The Instigator
kevin1110
Con (against)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
ArtTheWino
Pro (for)
Winning
20 Points

Should we ban or restrict the use of violent video games?

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 6 votes the winner is...
ArtTheWino
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/3/2010 Category: Technology
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 11,255 times Debate No: 12468
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (6)

 

kevin1110

Con

violent video games should not be banned because you have to let out your stress, violent games is enjoyable games for boys.
ArtTheWino

Pro

As the old adage goes, "Monkey see, monkey do." It is because violent video games promote an atmosphere of consequence-free immorality while simultaneously attributing this atmosphere onto an easily emulative character that I must agree that we should ban or restrict the use of violent video games.

Contention 1: Media figures have traditionally been role models for children and adolescents and the medium of choice, currently, is the video game.
Growing up in the 70s, many children clung to such iconic movie stars as Luke Skywalker and Han Solo - rightly so, considering the Star Wars franchise' vice grip on marketing during the latter half of the decade. In the 80s, it was Indiana Jones (ironically the same actor) and most Matthew Broderick films that commanded attention from the nation's youth. Memorabilia from these decades are still popular as keepsakes to adults.
Today, however, children cling to different role models. They are characters such as Niko Belakov from the famed Grand Theft Auto series. He is a foul-mouthed, murderous felon that requires the player to commit horrible atrocities and then evade local law enforcement; in fact, that is the purpose of the game. Instead of clinging to straight-pathed heroes such as Indie, children have characters such as Niko.

Contention 2: A link is present.
Many television programs fail to depict the harmful consequences of violence. According to the Television Violence Monitoring Project, of all violent behavioral interactions on television, 58 percent depict no pain, 47 percent depict no harm, and 40 percent depict harm unrealistically. Of all violent scenes on television, 86 percent feature no blood or gore. Only 16 percent of violent programs feature the long-term, realistic consequences of violence. Furthermore, there is now solid evidence to suggest a relationship between exposure to violent television and movies and aggressive behavior, based on that same project. Researchers have found that children are more physically and verbally aggressive immediately after watching violent television and movies. It is also clear that aggressive children and teens watch more violent television than their less aggressive peers. A few studies have found that exposure to television and movie violence in childhood is related to increased aggression years later, but further research is needed in this area.

Contention 3: The trend is continuing.
According to the publication Fair Play: Violence, Gender, and Race in Video Games, by the Children's Play assocation, 89% of the 70 top-selling games in 2001 contained some kind of violence. Almost half of all games (49%) contained serious violence, while 40% contained comic violence. In 41% of the games, violence was necessary for the protagonists to achieve their goals. In 17% of the games, violence was the primary focus of the game itself. The impact of the widespread use of violent video games is a cause of concern for researchers, because they fear that the interactive nature of video games may increase the likelihood of children learning aggressive behavior and that the increasing realism might encourage greater identification with characters and more imitation of the behaviors of video game models.

At a young age, children are sponges. Let us allow them to soak up information that will lead to a better society, not one worse than the one we have now. Vote the logical and progressive approach; vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 1
kevin1110

Con

"Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned Written by: Nick Lilleyman Humanity has had many scapegoats for violent acts during all it's ages, as long as there is something a person doesn't like people will always find a source to blame. Video games have been under a lot of scrutiny over the last few years. Many people believe that they have harmful side effects, and that teenagers should not be allowed to play them. The effects of violence in the games are questionable; however, the effects of parenting are obvious. Likewise with all people, race, shape, or form, there are only a selected few who will actually commit severe act of violence. Their violence cannot be based on a primary source such as ... "
Violence in you video games can make people feel more aggressive but, isn't it better to express anger virtually in a video game, where nobody is getting hurt than to express anger by knocking someone off with an angry punch? Video games bring many benefits such as increasing self-esteem and encouraging teamwork, therefore they should not be banned.
When kids play a video games which supports multi player, they have to work as a team. By working as a team, kids learn to help each other when they are in need. Beating a video game can be a very difficult task that requires lots of concentration, practice and skill. To beat the video game one must practice to succeed which, like teamwork, is another lesson that will be useful thought life. When a kid beats a video game they will feel like they have accomplished their goal. Feeling good about themselves will increase their self-esteem. Video games not only encourage team work and increase self-esteem, they also reduce pain and benefit the economy.

Games aren't to blame, and I find it incredibly petty that Gaming seems to invariably be the cause of all things wrong in the world. I'm not saying that some people aren't effected by these things, but such people I would also expect to have intelligence and common sense rivaling that of, say, an amoeba.

There is nothing wrong with violent games; at the end of the day, if anything bad happens, it is the fault of the people who play them for allowing it to influence them, and it is the fault of the parents who were so inept as to be unable to teach their child to distinguish between reality and fantasy, and things that you shouldn't do in a real-life environment.

Arguably all the censorship is HARMFUL, given that it means context is taken away, and people may be introduced to it later when they didn't have the chance to learn earlier the differences. Not to mention it is merely hiding (and even nurturing) the lax parenting and other social dysfunctions that go into things happening.

Not to mention it prevents people with half a brain experiencing the game for all the designers intended it to be.

Also, some people clearly don't know that children of parents who were fat during birth are genetically predisposed to gain weight even with a perfectly healthy diet and exercise regiment; yet another reason that particular side is the fault of parents, albeit in a different way
Bottom line
I've clearly won the debate.
ArtTheWino

Pro

To begin with, I would like to point out that my opponent has not attacked anything from my case.

Aggression
Anger is an healthy emotion; it is neither good or bad. However, according to the Socyberty community, which specializes in self-help information, the association between what triggers anger and the anger itself is the dangerous part. Video games form the association that, in some instances, trivial happenings cause murderous responses. Since my opponent did not attack my first and second points which prove media figures to be emulative, it can be agreed that children are learning to associate the wrong triggers with anger.
Furthermore, it has been suggested that "letting anger out" through violent means, such as video games, actually increases the aggression felt after. According to the American Psychology Association, recent studies show cartharsis, or using such violent means, fuels hostility rather than lessens it. This, combined with the negative link created by video games, means that children are becoming more aggressive to less important triggers. This is definitely not a positive trend.

Teamwork
I agree: certain video games promote teamwork.

Parents are the Problem
Steven Levitt is an economist at the University of Chicago. In his book, Freakonomics, he shows the relatively menial contribution a parent's actions have on their child. Rather, it is the parent's character that is more telling. Levitt claims that a child's genes are the fundamental cause of who they are going to be, with the other facets of life taking pretty equal chunks into the development of the child. Unfortunately, this includes media exposure. If we are to blame parental inaction, we must also blame video games, as they are equally important.
If we were to remove violent video games, however, we would prevent those negative correlations spoken about in the previous section from forming altogether. This is a much more direct route, and a route which does not rely on outstanding variables.

Censorship
The US Supreme Court's stance on censorship of any right has always been that individual liberties are not to be limited unless they are harming each other. Unfortunately, this is one such case. Thus, censorship (in this case) is warranted.

Weight
This point actually helps my cause that it is the parent's character and not their actions that count.

We must take the progressive step that leads toward a better society, not one which glorifies murder.
Debate Round No. 2
kevin1110

Con

I likeed to thank my oppenent for telling me that i haven't attack from your case.
when my opponent said about " censorship" which tells people to protest about violate video games.
They should blame the parents not the censoring violating video games because the violate video games doesn't tell people to kill people. If they ban the violate video games, alot of customer will not goto video games store and buy them. Ask yourself this question: If government trying to banned the violates video games then why didn't they make violate video games before?

This is the future if the violates are banned
If they violates video games now then so many people will comeout and protest. Then Government is only making a 5 millions new enemy. The U.S. will become decalration war zone. The u.s is helping other countries too but think about what the government are showing to them.
The violating video games only cause children not an adult. That's a parents fault not an video games who make them.

First of all, I'm tired of hearing kid under age breaking laws and video game companys taking the blame for it. If the kids can't tell the difference between reality and virtual reality then they don't need to be playing those games. Their parents should pay more attention to their kids and some games are rated by age group because your suppose to be at least a certain age to play that game. They shouldn't let their kids play the games that they are not old enough for.

This study concluded that not only do gamers quickly turn to suicide, but video games also impair school performance. And that was only one case, recently, a 14 year old boy HUNG himself after his Runescape account was canceled, another 12 year old boy jumped out of his apartment building to his death after World of Warcraft was taken away from him for a week. All these cases are undeniable proof that we cannot allow violate video games to exist any longer. So please, spare us of one more violates video game related death and ban video games, for good."

It isn't the video game's fault that people commit these crimes and such. It is the individual's fault for not having common sense! I'm not going to deny that people do kill themselves over these games, however, if these people are stupid enough to commit such acts, then they are probably better off dead because it would be less stupid people in the world and also it would reduce population. This world is over-populated anyways.

I just want point out that adult doesn't do the committed these crimes and such. ( only retarded people do that).
otherwise its childrens fault. not the video games company.

Video Games can be used to help stress. For example, if I was mad at my dad for yelling at me for stupid reasons, Instead of trying to hurt him or kill him, I could just play video games to calm me down. In situations like that, Video Games would save lives and prevent people from turning into criminals or possibly murderers.
"At one time, our society embraced heroine as a legal substance, and Cock fighting as a chivalrous sport. Violent Video Games are vile! They depict prostitution, gang violence, mass murder, and law breading in a good light, and in consequence our youth of america follows the lead of the game. No matter how profitable the industry may be, it will always be one of the leading causes of teenage suicide. And how can any company be good for the world with that on its shoulders? How can it be? Before the video game industry, the capital produced by all the combined book publishers, and book manufacturing companies equaled that of our current video game industry. The source for that is the science group Nova. Thats all I have to say for the matter now. But look into your heart, save future deaths from occurring, and vote PRO!"
-Bottom line-

I clearly won the debate.
ArtTheWino

Pro

There are two reasons why Round 3 belongs to the Pro:

1. All of the examples my opponent gave actually support my side.
To attribute murderous and otherwise felonious activity to parents is simply ludicrous. The parents are not murderers (usually), the children are. The suicides and homicides my opponent talked about are due to the lack of reason in the video game industry. Let us use Occam's Razor when viewing these examples: is it due to the direct influence of video games or the potential indirect influence of parents. Clearly, the simpler choice is the former.

2. My opponent agreed that certain censorship is a good thing.
"...some games are rated by age group because your suppose to br at least a certain age to play that game."

Because my original argument has yet to be attacked, and because my opponent's arguments are fraught with holes, vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
kevin1110

Con

My opponent still doesn't think I attacked him.

Again, It isn't the video game's fault that people commit these crimes and such. It is the individual's fault for not having common sense!

Video Games can be used to help stress. For example, if I was mad at my dad for yelling at me for stupid reasons, Instead of trying to hurt him or kill him, I could just play video games to calm me down. In situations like that, Video Games would save lives and prevent people from turning into criminals or possibly murderers.
Even if video games are responsible for these suicides, if these people didn't "die from playing violent video games" then they probably would of died of other things like car crashes, cancer, heart attack, etc... If you ban video games you might as well ban vehicles. There are a lot of things that are responsible for deaths and suicides other than video games. A lot of people get depressed because of their boyfriend/girlfriend broke up with them and/or cheated on them and that depression leads to suicide. Video Games helps depression because it takes your mind off of them. Sports can also help you to relieve stress and depression however, sports are more dangerious than video games. If you ban video games then you would have to ban wrestleing. Wrestleing is more violent then violent video games because wrestleing is real and video games are virtual. In virtual reality no real people gets hurt. If you are playing just about any sport, there is a higher chance you can get hurt or possibly killed.

"children who play violent video games have increased aggression, violent video games stimulate the dopamine receptors in the brain which cause children to actually become addicted to the game as one would become addicted to heroine or methamphetamine, and since violent video games are more engaging and interactive than other games they are almost twice as addictive. Another doctor from the APA Doctor Anderson determined that violent video games do increase violent feelings in young children, and even in adults. The same study also concluded that violent video games make children more impulsive and therefore more prone to act rashly and jump off a building because of video game withdrawal. Because video games are addicting, you cannot put all the fault on the individual. Some video game manufacturers like Blizzard intentionally manufacture video games to be addictive so they will sell more subscriptions and so people will buy expansion packs. So the whole story is, video games can hurt anybody, not just what my opponent so flippantly calls "stupid people". The psychological and emotional scarring these violent video games have on children can effect even the most outstanding student, and that is why we as responsible American citizens should ban video games. For the sake of our children, and the future generations of our society. For who knows how many future doctors or politicians may have been killed by the emotional scarring effects of violent video games. Its just sickening..."

Everyone likes to blame the video games and the game companies when really it's the children's fault for being irresponsible and/or the parent's fault for not . Violet video games aren't really meant to promote violents in real life. It is meant to take your anger out on virtual people rather than real people. In the game you can do things that you can't do in real life. Society has been pretty bad in america recently and some people want to get away from it for a little while.

2,000 deaths a year isn't that bad considering there are over 6 billion people on this planet and there are a lot of things out there that are way worse like smoking, drinking and driving, misuse of weapons, etc... There are nearly 5 million deaths a year from smoking. http://www.quitsmokingsupport.com......

If you think about it, Violent video games are nothing compared to cigarettes, drugs, etc... We should focus less on banning video games and more on banning cigarettes, beer, etc...

"On a side note, my opponent was saying that is somehow good that victims of violent video games were meeting a pre-mature demise because they were somehow "stupid". I have already proven that this is not true and the psychological effects of video games extend from the developmentally delayed to our present day Einsteins but just to entertain the idea. You are saying that murder on the part of the video game industry is somehow justified, that these people "are probably better off dead" because they enjoyed playing a violent video game, and that violent video games serve as some kind of a cleanser of the worlds idiots. The boy from Moscow I talked about earlier was getting average, if not above average grades in school before he first got a violent video game. But when he started playing more and more, his grades went from a A to a B slowly down to D's and F's. Perhaps the "stupid people" you talk of were made stupid by the video game. It certainly makes sense from the evidence shown by the American Psychological association. Think on that for a while... Violent video games, making the youth of the world, imbeciles."

There are educational violent video games. For example, in Resident Evil 5, the game teaches you how to work with your partner to solve puzzles and everything. It teaches you that teamwork is good! In Saints Row 2, there are side missions where you can play as a cop and it teaches you sort of what it is like to be a cop and you can also play as somewhat, a doctor and it somewhat shows you what it is like to be one. You can do good things on some violent video games like Fable. In that game you have a choice of being good or evil. On games like that, it depends on the person. He can make the game play very violent or he could make it as least violent as possible. What I am trying to say is that it isn't the games fault, it's the person playing the game's fault. It was their choice. The game or the game company didn't force them to make those decisions or to play the game for that matter.

Even if we do ban video games, people are still going to try to find ways to play the ones that have already came out and banning them is just going to make people learn how to be more sneaky and then they will try to steal things and maybe even become murderers because if they can sneak by with video games and drugs, they will get the impression that they might be able to get away with anything.

Again, I would like to thank my opponent for challenging me and I would also like to say that this was a very good debate. Please vote CON so we may have our rights to play these video games so people will only be virtual criminals and prevent them from becoming real life criminals!

----Bottom line again-----
Again it isn't the video game's fault that people commit these crimes and such. It is the individual's fault for not having common sense! I'm not going to deny that people do kill themselves over these games, however, if these people are stupid enough to commit such acts, then they are probably better off dead because it would be less stupid people in the world and also it would reduce population. This world is over-populated anyways.

"How dare you! Just because society has learned to embrace something that does not, in any way, mean that it is good!"

It doesn't AUTOMATICALLY mean it is bad either. At least we would give someone or something a chance. You never know if it is good or bad until you have given it a chance. For examples, Humans eat food. If we didn't give food a chance, we would probably starve to death.
SO VOTE FOR CON!!!!!!
ArtTheWino

Pro

My opponent has supplied more examples than I possibly could have for the Pro side. Because my opponent, by and large, agrees with the Pro side, there can be no other vote than a Pro vote.
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
The studies that show that violent media promote aggressiveness measure effects immediately after viewing. (One might suppose that looking a car races or palying racing games also promotes reckless driving - for a short time.) Studies of long term effects, however, show nothing. Moreover, there is a very significant counterexample: Japan is famous for violent media and games, yet remains one of the least violent societies.

Sorry I didn't see this debate in time to vote; it would have been Con.
Posted by kevin1110 6 years ago
kevin1110
umm...tbtaylor you really his the right person to vote for?
umm ok . you are really not honest.
Posted by kevin1110 6 years ago
kevin1110
Evilconservative he has right to comment here.
Posted by kevin1110 6 years ago
kevin1110
supplying example isn't bad. There is abundant people who are actually going to protest. People who already got addicted, people who are love to play violence video games. How are you going to prevent from protestor? are you just going to kill and harm them? so you 're going to send message to government to get rid of protestor. There is number people that You can't even count.
Posted by ArtTheWino 6 years ago
ArtTheWino
Kevin, yes I did. In order for me to give you points, you would first have had to argue your own side of the debate.

Evilconservative, it's not your opinion that counts here. It's who you think debated better, not debated your side.
Posted by evilconservative 6 years ago
evilconservative
The reason we shouldn't ban or regulate violent video games is simple, we have no right to. Any regulatory action taken against the video game industry would be yet another example of the unconstitutional government takeover of the private sector of life. Violent video games are not directly related in any way to a violent action. There is a possibility of violent tendencies taken by individuals who choose to partake in violent video games, but the game itself is not a justification or a catalyst of the act. A distinction between reality and the world that is created in the video games is clear to most people, but several people with chemical imbalances may not be able to make this distinction. However, people with chemical imbalances are also more likely to commit violent crimes, anything could be a trigger for these crimes, including violent video games, and trying to remove all of them will be an impossibility, and an extreme overreach of government authority.
Posted by kevin1110 6 years ago
kevin1110
it was humorous that you gave yourself all of the points.
Do you Really Think You had a reliable source?
And U made more Convincing arguments?
Wow
That's not an honest vote.
Posted by frenchmoosetwo 6 years ago
frenchmoosetwo
i herd tat if juu plai 2 muhc gaers of war tou yu strt cerb stumping pepls intou da dert
Posted by kevin1110 6 years ago
kevin1110
I have no idea what i am talking about. im retarded
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by tbtaylor 6 years ago
tbtaylor
kevin1110ArtTheWinoTied
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 
Vote Placed by Thade 6 years ago
Thade
kevin1110ArtTheWinoTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Pyromaniac 6 years ago
Pyromaniac
kevin1110ArtTheWinoTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by evilconservative 6 years ago
evilconservative
kevin1110ArtTheWinoTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Vote Placed by kevin1110 6 years ago
kevin1110
kevin1110ArtTheWinoTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by ArtTheWino 6 years ago
ArtTheWino
kevin1110ArtTheWinoTied
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