The content of Video Games
Debate Rounds (4)
Not only that, if video games did cause teens to be violent then we would see a much higher crime rate. According to http://www.pbs.org...
According to federal crime statistics, the rate of juvenile violent crime in the United States is at a 30-year low.
Not only that, but a 2001 U.S. Surgeon General's report, the strongest risk factors for school shootings centered on mental stability and the quality of home life, not media exposure.
If you just take a look at the topic, it will be clear that violent games do not invoke violence in teens.
Psychologists have shown that youngsters spend a significant amount of their spare time playing video games, boys more so than girls. While not all video games contain violence, the most popular ones do. More importantly, playing violent video games has been linked to having aggressive thoughts (http://www.apa.org...).
In my opinion, having aggressive thoughts is, for a teenage, the first step toward becoming violent in action.
Since violent media games lead to aggressive thoughts and aggressive thoughts may lead to violent action, by the rule of transitivity, for sure violent media games contributes to teenage violence. There is no doubt about it.
Another pointer is that video games do not necessarily invoke aggressive thoughts. There are many other factors that would be much more effective such as bullying, abuse, illegal activities, etc. If a teen does happen to have aggressive thoughts, we wouldn't know whether the cause of that would be video games.
I will go back to my first example, in the past, teens have lived much more dangerous and violent lives than we do now. Even today, some countries are constantly torn apart by the terrors of war. Do you think the teens there like violence? And do you think if they played violent video games, they would like it?
From a logic standpoint, to prove you wrong, all I need to do is to cite one example of crossover. Such an example is not hard to find: e.g. the Columbine High School Massacre that took place in 1999. In this event, 2 teenagers, after a long period of planning, finally walked through the school hallways one day and killed over a dozen schoolmates before killing themselves. They were known to be gamers and, in the afternoons, they used to played the game DOOM, a first person shooter game that not only pioneered immersive 3D graphics and networked multiplayer gaming but also engaged in graphic and interactive violence. The two killers did not come from broken homes. They experienced a normal amount of bullying, both receiving and providing. The only constant source of mental images of violence came from the virtual world of DOOM. Eventually, through mutual encouragement and collaboration, they decided to put in action a violent way to die for themselves and for some of their schoolmates. They crossed over.
I am not saying all gamers will cross over. I am saying we can not afford to have even a single person crossed over because of the potential devastation. When we experienced an event such as Columbine's, we drew the conclusion that violent video games do contribute to teen violence in real life.
Not only are there multiple factors there is a perception of schools that is wrong. According to Dr. Lawrence Kutner (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...) the violence in schools has gone down a lot. But there is much more coverage of schools which causes people to think that school are more dangerous.
If you take a look at the game, DOOM, it is much less gory and violent compared to games such as Gears of War, or Call of Duty. Yet, violence has gone down, this proves the non affecting effects of video games.
Just because there is no direct evidence does not mean it is not the case as I postulated. We are actually quite used to believing things without direct evidence - most religious beliefs fall into this category. Another similar example: when one plays Sudoku, sometimes there is no obvious hint what number one should put down in a cell, but by indirect deduction, we reach the conclusion that there are no other possibilities but to put down a certain number. I believe that violent video gaming contributed to the Columbine incidence because no other possible causes made profound sense to me. The two teenagers engaged in playing Doom constantly. This couldn't have been a good thing. Yes, there might have been other contributing factors. But who is to say that the violence they practice in their virtual world did not become the "last straw on the back of the camel" and played into their final act?
One day when you have kids of your own, you might have second thoughts of allowing them unrestricted access to violent video games. Don't you agree?
While your claim that no direct evidence is needed to say that the cause of violence was video games (in the case of Columbine), you ask "who is to say that the violence they practice in their virtual world did not become the "last straw on the back of the camel" and played into their final act?" That statement is a double edged sword. Who is to say that the video games didn't play a final role in their final act?
As to when I have my own kids, I would have second thoughts on letting them unrestricted access to violent video games but these second thought would be reinforced by guidelines and restrictions.
According to the free on-line dictionary, to demoralize means:
1. To undermine the confidence or morale of; dishearten.
2. To put into disorder; confuse.
3. To debase the morals of; corrupt.
There was a time when people trusted each other more. We did not lock doors like we do now, our children freely played in the yard and with other kids in the neighborhood, citizens could walk into government buildings without going through security checks, youths were not banned from school just because they carried pocket knives. I miss those days.
Instead we now mistrust each other. Almost each household is equipped with a shredder. we increasingly feel isolated as if each person were an island smacked in an ocean filled with people. Ironic, isn't it?
Playing violent video games help us? How? I think in the hands of mentally stable teens, this could be a release or just an acting out of the aggression that's part of human nature. In the hands of mentally unstable people, the violence just might spill over and become real. It's prudent that we do our best to avoid such unpleasant outcome.
I say let us design and play peaceful games and leave all the violence behind, virtual or real.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Buckethead31594 4 years 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||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro seemed to present his arguments with a foundation of opinion; Con did not properly refute Pro's contentions. This was merely a debate of "I thinks." Although it seemed like Pro conceded the debate in Round three; in round four, Pro addressed the resolution with credible logic.
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.