The Instigator
Zennie5000
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
CorpulentBatman
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

Sould children be able to play rated M?Pegi 18 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 4 votes the winner is...
CorpulentBatman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/19/2014 Category: Games
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 701 times Debate No: 59203
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

Zennie5000

Pro

Kids should be able to play rated M games as long as the child's parents are consented and know that he/she is playing the game. The law is not that they can't play it. it is that they cannot purchase it.
CorpulentBatman

Con

While it is the choice of the parents whether or not they let children play mature games, in most cases games are rated "M" because they have some form of graphic violence, alcohol use, drug use, and strong language. While in most cases children don't mimic the violence part of games, the language and usage could turn their life path in a bad direction. I don't think that if cops find out a kid is playing an "M" rated game that they or the parents should be arrested, but perhaps some form of punishment would be necessary such as a small fine. This would at least deter parents from allowing children to play these games. While I'm not against video games, I do think that they can have a lasting effect on a developing child's mind which could lead to some bad decisions later on in life. Games designed specifically for kids challenge their minds and get them to complete puzzles and such to increase their problem-solving skills and cognitive development. In conclusion, while I do not think it should not be considered a federal offense, some form of punishment towards the parents would cause them to think twice about letting their children see usage and to hear graphic language.
Debate Round No. 1
Zennie5000

Pro

The debate is not about whether or not the children will be harmed, it is about if the parents should purchase the game for the kids. By using your criteria the children should be playing chess and using multiplication flash cards all day.
Also, some children are more mature than their age really shows. A child could be 16 but have that maturity of a 20 year old. In this case, would the parents get fined.
Currently it is not illegal for a child to play a rated M game but to purchase one.
CorpulentBatman

Con

I do agree that parents have the right to choose what a child sees in most instances. But it is illegal for parents to buy things intended for adults for their children(like alcohol and tobacco). If the game is intended for adults could you not say that it is wrong for parents to buy this type of stuff for their kids? Also, I agree that chess and flash cards do help to increase the critical thinking skills of children, there are many E, E10+, and T games that enhance problem solving skills.(Puzzle games like Portal, Little Big Planet, and even Minecraft causes kids to think creatively.) You also say that some children are more mature, but the majority of the kids that age are just that: kids. The needs of the many out way the needs of the few. (And I doubt you could get out of a charge of underage drinking by telling the officer "Yeah, but, like I'm reeaally mature for my age")
Debate Round No. 2
Zennie5000

Pro

First of all, there are states that allow parents to buy alcohol or an under-aged drinker. The policy that you are following is fining parents for doing things that you deem are wrong. One question, who should we go to or rating how appropriate a game is, the government or your parents? There are rated M games that hold educational value. In a game called Saints Row 3, you are tasked to decide between blowing up a building and not having to pay taxes, or keep the building and base a militia out of it. This is critical thinking at it's finest. And the needs of the many do not outweigh the needs of the few. The minorities are always protected in US law.
CorpulentBatman

Con

There are some states, mostly only in private areas. The only states where you can drink alcohol on premises are Connecticut, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nevada, Ohio, Texas, Wisconsin, Wyoming. Also, I don't deem them wrong, just not necessarily something that a child should see. I don't think that the charges for it should be equivalent to murder or anything, but something to try and get parents to try and look at finding a different game. "One question, who should we go to [f]or rating how appropriate a game is, the government or your parents?" The ESRB said "The Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) ratings provide concise and objective information about the content in video games and apps so consumers, especially parents, can make informed choices."(http://www.esrb.org...) I wasn't saying the government is controlling what we can and can't see (which with the whole NSA scandal, I guess they are) in video games, but rather that they are giving us the tools to make an informed decision on whether or not we should buy those games for children.

I would also like to compliment you on your points as they were all well said and raised good questions. You really made me think. This was my first debate, and I like to think that it went well. My regards, CorpulentBatman
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Cooldudebro 2 years ago
Cooldudebro
Zennie5000CorpulentBatmanTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: After reading this (short) debate. I am really disappointed by pro. He didn't use any sources, his arguments wee not supported. Both debaters did not do well. I definitely think it could've been argued better, that is why I ask con to challenge me to this debate. Conduct tied. S/G is obviously con. Sources go to con, since he was the only one to touch a source. Overall, neither convinced me that their side was correct. Con didn't back up his argument that kids would be harmed emotionally by games with sources. Overall, it's a 0-3 victory by con!
Vote Placed by QandA 2 years ago
QandA
Zennie5000CorpulentBatmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con used a source and effectively rebutted all of Pro's arguments while Pro often veered off from the actual title and failed to back up arguments with any source
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
Zennie5000CorpulentBatmanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con showed M games harmful, Pro got mad and tried to change the debate.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
Zennie5000CorpulentBatmanTied
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: con was only one to give sources and effectively rebutted pro's arguments.