The Instigator
Cjulian98
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Aircraftfreak1
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Video Games Are Causing Violence In Children

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/9/2014 Category: Games
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,353 times Debate No: 52060
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

Cjulian98

Con

This debate will have 3 rounds
1. Representing a case that fully proves why or why not video games are creating violence
2. Attacks/Rebuttals
3. Why one side has clearly one the round and should be voted for.

I will now affirm the Resolution: Video Games are Causing Violence
"Video games are bad for you? That's what they said about rock-n-roll."
Shigeru Miyamoto

Contention 1: Parents are Disregarding the Game
- Now, must of us grew up playing video games and wanted a game that had a lot of violence in them. And since we were not old enough to buy it, our favorite grandparents or parent(s) got the game for us. In this generation, it is without a doubt that video games are getting much more violent. However, the exposure of this violence has to do with parents, and how they decide to raise their kids. It is clearly put on the back of a violent video game "M" for mature rating: strong langue, intense violence, sexual themes, and drug abuse, etc. Therefor, if a child does cause harm, the parents are the ones to be to blame as they bought the game for their child and are responsible for the outcomes of what happens to their child. Don't blame games for violence in kids or young adults, blame the irresponsible parents for that act of violence. According to a KOTAKU article, 2/3 of parents don't even bother looking at the game's rating. And believed that the games' age rating even mattered when purchasing a game. As you can see, it should be ultimately the parents fault if their loving angel had did something bad.
http://kotaku.com...

Contention 2: Correlation Does Not Prove Causation
- This is the most logical and most proven philosophy ever, and has yet to be refuted. This philosophy basically states that just because you have a bigger shoe size doesn't mean you are a better runner. Things like this are completely logical and don't prove anything special, such as I have a size 10, but my dad can run way better than me and has a size 9. When it comes to video games, violence cannot simply be directly related to playing too many violent video games. I myself play a lot of violent video games, assassins creed, black ops, GTA, and others yet feel no compulsion to go and shoot out a super market or stab random people on the street. If a child plays a lot of call of duty, it does not mean that he is going to try and kill someone at school. It just doesn't relate. Many people after the Sandy Hook Shooting blamed violent video games on the shooters behavior because he tended to play them a lot. However that just wasn't the case, he was mentally unstable in the first place. Therefor, if my opponent wants to address this issue, he/she must EXPLICITLY show how video games do in fact, create violence in children.
http://www.princeton.edu...
http://www.pbs.org... (When reading this article, please read the FULL and Complete thing)

Contention 3: No sufficient Studies
-This argument will embody the fact that, regardless of how many studies that show video games (especially violent ones) are causing violence, they are completely false as they lack the correct variables and correlation to even prove that there is a direct link. Again from the pbs.org link above, regardless of the famous Ohio State University study on violence in video games (130,000 people surveyed, the variables weren't controlled and the subject results were skewed) the study was a complete fallacy and failed to make a direct link to why video games are causing violence. Now, lets start off with the fact that we are not addressing "aggression" we are explicitly addressing violence and should be the base of all studies shown in this debate. Studies on video games causing violence follow the same path, AS CORRELATION DOES NOT PROVE OR IMPLY CAUSATION.
I must affirm because of my three points.
Aircraftfreak1

Pro

Thanks Con for this good topic.

The following argument will have:

Why Video Games, are Influencing, and Causing Violence amognst kids.
Some Rebuttals on what Con had stated.

Violent video games are causing children to have the mindset that, it ok to deal with your problem(s), in a anti-social way.

The 2008 study Grand Theft Childhood reported that 60% of middle school boys that played at least one Mature-rated game hit or beat up someone, compared to 39% of boys that did not play Mature-rated games.

http://videogames.procon.org...

Con has stated examples of Violence in Children.

"Many people after the Sandy Hook Shooting blamed violent video games on the shooters behavior because he tended to play them a lot."

"I myself play a lot of violent video games, assassins creed, black ops, GTA, and others yet feel no compulsion to go and shoot out a super market or stab random people on the street. If a child plays a lot of call of duty, it does not mean that he is going to try and kill someone at school. "

However these occurances are rare as it is. We dont see another replica of the Sandy Hook incident everyday. We dont see kids going out and shooting other people.

BUT, the perpitrator, during the Sandy Hook shooting, was mentally ill! So this impared his ability to judge how realistic these games he was player were! So this brings the question -- Could he have thought he could did this no problem? I think YES.

Cons argument basically says that Video Games arent causing EXTREME violnece suvch as shootings, and murders.

But there are other types of small violence that are coming from video games that just arent making world headlines.

Bullying is a type of Violence that is extermely commom amongst kids these days and these game can turn kids INTO bullys. Games are making kids change thier thoughts, on how to deal with small everyday problems.

To hit or punch a kid because he mad you mad THATS VIOLENCE. This can be influenced because lets say this kid was playing Battlefield thother day and when he got mad at other player online, he KILLS them. So thought before he hits someone is "I can kill people in Battlefield or Call of Duty! I can hit this kid"

Its a small form of violence, but it is still violence.

Many children playing games such as Call of Duty, Battlefield, and especially GTA, are UNDER THE AGE OF 12.
So many of these children are not realizing that in Real Life, you can not just punch someone and run away. You have to answer for what you did. In these games you would never see that. People kill other people, and think like its no big deal.

Yes, this will not translate into someone going to shootout a scholl, BUT IT WILL TRASNLATE INTO KIDS COMMITING SAMLL FORMS OF VIOLENCE AMONGST THEMSELVES.

Con states: "Therefor, if a child does cause harm, the parents are the ones to be to blame as they bought the game for their child and are responsible for the outcomes of what happens to their child."
Not true.

If a parents buys a violent game for a child, this child will be influenced by THAT GAME. Unless the parents are teaching them that its ok to enflict harm on other people. (Which we all know that hardley ever happens)
This game is what made/contributed to making that kid commit violence. Not the parents buying the game.
Debate Round No. 1
Cjulian98

Con

Thank you Pro and your response.
I will go over my opponents case and rebuttal.

1. My opponent has failed to address my second and third contention, therefore due to that , we are going to keep these flowing through as correlation does not prove causation is the truth, and nothing but the truth, therefor since my opponent has failed to do so, all of his/her studies are false. And since my 3rd contention was not attacked we are going to keep them all together. That means that my opponents arguments (as of right now) are completely invalid. And my opponents evidence from procon.org actually benefits me as well as his evidence directly contradicts his statements, and until he provides another piece of evidence we are just going to flow that over to my side. And my opponent addressed my first contention throughout his rebuttal and in his closing statement, he said "If a parents buys a violent game for a child, this child will be influenced by THAT GAME. Unless the parents are teaching them that its ok to enflict harm on other people. (Which we all know that hardley ever happens)
This game is what made/contributed to making that kid commit violence. Not the parents buying the game."
Actually this is false, as seeing he said that the child is being influenced, the parent is buying that game and placing that influence on the child. He even agreed that parents are teaching them right from wrong and he expects someone not to blame them. It is the parents fault as they are implementing the influence on the child to commit small acts of violence or bullying. If a parent would just say something, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Also my opponent brought up call of duty and how a kid would just go up and hit a kid because they did it in a game, I ask for my opponent to provide a piece of evidence that DIRECTLY LINKS that kids feel that way because of violent video games or video games in general. And then my opponent brought up the Sandy Hook Shooter had impaired mental disability, as this is completely true, I wish for my opponent to provide another piece of evidence that EXPLICITLY SAYS that due to the shooters lack of judgement, seperating from the real world from the virtual world, caused the atrocity that day. Voters, my case so far flows through and stands strong as my opponent is contradicting himself and has left my case basically untouched except for my first contention. Therefor I negate.
Aircraftfreak1

Pro

Thanks Con,

1. "Many people after the Sandy Hook Shooting blamed violent video games on the shooters behavior because he tended to play them a lot. However that just wasn't the case, he was mentally unstable in the first place."

However we can connect, direct details, kids playing video games that directly relate to incidents.
The shooter during Sandy Hook incident had games that he had played that directly relate to what had happened.

"As the report describes the game, "the player controls a character who enters a school and shoots at students."
This was a game that Adam Lanza had played. A game that he controls a character and who enters a school and shoots at students. -- Directly related to what he did on that day.

http://kotaku.com...

Now, I wish for my opponent to provide a piece of evidence that EXPLICITLY SAYS there is NO WAY Adam Lanza, could've been influenced by video games to commit this horrendous crime.

If my opponent cannot do this his statement "That means that my opponents arguments (as of right now) are completely invalid. " Is False because he cannot provide a piece of evidence that proves that what I have provided is in fact false.

Also I would like to add, I have proof that based on a STUDY that was conducted, I have shown how games can also cause small or "un-noticed" violence.
The 2008 study Grand Theft Childhood reported that 60% of middle school boys that played at least one Mature-rated game hit or beat up someone, compared to 39% of boys that did not play Mature-rated games.

A study that supports my argument, that video games don't just influence Extreme Violence.

2. I would like to Rebut the following quote that my opponent had made.

"Actually this is false, as seeing he said that the child is being influenced, the parent is buying that game and placing that influence on the child."

Let's use a non-violent game here as a example so that this is neutral, and that I will be able to prove your statement wrong with a neutral example. Lets say that a parent goes and buys a Cooking Game for a kid.

As Con states: "the parent is buying that game and placing that influence on the child." Ok, so a parent bought a cooking game for a kid. So now lets say this kid doesn't play this game at all. Will he be influenced by that game at all? NO. However lets say he does play that game, and now all of a sudden he wants to be a chef when he grows up! What had caused this Influence?
THAT GAME.
So now lets go to a example of a violent game.

As Con states: "the parent is buying that game and placing that influence on the child."
So a parent goes and buys a kid, Battlefield. He does not play it. How could now, a child whose parents bought him a violent video game, be influenced?
But if he does play it, will he be influenced? Yes. And why? Because he had played that game. Not because the parents bought that game, but because he played the game.

" It just doesn't relate." As Con stated in his opening argument.

But some events do relate. And those? Are the ones that matter.

All the voters, I have provided evidence that we can connect direct details about what kids are playing to big violence, and small "unnoticed" violence. We has humans are able to connect directly, relatable events, to more events. In this case Video Games to Violence.
Debate Round No. 2
Cjulian98

Con

Thanks Pro for the response.
In this round we are just going to tie this all up and show why we have won this debate.
Now I will begin to say why I have won.

1. Okay, so my opponent brought up Adam Lanza, or the horrible human being who killed 20 children and 6 adults. However, regardless of the evidence that my opponent has brought up, it does not even say that the video game that Adam Lanza was playing even was the MAIN CAUSE of the shooting. The resolution is proposing that video games are CAUSING violence. His evidence bites him back again as the evidence directly states, "The fact remains that while the report's conclusion does not mention video games as any cause for Lanza's murderous rampage (nor does it speculate on any motive), one video game was, at least, part of the buffet of mass shooting news reports, books, and other media Lanza was consuming, according to evidence recovered from the home." Again, voters, my opponent has brought up evidence that directly refutes his statements and his argument falls as mine stands regardless of the rebuttal. There is no, way, shape, or form that my opponent has brought up that a video game caused that mass shooting. Therefore you are just going to have to carry that to my side as a winning argument.
2. My opponent brought up grand theft childhood, and this again contradicts his statements. If you look at the myth category of the website, it says, "The growth in violent video game sales is linked to the growth in youth violence " especially school violence " throughout the country." And the fact is, "Video game popularity and real-world youth violence have been moving in opposite directions. Violent juvenile crime in the United States reached a peak in 1993 and has been declining since. Between 1994 and 2004, arrests for murder, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assaults fell 49 percent, resulting in the lowest juvenile arrest rate for violent crimes since at least 1980. Murder arrests, which reached a high of 3,790 in 1993, plummeted 71% to 1,110 by 2004.
School violence has also gone down." My opponent clearly has lost this point as he is completely contradictory of himself and you are going to keep this flowing to my side as VIDEO GAMES ARE NOT CAUSING VIOLENCE IN CHILDREN.
3. My opponent brought up my argument that parents are influencing the child when they buy the child that game. He brought up a cooking game and how that makes people want to be chefs, however, he would have never wanted to be a chef had it not been for his parents buying the game and letting him play it. In violent video games, it is the same case , therefore voters, you are just going to flow that to my side.
4. Now voters, please keep in mind that my opponent has failed to attack my correlation does not prove causation contention therefore dropping his case even further, and not attacking my third contention leads to an even further drop in his case as the studies are false and are contradictory of his statements.
http://www.grandtheftchildhood.com...
http://kotaku.com...

Please vote con as his case is contradictory and holds no ground in this debate, he is completely contradictory of himself, and has failed to attack my second and third contention. I have deconstructed his case and have proven, WITH HIS OWN EVIDENCE that video games are not causing violence in children. Therefor, I must undoubtedly negate.
Aircraftfreak1

Pro

Thanks Con,

For the following reasons Voters should vote for Pro.

I have proven that Cons statements,

" Therefor, if a child does cause harm, the parents are the ones to be to blame as they bought the game for their child and are responsible for the outcomes of what happens to their child." That this is not true. I have shown that Video Games are Directly influencing kids, and not the parents buying them. This Refutes Cons 1st Contention "Parents are Disregarding the Game"

Also I have shown proven evidence that kids who have played video games with violence have shown a increase in violence and aggression in real life. This Refutes, Cons 3rd contention "No Sufficient Studies"
http://videogames.procon.org...

I have shown that we can directly relate events to other events. Adam Lanza had previously played game where he controls a character that enters a school and shoots everyone. --- We can directly relate this to the Sandyhook shooting. (Video Games to Violence)

Just as Con said in his opening argument " It just doesn't relate" --- BUT IT DOES.

I said the following Quote to Con in my last argument. "Now, I wish for my opponent to provide a piece of evidence that EXPLICITLY SAYS there is NO WAY Adam Lanza, could've been influenced by video games to commit this horrendous crime."

He has failed to do so.

So his statement " That means that my opponents arguments (as of right now) are completely invalid." is actually Fasle.

I have given proof that Video Games are Relating to Violence amongst kids.

Cons Statement - "Please vote con as his case is contradictory and holds no ground in this debate, he is completely contradictory of himself, and has failed to attack my second and third contention." Is ENTIRELY FALSE.

I have attacked his 3rd contention via --- http://videogames.procon.org... , and how can I Refute a Philosophy, that is the most proven and undoubtedly true Philosophy ever! That is like trying to debate that Water isn't a Liquid! I will not try and dispute Common sense, but my opponent is.

Voters, please, make your own decisions, but please keep in mind that Con has showed no evidence to attack my studies, that DO SAY that violence has increased amongst students because of video games, and realize that we as Humans can make relations from events to other events, via the evidence I HAVE SHOWN. In this case, Video Games to Violence. So, Vote Con.

I would like to personally thanking con for bringing up a good debate.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
Well, damn, the vote time ran out apparently. Anyway, that's where the decision would've gone.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
RFD:

I'll go through the weaker arguments first and then hit at the one that decided the debate for me.

To start, I don't buy Con's argument that parents are responsible for the entirety of any and all possible harms caused by video game violence. The link here was weak, and I think Pro puts enough strain on it to at least make me believe that video games are co-conspirators.

I don't buy that there have been no efficient studies, especially since Con waits till the last round to refute Pro's sole study. I disregard that argument (last round arguments are generally bad form), so I am buying that there is some correlation between violence and video games.

However, Pro doesn't do enough work to show that video games are causative for increased violence. He lets Con control the discussion over what suffices as causation, and in doing so lets the debate get away from him. Examples do exist of children and teens saying that they committed violence based off of that influence, but I don't see them. Hence, arguments go to Con.

Conduct goes to Pro because of the last round arguments.

S&G goes nowhere, though both sides should really be more careful, since there were a large number of mistakes for each of you, not to mention that those all caps really started to get to me.

Sources are also tied, since I don't think that either side presented ones that were all that influential in the debate.
Posted by Cjulian98 3 years ago
Cjulian98
my beginning statement was supposed to be, I negate, I am sorry for some of the confusion.
Posted by Stabby 3 years ago
Stabby
Violent video games should not be allowed to be purchased or played by a younger audience. Video games should not be blamed for Violence, as it's the parents responsibility to ensure the content the children is viewing. The Esrb was formed to ensure video games containing violence and inappropriate content will not be allowed to be purchased by children
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
I think it is more like children are causing violence in Video Games, as it is demand that creates the markets, not the markets creating the demand.
Superhero comic books assisted in creating the demand and the demand created the videos.
No votes have been placed for this debate.