violent video game on his computer, The teenager played a lot , he got addicted to the game. Next thing you know on the news it said that the teenager got a gun and went to kill people all because of the violent video game. He can't control his behavior because he played that game so much that he got addicted. So he thought that he was in a video game or something like that, anyways my point is that guy went to kill with a gun because he had a gun in his house. Even the police or the news reporter said that that person got a gun and started killing all because of the game. He couldn't control his behavior because he thought he was In a video game, also he thought he was supposed to kill people.

Now this is real stuff. It was on the news. That's what happens to people when they play violent video games, they can't control there behavior because they think that there in a video game.

Now I will wait for your argument.
PeriodicPatriot

Pro

Violent juvenile crime in the United States has been declining as violent video game popularity has increased. The arrest rate for juvenile murders has fallen 71.9% between 1995 and 2008. The arrest rate for all juvenile violent crimes has declined 49.3%. In this same period, video game sales have more than quadrupled.

A causal link between violent video games and violent behavior has not been proven. Many studies suffer from design flaws and use unreliable measures of violence and aggression such as noise blast tests. Thoughts about aggression have been confused with aggressive behavior, and there is a lack of studies that follow children over long periods of time.

A 2004 US Secret Service review of previous school-based attacks found that one-eighth of attackers exhibited an interest in violent video games, less than the rate of interest attackers showed in violent movies, books, and violence in their own writings. The report did not find a relationship between playing violent video games and school shootings.

The small correlations that have been found between video games and violence may be explained by violent youth being drawn to violent video games. Violent games do not cause youth to be violent. Instead, youth that are predisposed to be violent seek out violent entertainment such as video games.

Playing violent video games reduces violence in adolescent boys by serving as a substitute for rough and tumble play. Playing violent video games allows adolescent boys to express aggression and establish status in the peer group without causing physical harm.

Video game players understand they are playing a game. Their ability to distinguish between fantasy and reality prevents them from emulating video game violence in real life.

Playing violent video games provides a safe outlet for aggressive and angry feelings. A 2007 study reported that 45% of boys played video games because "it helps me get my anger out" and 62% played because it "helps me relax."

Violent video games provide healthy and safe opportunities for children to virtually explore rules and consequences of violent actions. Violent games also allow youth to experiment with issues such as war, violence and death without real world consequences.

The level of control granted to video game players, especially in terms of pace and directing the actions of their character, allows youth to regulate their emotional state during play. Research shows that a perception of being in control reduces emotional and stressful responses to events.

Alarmist claims similar to current arguments against violent video games have been made in the past when new media such as radio, movies, and television have been introduced. Claims that these various mediums would result in surges in youth violence also failed to materialize.

Violent video games may affect the form of violence, but does not cause the violence to occur. Youth might model violent acts on what they have seen in video games, but the violence would still occur in the absence of video games.

Exposure to violent video games has not been shown to be predictive of violent behavior or crime. Any link found between video games and violence is best explained by other variables such as exposure to family violence and aggressive personality.

When research does show that violent video games cause more arousal and aggression, it is because the comparative game is less exciting. A short-term increase in arousal and aggression does not mean a child is going to leave his or her house and commit a violent act.

In 2005, the US had 2,279 murders committed by teenagers (27.9 per million residents) compared to 73 in Japan (3.1 per million). Per capita video game sales were $5.20 in the US compared to $47 in Japan. This example illustrates that there is no correlation between violent behavior and playing video games.
_________________________________________________________________

Conclusion: Violent video games should not be banned in the whole world.

Debate Round No. 5
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Edvin_32178 3 years ago
Edvin_32178
Very funny Jacob.
Posted by ProfJacob 3 years ago
ProfJacob
I mean, don't stop being dumb; Some people are just that way. But unless you're so sure about something, don't post.
Posted by ProfJacob 3 years ago
ProfJacob
"I'm not a spammer my friend used my account and typed random stuff."

Really? You already know that you lack evidence that validly follows the conclusion that your claim is true, yet you're still going to assume? Given that you told me about your password, that supports the claim, but doesn't mean it's true; Simply shows likeliness. Stop acting so dumb. I'm sick and tired of how you children act.
Posted by PeriodicPatriot 3 years ago
PeriodicPatriot
That's not an excuse.
Posted by Edvin_32178 3 years ago
Edvin_32178
I'm not a spammer my friend used my account and typed random stuff.
Posted by PeriodicPatriot 3 years ago
PeriodicPatriot
Spammer
Posted by ProfJacob 3 years ago
ProfJacob
"hope your in the mood for 72 vaginas and i dont mean dudes that get your cock"

Wow, you have met men with vaginas? WTF
Posted by Edvin_32178 3 years ago
Edvin_32178
i am edvin nimanima and lolol iam uuuuwuruniur
Posted by Edvin_32178 3 years ago
Edvin_32178
Okay buddy let me tell you something about me,ok lets start over hi were gonna die here is a plastic bag for cover bro, hope your in the mood for 72 virgins and i dont mean dudes that get your cock
Posted by ProfJacob 3 years ago
ProfJacob
"So like you said kids age 11-12 smoke there gonna die because of how smoking could kill you."

So what if children smoke? That's THEIR decision. If they choose to take the risk, let it be.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by BeckyDawg 3 years ago
BeckyDawg
Edvin_32178PeriodicPatriotTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Con called "BIG FAT COWARD". Spelling and Grammar: It was difficult to read Con's pieces. Convincing Arguments: Awarded to Pro because of Round 5. Hypothetical situations did not help either one of you in this debate. Reliable Sources: Con did not use any sources whatsoever.
Vote Placed by TheAmazingAtheist1 3 years ago
TheAmazingAtheist1
Edvin_32178PeriodicPatriotTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: BECAUSE THE DEBATE IS SUCH A MESS, I'll call it a tie. but overall i think pro should win