Video Games Cannot Be Blamed For 'Corrupting' Children.
Debate Rounds (3)
I will be playing the role of devil's advocate for this debate.
Pro states in his debate that the corruption of youth is not at the fault of the video games or the industry that produces these games, but it is in fact at the fault of the parents of these children. Though this could pass as a legitimate argument Pro's reasoning are as one would say "broken"
To directly quote Pro:
"I was in a Game store last week, and saw children as young as 14 discussing what games to get. One of them bought Bioshock 2, another bought GTA Vice City, and the third bought Prototype 2, all with their parents permission. I own or have played all 3 of these games, and they are definitely not suitable for children of that age, hence the age rating."
Pro later states:
"games that are rated 18+ are all aimed at people in that age group. Anybody who is younger than that that is playing such games is only doing so because their parents, or their friends parents don't care about the age rating." (just a small nitpick but ESRB's mature rating is 17+ not 18+)
Pro's argument is simply as goes "Because the parents allow their kids to play these 17+ games which according the the official ESRB website contains topics like "May contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content and/or strong language." the parent are responsible for their children's corruption.
Following this logic Pro has fully admitted that video games are responsible for the corruption of youth, yet he insists that its the parents fault for allowing their children to play these games. With or without parental consent, playing these games do in fact corrupt their kids. It is completely irresponsible to blame the parent in this situation, the games that contain this content in the first place is the source of corruption in youth.
Now for my main argument/s
It has been proved in multiple studies that video games have influenced or directly caused violence in not even youths but people in general, I will be using recent studies from 2013, in which video games are shown as a link to increases of aggression Brad Bushman, a professor at Ohio State University who specializes in communication and psychology directly states:
"People who played a violent video game for three consecutive days showed increases in aggressive behavior and hostile expectations each day they played"
The study was conducted by Bushman and fellow researchers form France and Germany, they gathered a group of 70 French students and told them they would be participating in a three-day study of the effects of brightness of video games on visual perception (although this was not the case)
The students were randomly assigned to play a violent or non violent video game for 20 minutes for the three day period, afterwards they were put in multiple excersizes to test their level of agression. The results showed those who played the violent games expected the others around them to act agressive towards them and were shown to act agressive towards others according to Bushman.
The study also showed those who played the non violent games showed no changes in their level of agression or hostile expectations, the study also showed that the those who played violent video games decrease pro-social behavior, such as helping or cooperating with others, and decrease feelings of empathy and compassion for others.
It is quite obvious rather we like it or not that violent video games do have an effect on some, and can be a link to violence. I await Pro's arguments/
http://vgboxart.com... - this is a link to the box art of GTA V. It clearly says 18 in the corner...
I understand all of those points, but the fact remains that children should not play games that are not suitable for them. The game industry make 18+ games to suit adults who are not as susceptible to violence in games (sorry I do not have enough time right now to cite this, but I am sure it is true). Obviously there are exceptions, but as a whole, adults are not going to become more violent from witnessing things like this. The film and music industries do not get any grief over the same things in their 18+ movies and swearing in songs, why does the game industry?
If games like this are played by children, they will be effected. I understand that it is true, but the fault lies with the parents that let their children play games that clearly aren't suitable for them. You cannot say that violent games should not be made, that would be the same as telling people they can't swear in songs or make films like Kickass. If the game is not suitable for the child, don't let them play it. It is as simple as that.
Ok pro, please sit down we need to have a serious talk.
Now I'm aware that "attacking the opponent" is a serious logical fallacy but you know what, I need to get straight to the point.
Your argument for lack of a better term, sucks. First of your main argument supports ME, you are supposed to be proving that video games do not corrupt the "youth" instead you are basically arguing that retailers should not be selling games to minors. Your argument of blaming the parents for the corruption of youth is invalid and to quote a famous alien "Highly Illogical"
By saying, and in direct quote "If games like this are played by children, they will be effected. I understand that it is true, but the fault lies with the parents that let their children play games that clearly aren't suitable for them." What I bolded is your arguments problem, you fully 100% agree that if children play violent video games THEY WILL BE EFFECTED. Which makes the purpose of this debate no longer nesascary for you agree with me.
Your are supposed to be proving video games do not effect youth, im supposed to prove it does. Not the other way around.
Also the reason that the game industry gets the bad rap unlike the movie and music industry is because unlike those two, YOU ARE THE CONTROLLER. In sandbox games like GTA the entire game is dictated by your actions, you can play the whole game without the need to kill anyone besides the 1 or 2 story driven missions that require it.
Of course, most people, actually everyone will target anyone they see, because its mindless fun, but also because of this they end up feeling less greif and sorrow for attacking innocent bystanders in the game, which will eventually link into real world interactions as I stated before in my previous argument.
Also im going to play the "burden of proof" card on you, if you can't cite sources how can I know that what you say is true. I will await a response, but please, remember youre supposed to be saying the games are not effecting youth.
Also this is my first debate, throw me a bone here.
devin.cooper64 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.