Video Game Related Death/Injury is an Epidemic
Debate Rounds (4)
In this debate, I will be defending and arguing for the position that video game related death (or injury) is not an epidemic or a serious threat to our generation. I wish my opponent the best of luck, and look forward to a very constructive, fair, and (hopefully) informative debate!
Epidemic- Spreading throughout or affecting a large portion of a population or area; widespread.
Round 1.-Acceptance/brief introduction
Just a few short decades ago, video games were badly pixelated, low quality affairs, with the most violence on a game a man with an "s" on his shirt killing capital letters. Children learned about violence and sex, but at the discretion of the adults, and the children never saw or experienced any of it. That is no longer the case. Not only are a great majority of gamers now children and teens, compared to a much smaller percentage in the eighties and nineties, but the games they play have gotten more violent and are far more disturbing then what the adults experienced. Violence is not a terrible thing to watch, if used to serve as a warning or lesson through how disturbing it is, but the problem is, in today's youth and video games, you are expected to like the violence, think its cool, and inflict it on a well-animated, realistic character on the game. I remember a few years ago as a teenager playing one of the call of duty game in from of a room of adults. At one point in the campaign, I pressed a button to repeatedly slam a piece of broken glass into the cheek of a man to get him to talk. The blood was pouring, he was screaming in pain, and I thought it was so cool. The adults around me started gagging. I watched the violence without blinking, but the adults could not, which goes to show how desensitized this generation is. The Grand Theft Auto series is another great example, played by kids of all ages, this game features prostitutes and gangs, and recommends the killing of police and civilians to be sucesfull. I recall many a time, frustrated by something in my life, coming home and killing many, many people on the game to get my anger out. I had dreams of going out in a blaze of glory, taking as many as I could with me. Ridiculous, of course, but that is what the game did to me, and what it is doing to the youth of the world.
Violence is shifting not only more toward youth, but toward male youth, the video game players. Men have always committed more crime than women, so that doesn't really mean anything, but I will be using crime statistics on males for a better and more direct approach.
I think we can agree the age at which most children play violent video games is their mid to late teens, the same time youth violence spikes. According to the CDC, violent crime arrests out of 100,000 people number 543 arrests for people 10-14 years of age, when children don't play as many video games. After that? 15-19 year olds come in at 1448 arrests per 100,000, not even including girls. Then the rate
increases again to 1706 for 20-24 year-olds. Then the numbers drop steadily. It is hard to draw those numbers to video games, but the older someone is, the more likely they should be to commit a crime. But it is strange that the highest crime rates are among the ages who also play the most video games.(97% gamers). We should expect to see more and more violent crime in both the young and the old, as the new generations grow up into their violent up-bringing, and as children are brought up in the same environment.
Before I conclude, I would like to respond to what your first point will be. I know crime is declining across the boards, but it is impossible to draw video game violence conclusions from those statistics, and I would request more direct and detailed points.
So, in conclusion, while violence in video games may not have a permanent effect, it certainly leads to violent thought, and indeed, action. I look forward to a productive, informative debate.
Also, this is my first debate on this site, so I apologize for any silly mistakes in reasoning or statistics.
My opponent uses his own bad experiences with video games to try and prove a point, but fails to show how it necesarily applies to all/any other children who play video games. For instance, I played video games during my childhood and still play video games now at the age of nineteen, however, I'm not a violent person (I'm actually a pacifist). I would also like to point out that my opponent's claim that children make up the majority of gamers is false. In fact, the Entertainment Software Association (ESA) has presented statistics showing that only eighteen percent of video game players are boys under the age of seventeen. The ESA has also shown that the average gamer is 30, male, and has played games for at least twelve years . Strangely, my opponent's own sources seem to contradict this claim, as the ProCon.org statistics show that twenty-five percent of gamers are under the age of eighteen (far from a majority) .
My opponent goes on to assert that violence amongst male youth is rising because of video games and presents CDC statistics to support his assumptions. While I don't question the validity of these statistics, they do not link youth violence to video games or show that video games are causing an epidemic of violence, death, or injury amongst youth. Video games aren't even mentioned in the CDC's statistics provided.
My opponent has yet to prove the existence of a link between violence and video games, has failed to prove that video games are causing an epidemic of death or injudry, and has prematurely presented his opening arguments.
I agree that the statistics I presented in my first argument were somewhat less than conclusive, so I will instead site studies.
One major and recent study can be found on CNN. First off, the study asserts that 90% of kids aged 8 to 16 play video games, similar to my earlier statistic. The study was a series of interviews with kids who play video games in the US and Japan, and their family and peers. The study found that violent video games lead to more aggressive behavior, and a higher likeliness of violence for the kids who play them.
2nd study: 15 to 7
Although there are studies supporting both sides, a meta-analysis of the studies done show a definite trend toward finding that there is a correlation between violence and violent video games. Out of the 25 "expert" studies conducted before Obama recently called for more studies, I counted that fifteen concluded the correlation between violence and violent video games, compared to just seven that found little or no correlation. Three studies did not focus on the actual phenomena. I have not found a source covering recent studies, besides he one listed above, but I would be surprised if they were any different.
Although most people, while effected by violent video games, never take any extreme actions due to them, the extremes of video game can be soon. The Columbine shooter, Dylan Klebold, the Colorado movie theater shooter, James Holmes, and the Newtown shooter, Adam Lanza, all had something in common;they all played violent video games. While video games are probably not the sole reason for their shootings, the lasting effects of viewing such violence, and the desensitization of violence, almost ctinaly had some impact on their psyche, and ultimately, their actions.
The end result has to be that video games cause violence and aggressive behavior. I am intrigued to hear Con's response.
MrVan forfeited this round.
Ameliamk1 forfeited this round.
MrVan forfeited this round.
Ameliamk1 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.