The Instigator
andrew.denslow
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
Masterdebatr91
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points

There should be more restrictions on violent video games

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 3 votes the winner is...
Masterdebatr91
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/6/2013 Category: Technology
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,324 times Debate No: 33326
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

andrew.denslow

Con

First round is acceptance. My First Debate on here. Don't take it easy on me.
Masterdebatr91

Pro

Pro:
I being pro am going to affirm the resolution and prove why there should be more restrictions on violent video games. I will ask that voters cast their vote in this round based on who debates the resolution and not based on your own personal decisions. Keep in mind that I participant in games such as Call of Duty, but I am arguing this debate for practice on my debating skills. Thanks!

Blood and gore intense violence, strong language, strong sexual content, and use of drugs. These are the words that you will see on every M-Rated Violent Video Game. The people who rated these games are not lying. The words speak for themselves. In this Debate, I will prove that the bad effects of video gaming outweigh the so called "fun" of video gaming. For these reasons and more, I strongly affirm the resolution which states:

Resolved: There should be more restrictions on violent video games.

I will begin with Contention #1

Contention #1: Brain Change
A new study, conducted at Indiana University School of Society and presented at the congress of the Society of Radiology in Chicago found the first hard evidence of the effects of video games using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Playing violent video games for only one week can change the brain in regions associated with cognitive function and emotional control, the study found. A volunteer group of 22 young men aged between 18 and 29 years with low past exposure to video games were asked to play Call of Duty games for 10 hours a week for one week and to avoid playing at all the following week. A second volunteer group didn't play a violent video game at all. Each group was performed a test that quizzed their emotional and functional parts of the brain After only one week, those volunteers who played violent video games showed less activation in the area of the brain that control emotion and aggression.
What this basically means:
The test speaks for itself, playing video games affects how people think and ruins their emotional and logical sides of their brains and can only lead to more harm than good.

Contention #2:
Why It's Particularly Bad for Young Brains
Little kids have a hard time distinguishing the line between the real-world and the gaming world, as young minds are still forming what is real and what is make-believe. To kids, these virtual experiences feel very real, not only because the graphics today are so amazing, but because they are taking on a first-person role in the killing process. Rather than just watching a rated-R violent movie, when kids play a game, they are one of the main characters inside the adventure. The entire experience becomes a more meaningful -- and deadly -- in their brains, which are forming new connections
What this basically means:
Smaller children are affected the worst by video games because they cannot see the line between the real world and the gaming world. These kind of problems can lead to school attacks. An excellent example of such is the Connecticut school shooting. Adam Lanza was an American teenager who killed 26 innocent people during a school shooting. Adam went to the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut on Dec. 14 and shot dead 20 children and 6 adults, including the school principal. He also killed his mother, Nancy Lanza, before he went to the school. He then killed himself, and the entire community has been left reeling in the wake of the horrific massacre. This is all because of video games. Adam was obsessed with Call of Duty, a very popular M-rated video game, and other extremely video games.
So what we have to see is violent video games only lead to problems in society and putting restrictions on M-Rated video games is essential to protect the future generation of gamers.

Sources:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk......
http://www.africa-news.eu......
\ http://parentables.howstuffworks.com......
http://videogames.procon.org......
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
andrew.denslow

Con

First of all, three of your four links are broken.

Secondly, even if I believe you about your first point, which you haven't proven, should we restrict video games based on one study? When we talk about restrictions, we are talking about the people"s freedoms being restricted. We should have a lot of evidence before we think about doing that.

Also, shouldn't it be the parents job to stop kids from playing video games. We already have laws in place to prevent minors from purchasing games, do we really need more? If a parent doesn't want their kids to play violent video games, then they won"t buy it. Why is it people think that the government needs to be parents? Parents should be parents.
Lastly, many restrictions would be ineffective. Unless you totally ban violent video games, than any laws couldn't plausibly be enforced. It would be wrong to ban violent video games. That is taking away people"s rights. It would also be dumb to ban all violent video games in an attempt to stop minors from playing them. Should we ban alcohol completely because it can really screw kids up big time?
Masterdebatr91

Pro

Ok, I am going to narrow down this debate and explain why I have won this round. There are many arguments that andrew.denslow could use to attack my case. His arguments are completely based on his own opinion. He also did not label his contentions so I will just start from the top and attack his arguments downward.

andrew.denslow"s first argument:
First of all, three of your four links are broken.
Secondly, even if I believe you about your first point, which you haven't proven, should we restrict video games based on one study? When we talk about restrictions, we are talking about the people"s freedoms being restricted. We should have a lot of evidence before we think about doing that.

My response to that:
I have a multitude of evidence and examples that prove why there should be restrictions on video games. So when andrew.denslow claims that I have a lack of evidence, he is wrong. He attacks my evidence on an extremely accurate study, but he has failed to provide any examples or evidence for his side of the case. He did however have a semi-well argument about restrictions on the games taking away citizens freedoms. Now let me ask everyone a question. Do people deserve their rights if it puts other citizens in danger? I brought up this argument in my case. Smaller children are affected the worst by video games because they cannot see the line between the real world and the gaming world. The Connecticut school shooting. Adam Lanza was an American teenager who killed 26 innocent people during a school shooting. Adam went to the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut on Dec. 14 and shot dead 20 children and 6 adults, including the school principal. He also killed his mother, Nancy Lanza, before he went to the school. He then killed himself, and the entire community has been left reeling in the wake of the horrific massacre. This is all because of video games. Adam was obsessed with Call of Duty, a very popular M-rated video game, and other extremely videogames. If restrictions would have been put on M-rated video games, those innocent children at Sandy Hook Elementary School would still be alive and living a happier and safer life.

andrew.denslow"s second argument:
Also, shouldn't it be the parents job to stop kids from playing video games. We already have laws in place to prevent minors from purchasing games, do we really need more? If a parent doesn't want their kids to play violent video games, then they won't buy it. Why is it people think that the government needs to be parents? Parents should be parents.

My response to that:
The current resolution states:
There should be more restrictions on violent video games. Keep in mind, this is the resolution that my opponent has chosen to debate and I am only basing my arguments off his resolution. Nowhere in his resolution does it state whether this is a U.S. federal law or a law within the family should govern the restrictions. Yes, it is the parents responsible to set restrictions for their children, but when citizens are attacked or hurt from video gaming addicts, it should become a government law to protect the citizens of this country. The government has the responsibility to protect its citizens and be a government.

andrew.denslow"s last argument:
Lastly, many restrictions would be ineffective. Unless you totally ban violent video games, than any laws couldn't plausibly be enforced. It would be wrong to ban violent video games. That is taking away people"s rights. It would also be dumb to ban all violent video games in an attempt to stop minors from playing them. Should we ban alcohol completely because it can really screw kids up big time?

My response to this:
I do not see how the restrictions would be ineffective. It is as simple as 2+2=4. Putting restrictions on extremely violent video games can only benefit society as we know it. Children would not be exposed to the violence in videogames and the overall safety of every man, woman and child would be preserved.

For these reasons and more all I can see is a pro ballet!
I look forward to my opponents next response.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Jordanlacroix95 3 years ago
Jordanlacroix95
In response to my last comment: I believe that instead of putting restrictions on a form of media which has been proven to advance and help neural activity in many more peer reviewed articles than the terrible study in contention #1, than the logical and reasonable answer is to look towards other factors. When attacking Adam Lanza for playing call of duty, lets keep in mind that FPS games like call of duty is a media form removed from reality, and FPS games have been shown to calm stress and improve memory and visual placement. Let us also consider Lanza's background where he lived in a gun friendly home, where his mother would buy guns for him, take him to shoot often, and she kept firearms in multiple locations around the house, 12 in total. I believe the gun friendly atmosphere for a weapon made to kill is a much more threatening than a removed from reality video game. And to think otherwise is forgetting how to apply logic and reasoning. So if the contender brings up the topic of Adam Lanza on extraordinary claims, but does not provide the real factors involved with a SHOOTING, then his reliability as an actual debater is completely nonsense.
Posted by Jordanlacroix95 3 years ago
Jordanlacroix95
The first study presented was very vague and broken. I fail to see how a change in neural patterns on young men of a large age group variety with such a low confederate count, after playing Call of duty, proves anything to begin with, let alone should be considered in an argument for a "reliable study". It is an alright talking point, but the study itself is lackluster and fails on any basis "masterdebatr91" was trying to bring to the conversation.
I think any rational person would stick to the many more elaborate and peer reviewed studies showing positive effects on neural activity, rather than looking towards a study someone most likely put together in their mother's basement.
After providing a "study" as a contention, you cannot then provide your own opinion as a contention and expect it to have any relevance in reality. Masterdebatr91 enjoys showing biased and rare uninspired and unfunded studies, otherwise he speaks on his own opinion, hardly deserving the "master" title before "debatr91".
I can raise the opinion of contention two with my real world experience because he has decided to use opinion in a battle of reason, so to help him understand, I shall stoop to his level.
I have three young boys whom have been playing violent video games since the age of 4. It is simply something they were attracted to. Now, I have seen these boys fight more in real world situations and in their hockey and soccer and football games, more so than can have been brought by a virtual reality, where they understand that what is one the screen is separate from reality. Any child who believes otherwise, may have a mental dilemma if they are unable to differentiate what is on the screen from the reality around them.
Adam Lanza was a boy with access to many guns from his mother. The real world weapon made for killing was a direct influence on his behaviour as shown in real studies that Masterdebatr91 will never see, because he prefers opinion from fact.
Posted by jafonda 3 years ago
jafonda
There should be no more restrictions on violent video games than there already are. It is completely up to the parents/guardian what their child that is under seventeen plays. It is their choice what their child plays and the parents know them the best
Posted by andrew.denslow 3 years ago
andrew.denslow
First of all I believe it is my job as a con to negate the pro's argument and if you look at his sources that he posted i do believe i did. He hasn't shown one shred of evidence that this study even exists. Secondly i was shorted a whole round the first round was supposed to be acceptance and for some reason the website completely skipped the second round so basically i had one round to negate masterdebatr91's argument . I believe the people on here understand that just because something has a negative effect on our youth doesn't mean that the government needs to step in and put heavy restrictions on it. To say that violent video games is the cause of the terrible school shooting that happened at Sandy Hook Elementary School is way to premature . My opponent didn't mention the fact that Adam Lanza had various mental illnesses that he struggled with which in turn could easily be more responsible for those children's death than violent video games. I do agree that in Adam Lanza's case violent video game did play a small factor but there was so much more going on with him than just an obsession with Call of Duty. I ask you all to not let my opponents uneducated guess that violent video games caused Adam Lanza to go on a killing spree influence your your vote because at the end of the day people need to be accountable for their actions and stop blaming things such as violent video games or even guns for these tragedies that happen.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Good luck. You may want to change it to "There should be increased restrictions on violent video games."
Posted by Jhate 3 years ago
Jhate
This is too restricted a topic sorta. Like saying they should be banned would be an incredibly hard argument. Im interested in seeing who accepts this. It will be one hell of a challenge.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Fatfood 3 years ago
Fatfood
andrew.denslowMasterdebatr91Tied
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: He is sooo much better!
Vote Placed by cstidham 3 years ago
cstidham
andrew.denslowMasterdebatr91Tied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro never gave a credible argument that wasn't negated by con. Invalid sources.
Vote Placed by LegalizeLiberty 3 years ago
LegalizeLiberty
andrew.denslowMasterdebatr91Tied
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 never adequately refuted Pro's arguments.