To violent video games contribute to violence in our youth?
Debate Rounds (4)
Today I would like to debate a subject that has become very controversial in today's modern society: Violent Video Games.
With all the violence and tragedies in today's society, many look for answers and solutions, such as what to blame for all of this violence, and many turn to violent video games.
Now, I am no extreme "gamer" but I do own an Xbox 360 gaming console and do enjoy playing video games that are what most would say to be violent, such as the first person shooter series "Call Of Duty" and "Halo"
I am not here to argue the outlaw of these games, or increase restrictions, I'm only here to debate about if they do in fact cause an increase in violence in today's youth.
The only thing I ask is that my opponent uses the first round for acceptance to keep this debate even because I will not post an argument this round.
Thanks, and good luck to my soon-to-be opponent!
Con meaning it does not
First off, thanks to Con for accepting this debate, and good luck to my opponent. Now in to my opening statements.
In today's modern society, as many know there has been a lot of domestic tragedies, from school shootings to bombings. As the tragedies numbers increase, many are looking for answers. Should we ban guns? Should we arm guards at schools? And also society is looking for an underlying cause, violence in the media, violent movies, and violent video games. But all of that is besides the point for this debate, I would just like to really clear this up. We are not debating whether violent video games caused any of this domestic tragedies (US) we are only here to debate if in fact violent video games cause an increase of violence and aggression in today's youth. Now in to the opening arguments.
A brief example:
"A 2000 study involving college students yielded interesting results. The study had two components: a session of video-game play, in which half the students played a violent video game and half played a non-violent video game, and then a simple reaction-time test that put two of the students in head-to-head competition. Whoever won the reaction-time test got to punish the loser with an audio blast. Of the students who won the reaction-time test, the ones who'd been playing a violent video game delivered longer, louder audio bursts to their opponents." 
As when can see from the study above, the students who had partaken in the violent video game play (and won) punished their opponents with a more violent, aggressive punishment. This being based on the students who just played a non-violent video game, who only punished with a shorter, not as loud audio burst. Now, there is no specific scientific evidence as to why the violent players did this in comparison to the non-violent, but we will get in to that next. The point of this example was to show that playing violent video games, (At least in this study) does lead to an increase in aggression and violence, because like the report stated, "the ones who'd been playing a violent video game delivered longer, louder audio bursts to their opponents." Showing a sign of aggression towards their opponent.
Straight to the source:
Like I stated above the previous study showed a point, but provided no scientific evidence as to why the violent video game players showed a more aggressive punishment. The previous study only said that they did show more violence, and not why they did, and that is where this next piece of information comes in handy, as this study actually states why a young adult would show that kind of behavior.
"One of the most recent studies, conducted in 2006 at the Indiana University School of Medicine, went right to the source. Researchers scanned the brains of 44 kids immediately after they played video games. Half of the kids played "Need for Speed: Underground," an action racing game that doesn't have a violent component. The other half played "Medal of Honor: Frontline," an action game that includes violent first-person shooter activity (the game revolves around the player's point of view). The brain scans of the kids who played the violent game showed increased activity in the amygdala, which stimulates emotions, and decreased activity in the prefrontal lobe, which regulates inhibition, self-control and concentration. These activity changes didn't show up on the brain scans of the kids playing "Need for Speed." 
Now we have a scientific factor as to why these students in the first study punished with a more extreme blast, because after playing this violent "shoot'em up" games the players brain's react differently to those who don't play such a violent game. Those who play these violent games have an increase in emotions (Most likely aggression or anger) and have a decrease in self control. What do you get when you take an increase in emotion and a decrease in self control, you get a reaction that most likely will be violent, maybe not physically violent but it will come across as aggressive. And that was just during a study, I'm sure most of us know an avid video game player that plays a shooter game once a day, or maybe once every couple of days. That causes a steady flow of these two combinations in your brain, making it almost a usual part of your brain, think of it like a routine. Lets say you play a shooter game four times a week, for two hours each day. Every Monday-Thursday you play for two hours. That's eight hours of gaming a week. You do this for a month of two. Now I know people that play more than this and I know people that play less, but that's besides the point this is just an example.
As most of us know, our brain likes routine.  This is just a common fact. Now if your brain gets used to this activity in your amygdala and your prefrontal lobe, when you suddenly stop playing video games, or on these off-days of not playing, these parts of your brain normally experiencing the violent of video games on a normal basis, may relate this emotions to real life activity, whether it be hitting a friend or a sibling, maybe throwing or breaking things that make you angry, or yelling at your mom more explicitly when asked to do something unwanted. Now, not all of that above has been scientifically tested, which is why it is still just a theory.
Now it is time for some straight data, nothing else. Just a couple pieces of data to back this entire debate.
 [And all sources found on this page.]
1) Increasing reports of bullying can be partially attributed to the popularity of violent video games. The 2008 studyGrand Theft Childhood reported that 60% of middle school boys who played at least one Mature-rated game hit or beat up someone, compared to 39% of boys that did not play Mature-rated games.
2) A 2009 study found that youth who play violent video games have lower belief in the use of non violent strategies and are less forgiving than players of non violent video games.
3) Violent video games require active participation, repetition, and identification with the violent character. With new game controllers allowing more physical interaction, the immerse and interactive characteristics of video games can increase the likelihood of youth violence.
4) Several studies in both the United States and Japan have shown that, controlling for prior aggression, children who played more violent video games during the beginning of the school year showed more aggression than their peers later in the school year.
5) Violent video games can train youth to be killers. The US Marine Corps licensed Doom II in 1996 to create marine Doom in order to train soldiers. In 2002, the US Army released first-person shooter America's Army to recruit soldiers and prepare recruits for the battlefield
6) A 2000 FBI report includes playing violent video games in a list of behaviors associated with school shootings.
7) Violent video games cause players to associate pleasure and happiness with the ability to cause pain in others.
Thanks to all for reading this opening argument, and once again good luck to my opponent.
 http://electronics.howstuffworks.com... (Last paragraphs)
 The source to the facts on  http://videogames.procon.org...
gt4o2007 forfeited this round.
He has given in and admitted defeat, OR
Has a legitimate excuse for missing the 3 Day requirement.
So I will give my opponent a choice, he can either reply to my previous argument and continue the debate, that would mean he does reply next round. If my opponent does not reply next round, than they have admitted defeat, and I have won the debate.
Thanks audience for dealing with a forfeit, and hopefully my opponent will make a thoughtful decision in the next three days. I look forward to hearing his reply.
gt4o2007 forfeited this round.
gt4o2007 forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.