The Instigator
Hylian_3000
Con (against)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
lannan13
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points

Should violent video games be banned?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 4 votes the winner is...
lannan13
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/30/2014 Category: Games
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,937 times Debate No: 66055
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (4)

 

Hylian_3000

Con

I understand that there are lots of debates like this already, but I thought I should try it out.
This debate is only for the serious debater, no trolls and make sure you know what you are doing.
Con: No, they should not be banned
Pro: Yes, they should be banned
First round acceptance only
Video game: any of various games played using a microcomputer with a keyboard and often joysticks to manipulate changes or respond to the action or questions on the screen.

Good luck to my opponent!
lannan13

Pro

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Hylian_3000

Con

Thank you for accepting the debate

If I use any graphs or images there will be a link to the picture, rather than having on the argument itself. I debate on a tablet, so I can't post pictures in arguments.

Violent video games have been widely debated whether or not they should be banned. I believe that these games should not be banned.

1. Media Argument
Video games are a form of media, just like TV and books. However, they have obvious differences that set them apart from other media. An example of this is that it is interactive. Video games are a form of pass time or pleasure, just like the other media. So why are video games the center of these arguments. Because they are different. Unlike music, TV, and books, there isn't as much people who play video games, so those people are uninformed and they believe the rumors about video games being bad. Video games are just like the other media, so if we were to ban violent video games why don't we just ban violent books and TV?

2. Mental Health
Most violent video gamers who cause shootings are in poor mental condition. One of the things people like to bring up during these debates is the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting. No, I'm not trying to justify what the shooter did. But, the culprit was, in fact, in poor mental condition. People think that violent video games influence people, so playing COD, Battlefield, or GTA would influence the person to do things that they do in game. However, that isn't true. Yes, video games have a tiny influence of the player, but it is not enough to influence people to go out and steal a car or shoot someone. Our brains do a good job of knowing what's right from wrong, and gamers know that what they do in these games are not right in the real world. There are a lot of people who play violent video games, and if video games truly influence people to do the wrong things, we would be all hunkered down in our houses and bunkers while gunshots and riots can be heard outside. Gamers do not get the urge to pick up a gun and shoot someone by playing a violent video game.

3. Entertainment
Video games, just like any other media exist only for one purpose. Entertainment. Violent video games are fun. They provide a way to have fun without getting up and doing something active. It provides a sense of immerses into a different world. Violence is fun for us humans (Unfortunately) and it shows. We like to watch violent tv shows rather then shows about making peace, we like to read books about wars, and people like to play violent video games. Most of the famous games have violence. I'll list these off for you.
COD
Battlefield
Zelda (Yes, there's combat)
Mario (Combat may just be jumping, but there's still combat)
Halo
Metroid
Super smash bros.
GTA
Saints Row
Metal Gear solid
Pokemon
Final Fantasy
Fire Emblem
etc.

If we were to ban violent video games, one of the most intriguing and fun mechanic in video games would be lost. Video games would wouldn't be much fun anymore and huge portions of the video game market would disappear, ultimately leading to the destruction of the video game business as a whole. Yes there are puzzle games that don't use combat. But there are so much more people who play games with combat, and they will be lost.
lannan13

Pro

Contention 1 and 2: Studies show they cause violence.

YouGov Effects of Games


YouGov Effects of Games
We can see by this chart above that people believe that these violent video games cause violence. (https://yougov.co.uk...)

Now you may ask me why does video games cause violence? The answer is simple. It's the media's effectiveness to market products and slogans to a younger audience causing them to practically do what the company wants them to do. Craig Anderson, Professor at Iowa St University lead a research of over 3,000 children and found that children who play violent video games for a short period of time during the week lead to permanent changes in the brain, causing them to become more violent towards other. (http://time.com...) They also found in a study in Singapore that when they did the same study with children between the ages of 8-17 that violence increases over a three year period. They hit, kick, and push a whole lot more. (http://www.foxnews.com...)

In a 2008 study of Grand Theft Childhood, they found that 60% of Middle Schoolers that beat up someone up played at least 1 M rated game compared to the 39% of kids who did not. (Grand Theft Childhood: The Surprising Truth about Violent Video Games and What Parents Can Do, Apr) According to an FBI study done in 2000, they found a link between violent video games and school shootings. (http://videogames.procon.org...)




Coincidence? I think not. How can we dwarf an entire continent in both game sales and homicide rates?

Contention 3: Entertainment

I will now give you a list of the top 10 selling video games of all time.

1. Tetris- 143 million coppies sold
2. Wii Sports- 82.54 million coppies sold.
3. Oregon Trail- 65 million
4. Minecraft- 54 million
5. Super Mario Bros. - 40 million coppies sold.
6. Mario Kart Wii- 35 million coppies sold
7. GTA5- 34 million coppies
8. Wii Sports Resort- 32 million
9. New Super Mario Bros- 30 million.
10. Wii Play- 28 million.

(http://en.wikipedia.org...) Now if we observe this list we can see that only 1 game from the top 10 All time best sellers is a violent video game showing that violence is actually as not as fun as my opponent makes it out to be. My opponent also states that we shouldn't ban violent video games, because they are fun, but that's like saying let's not ban crack because it's fun or like saying let's not ban rape, because, hey isn't that fun?

Debate Round No. 2
Hylian_3000

Con

I'm going attempt to rebut my opponents arguments the graph by YouGov is, first of all, from Britain. Secondly, that was a graph about opinions, it doesn't prove anything. Just like I stated earlier, more people are misinformed a about video games, since they don't play video games. You could probably go out and ask people what their favorite music is, and they would respond. However if you asked people what their favorite video game is, you'd get a couple no's, or "I heard that video games are bad for you." They heard, they don't know. Plus, your own graph says that more people agree that violent video games is a good outlet for getting out violent behavior.

According to this article (http://www.nydailynews.com...) banning video games would do little to avert the next mass murder. As it states in this article people who already have a violent attitude are attracted to violent content. They are already violent.

Also, it isn't the kids who buy these games, it's the parents. There are already restrictions on these games, one of which is that anyone under 18 cannot buy the game without a legal adult. If there really is a big uproar over this topic, why are there still parents who let their child buy these games. Plus, Pro cannot say they don't know their kids are buying it. The adult has to be present, as in actually there right next to their child, while the child is buying the game. It is not reasonable to ban a medium due to parents making poor and uneducated decisions. It's like saying ban R rated movies because they can scar kids for life. The parents are there, and they know what they are buying for their child. If anything, we should have polices for the store. If a parent is buying an M rated game for their child the store clerk should inform them that it isn't good for their underage child and they should suggest a different game. After all, if we banned violent video games, the people who play these games and know that they shouldn't do this in the real world would be feeling the punishment. One guy really ruins it for others, right?

You cannot compare violent video games to those major crimes. Those crimes are a detriment to society and drugs have scientific evidence that says that it is bad for you. There is no solid evidence supporting the fact that violent video games damage your brain. Plus, violent video games can bring people together. I play violent video games with my friends at my house, because they are fun. So do lots of other people. It's like going out to watching an action movie with your friends.

I cannot find the link between violent video games and violence and your source, if you could specify which page it's on that would be great.

Putting together your FBI paper statements leads me to believe that there's a strong link between shooters and the school. It says that a high level threat can be detected if the killer says something like "You ruined my life!!" This sounds like the shooter has had a bad history with school, or had a bad life all together. Nothing about violent video games.

Pro's graph shows that the U.S has more violent video games and shootings than Europe.. Well, according to this article (http://transatlantic-magazine.com...) the gun laws in Europe are way more tight than the US. Pro asks how we can dwarf a country in both violent video game sales and shootings? We dwarf them by allowing guns in the US. How do you shoot someone without guns?

I'm not trying to sound mean, but kids get in fights, a lot. Plus, a lot of middle schoolers play m rated games. It's inevitable that these kids will get into physical fights. According to this article (http://www.eurekalert.org...). Nearly all young teens play violent video games. So, let's say 8 out of 10 teen boys play violent video games. So let's say 100 teenager boys got into a physical fight. Doing the math says that 80 out of the 100 kids who fought play violent video games. The reason why more kids who play violent video games get into fights is because there are more kids who play violent video games. By my example I showed that if the majority of kids play violent video games there would be more of them getting into fist fights, think about it for a bit. This counters Pro's argument about violent video games causing kids to be more violent.
lannan13

Pro

My opponent tries do discard the evidence souly that it is from Britian so it doesn’t matter, but I would like to remind my opponent is not Resolved: Violent video games should be banned in the US. It’s Should violent video games be banned. So this graph is still evidence and you can’t just through away good evidence. Then he attempts to discredit it due to opinions, but the majority of gamers and violent video gamers all agree that it’s a major source of an outlet for anger. As the generations tend to age it was found that they agreed that it was a major source of violence as show in the following graphs. (https://yougov.co.uk...)

YouGov Generation Gap

YouGov Experience Gap 2


I never said that violent video games were the soul cause of mass murder. However they have a large part to do with it as Dr. Perry has shown through his studies that the leading cause for violence is that the public has become desenitized to violence through the media and predominately video games endorsing such violence which has led to a near nihilistic state. (http://teacher.scholastic.com...)

I know that the children do not buy the video games, but like I shown in the above argument from Dr. Perry, it has desenitized the public to the point that doesn't phase the parents where if you were to do the same thing in the 1950's they would lock you up in an insane aslymn for being such a trouble maker and doing such a thing. You also used to be able to bring your gun to school as you went hunting afterwards, but almost as soon as these games started to hit the market school shootings have increased and started poping up. In the study, Grand Theft Childhood there is noticable signs and increased aggression and more dangrous signs from those who are play M rated games to those who aren't.










The shooter doesn't always have to have something wrong with the school, it can be something simple




The shooter doesn't always have to have something wrong with the school, it can be something simple be some small thing that set's him off weather it's bullying or someone making a racist joke. There are many things that can trigger someone to snap.





Just because there is stricter guns laws means less crime. Look at Chicago, IL, they tout that the have the strictest gun laws in the US while they also have one of the highest crime rates due to it.

My opponent's last argument holds no water in this debate as it is only speculation and is merely peer pressure. If someone preasures you to smoke a blunt would you do it? Would that make it okay? No it wouldn't and that goes to show that my opponent's point here in null and void.
Debate Round No. 3
Hylian_3000

Con

If you remembered what I said, I stated that video games are still not a media that is accepted, unlike music. People who don't play video games have never had the experience of playing them, and are easily fooled by what news outlets and articles throw at them (ex: Video Games are bad for you, Video Games melt the brain, etc.) The video gamers should be a more reliable source since they have played video game and most of them know the effects. And they aren't totally biased either. You can see on Pro's graph a little under half of gamers say that violent video games do cause violence.

Pro's source says that we will see about 200,000 graphic TV by 18 years old, TV. Secondly, the article says that to decrease the amount of time that your kid plays video games, not just utterly ban it from your child. It even states that one of the reasons why we have a pretty high crime rate here in the US is because we have access to handguns. It states that it is a lot easier to commit a homicide now since you could just pull out a gun and shoot someone.

Pro also tries to counter my argument about stricter gun laws. He states that "having stricter gun laws doesn't mean less crime" I'd like to remind Pro that I was disproving his graph. The graph was comparing homicide by FIREARM, that means guns. I wasn't saying that Europe has less crime, I was saying they have less homicides by firearm because they have stricter gun laws.

Pro states that the shooter could have a simple motive to attack a school, and that a lot of things could cause a human to snap. So? Pro still can't prove that violent video games have a huge influence on school shootings.

Pro's graph is only for girls, if he could provide a graph showing both genders, that would be great.

Pro states that my last argument was "merely peer pressure", my question is, how? I'd like to remind Pro that I was disproving his argument about the percentage of kids who get into physical fights. Summarizing what I said, since there are more kids that play video games than there are that don't, there would be more kids who play violent video games that get into fights. Pro fails to explain why my argument is null and void, and therefore it still stands.

I'd like to bring up something new in this debate. Have any of you noticed that we keep talking about kids? Remember, the video gaming market is huge. M-rated games are designed for adults, so why haven't we talked about adults? Because they are more developed and they can resist influences from violent video games. I'm actually not against banning violent video games for kids under 18, I honestly don't play M-rated games. What I am against though, is banning violent video games all together. Kids have plenty of non M-rated games to play (ex: Mario, Zelda, Pokemon, Fire Emblem, Little Big Planet, Minecraft, Street Fighter, Forza Motorsport, etc.) Is it fair to ban violent video games all together just because kids under 18 (who shouldn't even be playing M-rated games) get a bit aggressive? No, it's not. Adults who can afford these games and the system to play it on probably have a good job. They also probably have more life experience and know that the things they are doing in these games are wrong in real life, and it's just virtual. Go ahead and ban violent video games for 18 year olds and under, just don't ban it for the people who are at the right age to play these games.
lannan13

Pro

According to a survay done by the Huffington Post, 97% of children have played some sort of video game in their life time. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...) I'm not sure about you, but that sounds lke a pretty large number to me and concidering that as the generations move on the numbers tend to increase as the younger generations are growing more and more liberal than conservative. As to respond to his last point, I redirect you to the total and overall of the study. This is what all age groups, sexes, gamers, and non gamers think combined. The graph is bellow and shows that 61% believe that they cause real world violence. Most of the reasons for this fighting is that the children/teens want to access their dominance over others and this was caused by the video games building up their confidence. This also works on their self-esteme and in turn can either lead to a build-up (children becoming big and fights are to be more violent and bloodier) or it could lead to a Bully Dominance relationship. To put it simply it's a social food change disruption and the violent video games makes people want to rise up and do something about it. (http://sensiblepsychology.com...)

YouGov Effects of Games

Yes I know that the source talks about TV, but the fact is that it states that the violence is due to the desenitation of violence in the media which can easily be seen in some video games like Grand Theft Auto. As for my opponent's statement on Gun Laws there is no corrilation. According to the FBI, they have found that as the number of Guns in the US increase the amount of Crime goes down. (http://criminalsforguncontrol.com...)


For the greatest example of violent video games being behind a school shooting is the famous Columbine School Shooting where both enjoyed playing the video game Doom, which had been previously used to train the US military to live with killing others in combat. To make it worse the two shooters make a video, for a class project, replicating Doom where Harris went around the school killing athletes. The very next year they acted it out before commencing the shooting. Even an investigator was quoted saying, "They were playing the game in God mode." (http://education-curriculum-reform-government-schools.org...)

Sorry I thought I posted both, but I guess it got delted somehow, anyways, here's the second chart.




We don't hear anything about adults, because they develope their abilty to reason and it becomes fully mature. The children and teens do not have this ability yet as I have shown and they are more likely to do things that aren't the best choices. I have already shown that the video games make them want to challenge the social pecking order and most of the times this occurs in Middle Schools and High Schools is by fights and if you win then your social status increases and the media does a horrific job of this by telling children that they must be this or that and the most popular kid at school in order to be liked and remember. The media has an important part in this and then the video games increase the children's agression levels and causes them to get into fights and in some cases, school shootings.


Debate Round No. 4
Hylian_3000

Con

I'm reverting back to my original argument about the graph being about opinions. We cannot trust the graph as a reliable source since these are measly opinions by gamers and non gamers. Most of them (if not all) do not know the science and studies about video games and violence. As I said before, people who do not play video games frequently (or a non-gamer you could call it) do not know the truth, they can easily believe things that the media throws at them. We cannot treat this as evidence since this is not a scientific study, just a survey, therefore this graph is irrelevant. So people in Britain think that violent video games cause aggression? Ok, that's fine, I'll take it. But, again, it is opinion and there is no scientific evidence supporting it.

We cannot assume that violent video games are the sole cause of the Bully Dominance relationship. Middle and high schoolers whose social structure is, or somewhat similar to the Bully Dominance relationship would already regularly get into fights if these social structure is already in place, violent video games would not make it change. According to this article (http://nobullying.com...) there are already lots of bullies in the US (unfortunately), what difference would violent video games make on an already dangerous and uncivilized social structure? More civilized social structures would usually not include fighting. Students who are part of these social structures won't get into fights as often, and they know what's right and what's wrong.

Pro's source is unreliable as it's from a site called "criminals for gun control", this is most likely a joke site, and/or an actual criminal website. We cannot take evidence from joke/criminal sites as they are usually not accurate with their facts. The site is actually asking that you let them kill people due to their profession being a criminal. Not a credible source by a long-shot. (Oh, and if it is a criminal site, someone better report it to the authorities.)

Pro's graph is also unreliable as the data is outdated and only goes up to 2002. According to this article ( http://www.washingtonpost.com...) new research suggests that right to carry laws result in an 8% increase to 33% increase in aggravated assault, robbery, and rape. Plus, there are lots of other studies saying that having more guns means more crime. However, there are also studies showing that having guns decrease crime rates. This shows that the research is still highly debated, and we do not know which one is right. Therefore, we cannot use this piece of evidence since we don't know if it's true or not. Also, Pro's data is outdated and therefore cannot be as trusted as my research.

Pro argues that the reason why the infamous columbine shootings happened is because the shooters have played Doom. Now, if any of you have played doom you know it's a unrealistic shooter, where you switch from the real world and Hell, killing demons. Demons, humans aren't usually being killed in-game. If anything it's a good guy vs evil guy story. Some guy goes and kills all the demons in the world, sounds like a hero, right?

According to this article (http://www.history.com...) there are a lot of different reasons why the shooters may have decided to shoot people in school. As you can see, video games aren't even mentioned once. One of the reasons caught my eye however. The article says that one of the shooters was a depressant. Doesn't sound like someone who was mentally stable at the time. Plus, a lot of teens every day claim their own lives due to depression, this is actually a very reasonable reason. It wouldn't be abnormal for a depressed kid to go and kill others, while committing suicide. Violent video games would have not have made a difference. The kid was depressed, he wanted to commit suicide, he decided to make others suffer his pain and go down with him.

Pro agrees with me on the fact that adults can resist influences from violent video games. I ask again, why ban violent video games for everybody? Pro even agrees that adults can resist the influences, and therefore do not get affected by violent video games. As I stated before, I wouldn't mind having very strict laws or a ban for M-rated games being sold to kids, just don't take it away from the responsible, mature adults.

Pro's last argument states that kids, in order to get a higher social rank, must beat up or fight a higher level kid. And that is not true, some, but not all schools have social structures like this. Lots of other schools have a more civilized social structure, and do not partake in fighting for a social status. This social structure is the absolute extreme, where the strongest rule over the weaker. Sounds like a dictatorship to me. This media can't convey unintended messages to civilized kids who are in these better social structure. Only for those who do partake in the social structure, which in that case they are already aggressive and violent video games won't do anything to those kids.

In conclusion, violent video games should not be banned for the following reasons:
All "scientific" studies and evidence is not confirmed and therefore cannot be trusted.
Most surveys include opinions, which cannot be regarded as evidence in this debate.
Violent video games do not have confirmed effects on a child due to the first 2 reasons.
Violent video games can be used as a way to get rid of aggression.
Violent video games can be a way for kids to get together and have fun.
Pro's sources have been discredited and therefore is not relevant to this debate.
Violent video games is a media, just like TV, books, and music. So why should they get banned?
There are violent versions of other media that do not get the attention violent video games get.
Violent video games do not have effects on adults, so the adults can play them for fun. Why ban it for everyone if some age groups don't get affected,
All school shootings mentioned in this debate was committed by a culprit in poor mental condition.
Violent video games are fun, just like how we find violent TV and books entertaining,
Banning violent video games would have a huge negative impact on the video game market.
They do not increase the crime rate in America, since there are so many other factors to choose from.

Thank your for the awesome debate Pro, I trust that the voters will vote for the right man.

Once again, thank you Pro, and thank you voters.

Vote Con!
lannan13

Pro

I’d like to thank my opponent for this great debate and I shall post a political cartoon to lighten the mood.



Now on to the debate. My opponent is trying to throw the graph out, because it appears glitchy and doesn’t synchronize up to par, but the fact is that you cannot just discard evidence. Many people believe this and we will also get into the scientific studies and such behind this to show that popular belief, even if they’re British, is still relivant. One of the key parts of violence is an increase in aggression and my opponent has dropped all of my studies that were indeed scientific that showed that violent video games do indeed cause an increase in aggression long term for children. Since my opponent loves scientific evidence that is up to date, a study done by the American Academy of Pediatrics and resulted that, “playing violent video games has been found to account for a 13% to 22% increase in adolescents’ violent behavior; by comparison, smoking tobacco accounts for 14% of the increase in lung cancer.” (http://www.psychologytoday.com...) Also the study was done in 2009. Which leads me into the second argument.

Now I know that there are tons of bullies in high schools that get into fights, but it encourages children who are tired of the Social Structure to go out there and launch an attack against other members. Like the Columbine School shooters. They targeted the popular people in their high school and killed them. Though most cases are simply fights, violent video games cause a great amount of violence weather it’s via death or by getting punched in the face. Like I had stated last round, the video games increases aggression and this causes the motivation to go out and do something to get recognition. On a much much larger scale World War 1 was caused by this case of strong nationalism and eventually lead to the War. This can be applied on the smallest scale of a Middle School fight where the challenger is aggressive due to video games and is tired of something weather it would be social status or another student a fight would breakout. Depending on the defender’s reaction could determine weather or not it’s a social status change or a Bully Dominance relationship.

According to a study done by Harvard called, “Would banning Reduce Murder and Suicide?” they have found that it doesn’t. Russia, which has banned handguns, has a murder rate of 30.6%. Norway, which has the highest number of household gun ownership at 32% of all Norweigen families own it, but it also has the lowest murder rates in all of Europe. Finland has 39,000 gun ownership per 100,000 households and has a murder rate of 1.98 per 100,000. In the US, where guns are nearly idolized, or murder rate is 7%. Now tell me, if what Con is saying is true then shouldn’t the Russian Crime rate be the lowest in the world? (http://www.breitbart.com...)

According to MA Mary Sojourner, she has found that violent video games can cause, depression, anxiety, and Social phobia. (http://www.psychologytoday.com...) So here we can see that if one of the causes was depression we can see that these video games cause depression. It was evident that Doom was behind it as they did a realistic class project where they went around the school and shot the popular people at the school. They did it for real the next year. There is an obvious connection here. Though Doom may be a good vs. evil game it is still violent. That’s like saying Silence of the Lambs doesn’t cause nightmares.


My opponent states why do we have to ban it for adults and the answer is simple, the debate is that violent video games should be banned, but it doesn't say what kinda ban, so it could be just a children's ban much like the current laws on alcoloh.


Thank you and please vote Con.

Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
*Sigh* Why all the vote bombs these days?
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
I did report mine. They take away the fun of the debate and just make it terrible.
Posted by Hylian_3000 1 year ago
Hylian_3000
I usually report all vote bombs (both for Pro AND Con) I hate vote bombs too, they aren't fair.
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
I hate vote bombs, if I win I want to do it clean, I don't need people vote bombing me.
Posted by BLAHthedebator 2 years ago
BLAHthedebator
I debated this on a slightly different way (opponent forfeited however).

http://www.debate.org...
Posted by Hylian_3000 2 years ago
Hylian_3000
It's ok, take your time, if you want an extra round to think, just tell me
Posted by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
I should continue on this debate later tonight. I apologize for taking so long.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by BLAHthedebator 1 year ago
BLAHthedebator
Hylian_3000lannan13Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro effectively uses charts and studies to back up his arguments, but con only makes generalizations and takes some numbers out of nowhere (see round three).
Vote Placed by kasmic 1 year ago
kasmic
Hylian_3000lannan13Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Interesting debate. Overall I felt Pro was much more convincing. For example con said "If we were to ban violent video games, one of the most intriguing and fun mechanic in video games would be lost." To which Pro showed that only one of the top ten played games ever had violence. as well as stated that cons statement is"like saying let's not ban crack because it's fun or like saying let's not ban rape, because, hey isn't that fun?" Likewise Pro had several sources compared to Con. I am largely convinced as Pro stated that "you cannot just discard evidence. Many people believe this and we will also get into the scientific studies and such behind this to show that popular belief, even if they're British, is still relevant." Sources seemed to me to support Pro case, as such his argument was much more convincing to me. Ergo I vote Pro.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 1 year ago
Blade-of-Truth
Hylian_3000lannan13Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Both had proper conduct throughout the debate. S&G - Tie. I saw no major spelling or grammar errors. Arguments - Con. Pro relied heavily on graphs to show that video games cause violence, the problem with this is that if Con can show faults with those graphs pro has nothing else to fall back on. This was how the debate progressed, pro presented graph, con showed faults with graph. What I found most compelling is that some of these graphs and studies really reflect what Con pointed out - that there is no significant trends. It differs for each country. Con showed that and also brought up the strong point about how this ban would include adults which is completely unjustified, Pro even conceded that point. Due to Con showing the continuous faults in Pro's arguments, it kept Pro from maintaining his BOP and thus Con wins arguments. There is no direct causation, only correlation and even then it varies. Sources - Con. Pro presented some biased and even joke-based studies.
Vote Placed by Nevearo 1 year ago
Nevearo
Hylian_3000lannan13Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a tough one. First of all, I agree, and still do, with Con. That may have biased me a little. I hope not. Conduct: It seemed to me that Con rebutted Pro's graph on the basis that it was an opinion, but Pro seemed to choose to ignore that. It seemed to me Pro would tap dance a little to avoid directly addressing Con's position. Both were polite and professional to each other. This was a very tough call between tied and con, but ultimately I give it to con. Spelling and Grammar: I did not find any major problems with either. Convincing Arguments: Pro provided a convincing argument about a ban for children. I personally question as to why kids that play M rated video games have a higher rate than average of being assaulted by weapons, but kids that don't have a lower than average rate. Do violent games encourage knife fighting? I'd love to see the source of the study. Reliable Sources: Pro's first 2 sources were the same study. He also used a joke site as a source.