The Instigator
Con (against)
6 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Video Games are a primary source of violence

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/10/2014 Category: Games
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,216 times Debate No: 54376
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (1)




Before I state my arguments on the matter, I would like to say I am aware that the reoccurring of this topic is getting annoying and it's repetitive. However, I've never talked about this controversial topic before, and I want to try debating on it.


Round 1: Acceptance and Arguments

Round 2: More Arguments and/or Rebuttals

Round 3: Rebuttals

Round 4: More Rebuttals

Round 5: Conclusions and Goodbyes

Thesis Statements

Even though video games does cause violent acts sometimes, that doesn't really mean it's a primary source of violence. Don't just stereotype the gaming industry just because, sometimes, people use video games to do violent things. That assumption is ambiguous, it's full of fallacy, and I'll prove that it's fallacious.


1. There is no statistical evidence supporting claim.

According to the information on Harvard Medical School's website, the research that is conducted to support the "video games cause violence" claim "relies on measures to assess aggression that don't correlate with real-world violence. Some studies are observational and don't prove cause and effect. Federal crime statistics suggest that serious violent crimes among youths have decreased since 1996, even as video game sales have soared."





Researchers have made assumptions that the reason behind this decline of crime rates is because of video games because violent video games has been used as a substitute to express anger and other strong emotions to a virtual world instead to reality.

Chris Ferguson, chair of psychology and communication at Texas A&M International, has conducted several studies on video game violence and its affect on youth. He actively believes that video games DO NOT cause real-world violence. Quoting, "Video games is just not a common factor among mass homicide perpetrators. Some have been players, other have not been."

2. The killer who was involved in games either had some sort of mental illness and/or had poor parents. (Mostly, it's the parents fault).

In almost every single shooting where violent video games were blamed, the individual involved was mentally unstable, ill, . But of course it's way more appealing for the media to blame violent video games and pay no attention to the fact that most of these tragedies are linked to mental instability and/or poor parenting. The blame on the matter at hand should be directed to the parents because there are ESBR ratings on the front cover of every single game you purchase. GameStop warns the parent and the child that there is mature rated content and asks if the parent consents on allowing the child to play the game. Therefore, it is the parent's responsibility to facilitate on what the child is playing.

According to HuffingtonPost, studies have showed that the majority of parents don't care if their kids play violent video games.

Quoting "The majority of parents don"t check age restrictions on video games and don't think violent games affect their kids, according to a new poll.

The study, conducted by gaming price comparison and swap site 1,221 parents of children aged 17 who frequently played video games were surveyed.

The parents were surveyed, and were asked if they checked the age restrictions of their children"s video games before allowing them to play. Just under two thirds (64%) answered no. The majority of these parents, 55%, agreed that they did not think that age restrictions mattered on video games.

Similarly, they were not concerned that their under-18s could be playing grown-up games. Asked "Would you be concerned if your child was playing video games with an age restriction of 18?", 51% said no."

"Richard Wilson, CEO of TIGA, the trade association representing the UK games industry, told The Huffington Post: 'Age ratings exist to provide parents and consumers generally with information about games and the suitability of games for children. Just as parents should not buy 18 rated films for minors, so they should not buy 18 rated games for children. Parents must take responsibility.'"

I'm not stating that just because someone is mentally unstable will most likely become extremely violent. But, studies have shown that mass murders have occurred because of mental illness. Aaron Alexis, the murderer of 12 people in the Washington Navy Yard, was mentally unstable.

The lawyers of James Holmes, shooter of the Denver theater at the premiere of the Dark Knight Rises film, had repeatedly stated that he is "mentally ill."

3. The very vast majority of gamers are not violent.

Just because video games only affect that small percentage of players, doesn't mean that video games cause violence entirely. You can say the exact same thing for films. Most of movie watchers are not violent themselves even though they watch violence all the time. I really don't need to go full into detail on this point as it's self-explanatory in itself.













Sorry that my argument post looks like a mess. I initially attempted to post graphs supporting my thesis, but the script is discombobulated and just simply retarded. So, instead, I'm posting links to the pictures. Anyway, I hope to my opponent, good luck. Now, the entire "rich text" is screwed up. I only have to type in normal text. :(


I accept. Thanks dishoungh, Since I'm pro, I should be the first.
Let's begin

Violence and Aggression are Closely Akin

It is important however, not to be confused between these 2 terms. As Dishoungh did not establish any definitions whatsoever, we are left with standard definitions.

When a person commits an act of violence which is defined as " exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse" (1., it is an act of aggression. Aggression is defined simply as an "intent" to harm or to commit an act of violence(2. However, aggression is merely an intention rather than an action. Violence is the action of aggression.

An aggression may not be literal but in most case scenarios, Aggression will inevitably leads to Violence. The cognitive process makes them both interchangeable as both revolves across the same aspect. The intention to harm an individual will always translate into an action as the word "intention" applies. Further, to satisfy one's craving aggressive intention is to act on it literally, hence translating into violence. It is self explanatory between the two terms. Thus, any concept to prove aggression is a compelling case for violence.

Further elaboration are given below.

Effects of video games on violence are psychologically proven

Surprisingly, Gamers have a huge preference for violent games, with 73% for boys and 59% for girls (Bunchman & Funk,1996) (3. ). Most of them preferred to play games that are subsequently filled with gore thereby exposing themselves to violent trends under a virtual screen. Opponents would argue that virtual screen exert no influence, but I would beg to differ. Ignoring such variables is a reductionist argument. Assessing the mind on violence requires a wide elaboration, not one that isolates variables just to justify an ideology. An empirical study was carried out by Calvert and Tan(4. of which set out to assess the influence of a virtual screen on gamers' arousal levels & their cognitive thoughts.

Results shown were shocking. College students showed high levels of aggressiveness, a level of hostility and overall exhibited a hostile posture. In order to solidify this argument, they made EEG scans. As such, Empirical methods were carried out to make sure that there is no interpretive bias. EEG scans were used on the students, and results have shown that their heart rate increased drastically the moment they inhibit that hostile stance. Similarly, they also reported having dizziness and experience some form of nausea after prolonged periods of playing.

Based on this study, the experiment had 2 aspects that is Psycho-metric tests and Qualitative analysis, of which are on the same boat as both proves that by playing games, Gamers inhibit a hostile stance. A case for violence nonetheless.

No moral human being is going to deny these psychological studies, except those sleazy gaming journalist who are filled with nothing but bias. To assess something such as violence, one has to dig deep into Psychology. Furthermore It is logical to adopt this approach, violence is a social construct, we define what violence is according to our values, as such in order to assess this social construct made by our minds, we have to retreat back to Psychology. Besides, it is only way for the research process to be "value-free" away from gaming journalists' multiple layers of bias.

An Overwhelming majority. This serves as both direct and indirect primary source for violence.

The General Aggression Model have expounded the case for violence

The GAM (Anderson & Bushman, in press, University of Missouri) [5.], along with its 3,033 participants along with the high concurrent validity supported by both Bunchman & Funk's experiment & Calvert and Tan's experiment, have altogether proved that video games as a primary source for violence beyond reasonable doubt.

The model was intended to provide a causal correlation between violence and gaming. It assessed participants' perspectives based on their interpretation of virtual screens

A simple demonstration of the GAM is given below [6.]

The enactment or act of committing violence through video games can be determined by the cognitive processes within the participants' mind, and their interpretation of specific situations. This is known as a situational variable, because they primarily rest their judgment on a virtual screen(the environment affects their thought process). That environment is gaming.

Research by Anderson & Bushman based on the GAM model shows that violent games increases aggressiveness because the environment, since it is a variable that affects participants' thought processes, teaches the observers to be aggressive by increasing arousals that effectively prime aggressive cognitions. This is evident through the scripts that observers or gamers went through a game such as racial slurs at the beginning of GTA 5, as if it was entirely acceptable in a civilised society. Once they hear this sort of slurs, they will likely follow as this case is similar to that of the GAM model.

As seen above, the intention to harm,in other words, violence have a strong link. It all begins with the fact that each variable indirectly constitute aggression, therefore acting on violence as the end product. The craving intention of aggression has to be quelled somehow, and for 'somehow' to end, it has to be satisfied through violence.

The evidence behind this fairly simple, yet compelling. Various studies(33 independent tests to be specific) collected over 3,033 participants as samples to ensure representativeness. 17 more tests are conducted on 1,151 participants to assess this claim, and here is the results(For relevance please see highlighted) [7.]

The overall results shows positive correlation and the results were significant enough to prove violence to be primarily associated with gaming. For example, the correlation coefficient(r) for aggressive effect was 18 and the aggressive behavior was 19. This is a staggering high correlation. Weller puts it rather elegantly "Indeed, this effect of violent video games on aggression is as strong as the effect of condom use on risk of HIV infection".

This model proffers a strong case for violence caused by video games. It has been empirically proven by more than 1 test. In practice, only 1 test is needed to prove that theory is true but in this case, there were immeasurable tests that justify this model. Proving this model proves that games are a primary source of violence. What, with most gamers having a large preference for violent type games, this even furthers the case 10 fold. It is beyond reasonable doubt. There is no denying this evidence presented.

Children inevitably imitates aggression, resorting to violence without supervision

Even Children are prone to violence. They imitate their peers, especially those high up the ladder whether it be games or their parents.

Firstly, opponents would argue that imitation does not occur most of the time, that it does not serve as a necessity. Critics argue that by looking at a virtual screen playing Dead Space 3's cliffhanger ending, it is not necessarily for everyone to follow what was observed. This claim is however not true at all considering several emperical studies. Bandura,Ross and Ross conducted a study based on imitating behaviors [8.]. The study used a bobo doll with the use of a model as a stooge and children as participants. Around 36 boys and 36 girls were taken to see if they were to imitate aggression simply by observing the stooge. The experiment may be accused of bias, but this is needlessly unwarranted criticism, as the experiment used the participants under 2 conditions, aggressive & non-aggressive[9.]. The participants were observing both conditions, the experiment was entirely objective.

If both conditions were followed and imitated by the participants, either non-aggressive or aggressive, the results would still endorse my premise, even if 1 of the condition is not met. Results shown were not conflicting, however , as it proves that children imitated both conditions. They followed exactly what the adults(stooges) did in that experiment, in both aggressive and non-aggressive thereby endorsing the theory of imitating aggression. For example, the adults used to hit the bobo doll as the experiment commence while one of the children was observing under the 3 stages. This also included verbal aggression to stimulate that of a virtual screen, with all its prepared scripts.

As it were, the children followed the aggressiveness displayed by adults. This gives even more reasons to believe that by watching a virtual screen characterized by all sorts of plots will likely be followed by our youth. Bear in mind, this includes violence as well as the children displayed the same behaviour that of the stooges(I.E hitting the bobo doll)

Finally, any story projected by our video games on a screen will likely be followed by children as they imitate behaviors according to this study. They will use the script to their own interpretation and use the environment to act upon aggression, thereby constituting violence. Imitation shown by the study to be 100%, that is all the participants followed the behaviors made by the stooges. Similarly they would follow what was projected by video games.


Case closed. I will provide more arguments in the next round. Rebuttals won't be here as per our agreement.

Thank you Dishoungh for instigating a fun topic.

Debate Round No. 1



4. If video games do cause violence and if it said that the government wants to ban violent games, then they might as well ban professional sports as well. You know? Sports that are extremely popular worldwide?

Banning video games because they cause violence,but not ban soccer, hockey, basketball, and football? All the time, there’s an altercation between players in hockey, and the referees stand there, letting them fight each other until it gets out of control. It’s the same thing with basketball and football except it doesn’t happen very frequently and the referees don’t watch them fight. According to an article at, “The most popular spectator sport in the world (where most countries call it “football”), soccer has incited riots and insane acts of brutality that beat anything football or basketball has to offer.”

Referee Decapitated, Brazil (2013) – An article at has shown that Brazilian soccer fans beheaded a soccer referee after he stabs and kills a player.

Quoting: “Last Sunday, an amateur soccer match in Brazil came to an unbelievably gruesome end when a referee was murdered by outraged fans. His head was then cut off and placed on a spike. The beheading was retaliation; the ref initially stabbed a player to death. It happened in the Maranhão region of northeastern Brazil. Thirty-year-old Josenir dos Santos Abreu approached the referee, 20-year-old Otávio Jordão da Silva (pictured above) during a match to argue a call. Abreu reportedly threw a punch at da Silva, who then took out a knife he was carrying with him during the match, and stabbed the player. Abreu died of his wounds en route to the hospital. Meanwhile, the player's friends and family invaded the pitch and attacked da Silva. They reportedly tied up the referee, beat him, stoned him, lynched him, and then quartered him. When they finished, they cut off his head and placed it on a stake in the center of the field. So far, just one man, 27-year-old Luis Moraes Souza, has been arrested for the crime, and authorities are searching for two more. Valter Costa, the chief of police in Maranhão's town of Santa Ines, spoke in a statement. “Reports of witnesses have indicated some people that were in place at the time of the fact," he said. "We will identify and hold accountable all those involved. A crime will never justify another. Actions like this do not collaborate with the legality of a state law.”

Kayseri Stadium Riot, Turkey (1967) – Using source #1, the article says,

“Soccer violence isn’t a modern invention – fans and players have been doling out the brutality for at least half a century. One of the most insane post-game riots of all time happened in Turkey, at Kayseri Ataturk Stadium. The first league match between Kayseri and Sivas brought 21,000 fans to the stadium, and as the game went on they grew increasingly upset, bombarding Sivas fans with rocks and bricks. The visiting team fans surged to flee the stadium, only to be repulsed by police. Forty people were crushed to death in the melee, with at least 300 more wounded. The game was cancelled, and Sivas supporters hit the streets of Kayseri and destroyed the city’s gym along with over 60 automobiles, burning every car that had a Sivas license plate.”

The list goes on and on and on. There’s a list of altercations in sporting events on Wikipedia. Of course, you wouldn’t say that sports are a primary source of violence would you? You wouldn’t come out here and say just because fights occur in sports, that means that sports cause violent acts right? Yeah, didn’t think so. So, why would the media just come out and blatantly state that “video games cause violence.” There’s no evidence to support that claim. So, it is unfair to blame video games for the violence matter while sports, films, and music lyrics (specifically rap) have the exact same basis if not a greater basis of violence. Evidence supporting the “video game causes violence” has been debunked as well.


Countering: "Violence and Aggression are Closely Akin"

Well, yes, agression does sometimes cause violence, but you didn't put in its correct form. You see, what you're saying is that just because a person shows an act of agression, that just comes down to him inevitably committing violence; however, that is incorrect. There is a difference between physically performing a violent act such as hitting, destorying one's property, kicking, killing, etc and thinking agressively. Thinking aggressive thoughts is not the same as violence. Of course, I'm pretty sure you've felt this way before. You've felt the need to physically beat up someone before or break something for whatever reaons. Everyone has. It's human nature. It's one of our natural emotions, anger. Anger is the"strong feeling of annoyance, displeasure, or hostility". Anger is not the same as violence. I've found a websites that states that there is a difference between anger, violence, and agression.


("Not all violence comes from anger and reactive aggression. Violence has, at its root, harm to another as its planned result.")

Countering: "Effects of video games on violence are psychologically proven" and "The General Aggression Model have expounded the case for violence"

This argument is so errenous for multiple reasons:

1. Just becuse more people prefer violent video games doesn't really mean that video games cause violence. I can say the exact same thing for movies. I can probably say that the majority of movie watchers out here prefer to watch violent entertainment, yet you don't see people killing people primarilybecause they watched X, Y, and Z. According to an article, researchers all over the world have stated that a wide statistic of movie watchers watch gory movies and why they do it. If you read the article, it says, "Some types of violent portrayals seem to attract audiences because they promise to satisfy truth-seeking motivations by offering meaningful insights into some aspect of the human condition."

2. The "research" and "studies" that you used are outdated and they have been DEBUNKED long ago."

According to an article at, they list 10 video game facts that have been debunked long ago. If you actually look at it, the verysecond debunked fact is, "Scientific evidence links violent game play with youth aggression."


The most recent and most in depth study on this matter ever conducted was from Chris Ferguson which has stated that the past studies "relies on measures to assess aggression that don't correlate with real-world violence. Some studies are observational and don't prove cause and effect."

General Aggression Model: I can see what this model is saying. You see, what this model is correlating to is short term violence. Yes, sometimes long term violence can possibly be present, but 99.999999999% of the time will probably be short term. You see gamers getting angry and they blow off that anger for 10-15 minutes. I don't think this model correctly follows the scenario when gamers play games like Call of Duty, Battlefield, Mortal Kombat, etc. You see, this diagram is saying that people become aggressive and violent because of it's surroundings. However, most of the time, that's not the case. People get angry and frustrated because of the challenge and the competitiveness of games. Most likely, I never hear or see a player get angry because he's looking at blood. How does that make sense? I can say the exact same thing for sports again. I'm pretty sure you've seen coaches yelling at his players have you? Do you know why he's yelling? He's yelling and showing aggression because it's that competiveness that drives him into yelling. He wants to win. He wants to bring the best out ofhis team. Is that the same asviolence? There's nothing wrong with getting stressed because of comepetition and challenge.It's nature.But, again, don't get it twisted. Having an aggressive cognition is not the same as committing to the violent act itself. That's just plain common sense.

According to another article from Kataku, "It's Video Game Competition, Not Violence, That Sparks Aggression"

Countering "Children inevitably imitates aggression, resorting to violence without supervision"

You've indirectly just proven my point because video games shouldn't take the blame. It's the parent's fault. They lack the supervision and guidance from parents and they are being notresponsible for taking care of their child. What people have failed to realize in this debate is that parental guidance is the #1 factor that determines the child's development throughout his/her life. If that factor is non-existent or lacking, then the child will feel that there are no consequences. This is where this "I can do whatever I want" mentality comes from. Yes, children imitates aggression, but it's the parent's responsiblity to teach their child the difference between right from wrong.


- (This is a funny one)
I seriosuly don't know what's wrong with this text script. It's screwed up.


Thanks Dishoungh, much gratitude for that argument. I don't see anything wrong with the text script, nothing to worry. You should type your arguments in 'text' first instead of 'rich text'. This is to ensure whatever material you type will be automatically changed to the same font. Once you finish, you may then switch to rich text to change fonts and such.

Apologies for not bringing that up before.

Violence and Aggression are closely akin

Firstly, Con's stated that aggression does not lead to violence, that it is just a 'feeling' without an action. He sourced a website where it merely clarifies definitions without any elaboration on psychological research. The only research that blank article had was Terry and Jackson's study which I acknowledged it to be quite true. However his argument is irrelevant to Con's case as terry's study was just to prove that violence in sports is different from violence in society. At best it proves my case to be true because both are still 'violent'.

In addition to that, he asserted that thinking observed thoughts does not bring about violence. I have proven it is, Bandura Ross & Ross's case is one empirical example of how thoughts bring about violence. My case has evidence, while Con's case is just a blank assertion from his opinion as a gamer.

Effects of video games on violence are psychologically proven

Secondly, the same weakness can be seen from Con's argument. He barely contest my case as he blankly asserts "More people like video games isn't a means for them to be violent". My case was that if people were to observe video games, they would have increased level of aggression and by having my first premise, 'Violence and aggression' proves this case as a primary source for violence.

Con did not deny the evidence presented. There is no way around this argument because EEG scans provide a reliable indicator. If my opponent denies this, he denies dialysis machine actually curing and helping kidney failure patients. He denies that heart rate monitors hold any objective measure. So all doctors are wrong in referring to such measures.

Above all else, he cross examines my case of various psychologists' studies using movies. Con included something bizarre and gibberish to the topic at hand. This argument can't come into fruition and I'll tell you exactly why. Movies are completely different from games, movies are on a train track while games are helicopters choosing its own destination. This is like comparing astrology with astronomy. Both of the subjects are inconclusive towards each other.

Thus, that argument is completely irrelevant.

The General Aggression Model have expounded the case for violence

Starting with his criticism of GAM being outdated. His argument is extremely vague. He stated that we have to discredit scientific sources that are outside the 10 years span. If we are to accept his criticism, this means that the theory of gravity and all other scientific sources should be discredited based on 'date' alone. So..Aristotle is useless?

Next, his criticism with GAM model. He dismisses this simply because it is short term. Not quite, GAM model was actually aimed at proving long term aggressiveness. The model explicitly state "Increase in aggressive personality" from the picture [10.] given.

Is personality short term or long term? obviously it is long term. this is not even a viable criticism. My proof remains solid.

Lastly, his succinct argument of "Observational aggression does not necessarily translate into violence". A coach yelling displays aggression, players rambling displays aggression. How often do guys hustle in sports? Most of the time. Violence is the act of aggression so if a coach tears and pulls his player's shirt to him, that is characterized as violence because it is an 'act'.

A case for aggression is a compelling case for violence as my premise states. It is the act of it, not how one interprets the situation.

Children inevitably imitates aggression, resorting to violence without supervision

Children imitate what they observe, they saw adults being violent with the doll in the experiment. As soon as the adults left, all of the children in all experimental settings did the same by being violent with the dolls. Similarly they play games, GAM model states that games act as a situational variable because they are fixated in their game, just like how they fixate themselves on observing the adults. So by observing games, they will learn all sorts of behaviour and will inevitably act on it. Just like the murder of Ann Maguire, [11.] was additional proof of such case. The teacher was stabbed to death by a 15 year old(Ironically a gamer) and the juvenile is set to be brought before the court. This is just supplementary, empirical studies holds more relevance.

Con did not refute or criticize the study directly as he argued that the study had a different conclusion, he even concede "Yes, children imitates aggression" . The experiment was based on aggression and violence, not 'parental supervision'. Bear in mind, the study garnered results of which 100% of the children imitate what they observed. Thus, my argument is solid and affirmed.

Crime rate interpretations by opponents of the resolution are fantasy

Let's start with Fantasy.It is defined as "something that is produced by the imagination : an idea about doing something that is far removed from normal reality"[12. ]. This idea or interpretation are riled up based on fantasy. Opponents would have secondary statistical data in favor of defending video games. Why wouldn't they make their own statistic is clearly beyond me, since "secondary statistical data is better to justify my opinion". Secondary statistical data(data done by the government) are supposed to show a general trend, when a poll forecasted divorce rates, it was meant to prove divorce rates. it does not, in any way proves that family, or men or women or whatever variable to be the cause of said factor. Saying so otherwise is just imaginary or as the definition applies 'fantasy'

Similarly this is the same with video games. A simple demonstration is given below

Clearly, you can interpret this however you want, but I've have proven the bias of the author stating "what link?". Asking blatant rhetorical question is one evidence of such bias. Quantitative statistics does not provide reason for such sales or crimes, it relies on the author's interpretation of it. Gaming is a young industry, it does not encompass all of the population. When you look at a league of legends competition, viewers are relatively short, a few hundreds. This pales in comparison with Barca's Camp Nou's capacity [13.] (99,786 seats).

Due to its unrepresentative nature, the evidence presented can be dismissed. Crime can be affected by a lot of factors, namely employment since obviously, its base is even bigger than gamers by 10x on my estimation. It is simplistic to isolate other variables when the statistic clearly measures general trends. So Gaming causes all that, what about sports, employment,elderly? They are to be discredited for gaming?

Con's parental argument provides no guarantee

Con's argument is that parents don't supervise their children. Is video games that scary that just 1 minute away from parental supervision, games causes violence?. This endorses all my arguments that video games are one of the most significant factor and serves as the biggest primary source of violence. The issue is self explanatory in that children needs parental supervision to play video games to avoid being violent.

Furthermore, this endorses the premise of situational variable as described by GAM. Situational variables directly affects their personality, hence causing them to be violent. Parents supervision clearly shows how serious video games are in affecting children's minds.

Con's cross examination of sports is without merit

My best friend told me a football story once that a defender was extremely pissed off at him using all sorts of verbal insults just because he was dribbling & having body contact with the perpetrator. Similarly, a guy bicycle kicked just 10 cm from his face and even then, my friend was confrontational and became aggressive. Even I myself became very aggressive just by imagining how disrespectful they are of my friend.

My point is to remember, violence is the act of aggression. Yes sports do have violence and so? I didn't say otherwise. The debate was not about the government or sports, they may choose to do things however they want. If both sports and video games promote violence, what does it matter? both media are still violent. There is no difference and it proves nothing of Con's build up case.

Con's sources are guilty of bias often asserting with a blank cheque

Gaming commentators on this issue are just...gamers. When someone threatens your way of life, destroys what you believe to be epitome of life, of course you will immediately be hostile to this idea. You lose objectivity because it involves too much of your interpretation and opinions of such events. You have first hand experience with your way of life, why would you chose those that are different.

Moreover, Con provides sources that are filled with multiple layers of bias that renders the argument invalid. My Case was psychologists, they are not even politicians let alone be knowledgeable in that area. They are objective in their assessment, thus affirming the resolution.Con's case is without an objective foundation.

The only reliable source was Harvard. That source was balanced in terms of its distribution of views, it emphasize both parents, media & causes. It neither proves his case to be solid because it is 'neutral'. I have an equal amount of argument there. Thus, it doesn't proves either of us.
Debate Round No. 2


(The words that’s in bold and in all caps means that I want you to see that and it’s crucial information. Don’t just come here and bring out this conviction that everything in all caps means yelling. Submitting into that conclusion is vacuous.)

Violence and Aggression are closely akin

Just because you acknowledged something to be true doesn’t really make it so. So, that comes to show that your affirmation is biased. You’re saying that just because you’re showing some sort of aggression that just means that you’re bound to go out and commit violence. I’m pretty sure you have heard of the term “hot head.” I’m pretty sure that the vast majority of these hot heads out here have not committed a single crime in their lives. My dad can sometimes be a hot head, and he has never done anything wrong. Since you claim that my source that I used is “biased”, let’s use another one. According to the Scholastic website, it says, “Violence is heterogeneous. Physical violence can be impulsive, reactive or defensive; or it can be predatory, remorseless aggression… “Aggression is NOT VIOLENCE. An aggressive person may not be violent. Aggression is a behavior characterized by verbal or physical attack, yet it may be appropriate and self-protective or destructive and violent.” (

Also, just because I didn’t refute against a certain part of your rebuttals doesn’t mean that I’m not challenging you on it. It’s apparent that you didn’t take into consideration that I often run out of characters to type. I would also like to point out that the Bandura Ross & Ross case uses children of the age of 3 TO 6 YEARS OLD. THAT IS NOT A PROPER AGE GROUP TO USE AGAINST A COMMUNITY THAT MOSTLY CONSISTS OF AGES OF 12+. Therefore, your case is completely invalid. (

Effects of video games on violence are psychologically proven

From where? Of course, I use movies and other forms of entertainment to support my reasoning. You know why? It’s because they have the exact same entertainment value and influence aggression just like you claim video games do. Gaming is so popular; it’s basically renowned as a sport now. (

It’s also apparent that you did not read all of my arguments because I’m obviously refuting against you when I’m saying that your objection is erroneous. Anyway:

According to Former FBI Profiler, Mary Ellen O’Toole, she states that “video games DO NOT cause violence.” She also says that “individuals who were already contemplating in acting out in a violent way, if they are also emerged 24/7 in violent videos to the exclusion of other activities; and they’re isolated and they’re actually using these videos as planning or collateral evidence in terms of how to do it better, what equipment to buy, how to select the victims, how to approach the crime scene”, etc. “If their use is educational material for the offender to do the crime better, that’s what we take into CONSIDERATION.” What she’s saying is these “researchers” and “professionals” don’t take in other factors into account. They just blatantly look at video games and don’t search for other factors like mental health, the significance or insignificance of parental guidance, his/her social environment, school/work, etc. Still quoting, “As a threat assessment and as a Former FBI Profiler, WE DO NOT SEE THESE AS THE CAUSE OF VIOLENCE. WE SEE THEM AS SOURCES OF FUELING IDEATION THAT’S ALREADY THERE.” That means that the individual who is convinced by violence didn’t submit to it because he played X, Y, and Z. He capitulated to the desire of violence on his/her accordance. I mean, what else is there for me to provide as evidence. The FBI contradicts this claim; millions of gamers all over the world discredit this claim, the SUPREME COURT points out that the research that supports the claim is “INCONSISTENT and “FLAWED” says Chris Ferguson. Thank you Mr. Ferguson. Seriously, this fallacious claim doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.


According to TomoNews US, a recent study conducted more than a month ago has displayed another factor that ignites aggression (NOT VIOLENCE). This factor has shown to be the controls of games, not the game itself. This study was conducted in the University of Oxford and the University of Rochester. They took the game Half-Life 2 and modified the entire game with the help of some programmers. They discarded the blood and gore and scrabbled the controls. Their results had shown that the players who were playing with the shooting and violence showed no aggression at all. Meanwhile, the players became easily aggressive because of the absurd controls even though there wasn’t any gore or shooting taking place at all. This relates to aggression being caused by competition. It occurs very frequently, and like I said, it’s human nature. When something doesn’t work, we get frustrated. When we’re trying to win at something, and something occurs that deters us from winning, of course, we will flip out.




(Warning about the video: I’m not saying that gun laws should be blamed totally. It can be, but I really don’t care about it for right now. What everyone needs to realize is that parenting and/or mental instability is the #1 issue here.)


You have also failed to glance at the similarities between these two forms of entertainment. THEY BOTH CONTAIN MATURE CONTENT SUCH AS GORE, SEX, AND PROFANTIY. THEY BOTH HAVE CONTENT RATINGS. Just because these two things have that one little difference, don’t just come out here and say, since they have a small difference, you can’t use it as a source. That ideology is absurd.

The General Aggression Model has expounded the case of violence

Okay, first of all, Aristotle’s theory of gravity has been proven wrong by Galileo. Second of all, just because I said it’s outdated that doesn’t mean that old principles should not be used. That just comes to show that you don’t even know what the word “outdated” means. Outdated, according to Webster, means “no longer of use or unacceptable.” ( That means that when something is proven wrong, it is no longer of use and it’s obsolete. I will correct myself upon saying that the GAM is outdated even though I didn’t directly say it is. However, the G.A.M still doesn’t provide evidence that video games cause violent crimes. You see, according to Oxford, (Man, I love Oxford for bringing me so much evidence.) “briefly, the model shows how factors in the IMMEDIATE SITUATION (such as being insulted while in front of friends, and having just played a violent video game) combine with factors that people bring with them to the situation (such as positive attitudes towards using aggression, impulsive personality, and a habit of taking slights too personally) to produce an internal set of aggression-related thoughts and feelings that are likely to yield aggressive behavior.” That comes into showing that the aggression shown in video games is SHORT TERM like I said. (

Children inevitably imitates aggression, resorting to violence without supervision

Basically, what you’re saying is “Monkey see, monkey do.” Yes, children imitate things, but you still haven’t taken into account that the parent is the one responsible for teaching their child right from wrong. What do you think parents are there for? Just to sit there and watch the kids? Even though that’s what some parents do, that’s not what the duties of what the parents are held accountable for. This “study” that you used has nothing to do with video games at all. It sounds like this study was conducted by children by a very young age. You did not refute that parents are responsible for telling their children that it’s wrong to do this. It’s wrong to do that. So, what’s your point? I mean, I can’t refute everything while bring out a hundred sources at once. There’s a character limit on here you know.

Crime rate interpretations by opponents of the resolution are fantasy

What? I don’t get what you’re refuting against here. So, the information that I’ve clearly given that’s from the FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION and the BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS is “fantasy”? That’s just an excuse because the facts are there and it shows that the correlation between video games and violence is non-existent. If it was, then don’t you think crime rates would actually increase? But, it doesn’t. I mean, the graph you just showed me proves it. Look, the trends of video game sales and federal offenses are NEARLY PERPENDICULAR. It doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.

Con's parental argument provides no guarantee

This rebut is totally wrong because, according to an article at, they say that Parental Guidance is a crucial factor in child development. Also, I have cited other sources earlier that say so. (

Let's be mathematical here

70% of the world population are gamers. There are 7.2 billion people on Earth. So, that's 5.04 billion people. That's a lot isn't it? So, lets say there were 15 gamers were found committing violence. Okay, that just makes 0.000000003% of gamers affected by violence. Okay, let's make 100 gamers committing violence. Okay, good for you, you've discovered that 0.00000002% are affected. Don't you see that it is insufficient? How can you come in here and try to prove to me that WAY LESS THAN 1% of something is valid? How can you come in here and say that video games cause violence when it actually has declined? Trying to prove that less than 1% of something to me is like trying to prove that ants can beat humans.

Don't forget that I'm not saying that video games don't cause violence at all

Video games are just a small factor out of MANY others that contribute to violence. Mental state and the environment they're in contribute to violence the most.



I like your passion. I was cowering from my seat as I read your intense deep-seated argument. I had to go back to Amnesia just to make sure that the gatherers were much scarier than yours. LOL

Violence and Aggression are closely akin

Con states that I acknowledged my opinion as fact without evidence whilst also building up his case based on his father. What are we supposed to take as more credible? Your father(To clarify, I'm sure he is a good man ahah) or Sports Violence? You've essentially said fans are violent, display aggressive behaviors et cetera. Your own case supplements mine whilst proving nothing of your denunciation. It serves to prove my case in that Aggression leads to violence. The evidence of racist, verbal, crazy fans whom usually associates with clogging the pitch with bananas are obviously more credible as a case for violence than a feeble interpretation of his parents' behavior.

Moreover, all my case are linked to each other
(1.)The GAM model proves that aggressive personality over long term causes serious mental issues often leading to violence.
(2.)Bandura's study was children's imitation of their center of attention, thus endorsing both GAM and "Violence & Aggression" point
(3.)EEG scans of several studies show a correlation between aggression and violence

Con seems to think my opinion is not driven by evidence but it clearly says otherwise. EEG scans are clearly objective, they forecast something similar to that of heart rate monitors. The only difference is that EEG measures the brain by looking at wavelengths[14.]. In addition to that, Bandura Ross & Ross's study was objective because the 2 conditions(Aggressive & non-aggressive) are met leaving no room for bias interpretations. GAM model has over 33 independent tests as well as 17 additional ones, all of which endorses the theory. Not even a single test refutes the hypothesis.

Compare with Con's case, the majority of what he claims to be objective seems to come from youtube celebs who are gamers themselves. How do you expect them to be objective and value free when their way of life is gaming? all they did was to use politicians as scapegoats to justify their opinion.

This is beyond reasonable doubt, even beyond primary source.

Next, Con cites a scholastic website, where it says violence is heterogeneous. Obviously it is, the question is whether aggression leads to violence. Violence is the action of an aggression as stated previous rounds. The websites characterize severe cases as violence, such as vandalism and alcohol, an act of aggression isn't violence. My opponent resorts to semantics by refuting definitions to garner an easy win. Semantics is a piss poor way of arguing.

Con accuses Bandura Ross & Ross over ageism, claiming age nullifies any experiment beyond the sample range. On what grounds? a blatant assertion without evidence. A 12 year old may not develop intelligence properly due to Autism or whatever Disorder you may list, you have to assess IQ to refute my argument, which you did not. An assertion without evidence does not qualify as a contention.

Effects of video games on violence are psychologically proven

So? I didn't say otherwise. You can classify games as whatever you want, whats important is its viewer base and its ability to be representative. Games are different than Movies, so what, you're telling me that there's an alternate ending to Titanic?. Con did not refute my argument and instead classified it as a sport which....doesn't prove his case or disprove my case whatsoever.



At this moment, I have issues to attend to, I didn't realize 5 rounds could be that long. I hereby forfeit all of my arguments. Please Vote Con. Ignore my arguments, if you chose not to, then at least read it with heavy prejudice in favor of my opponent.

Please award all points to Con. Thanks for the debate. I am really sorry problems sprang up at this very moment causing a terrible derailment of our debate.

I will not be available on DDO so all future rounds will state as forfeiture. Sorry for wasting your time
, especially having to wait 2 more rounds saying "Opponent FF" and that work you've done =(.


VOTE CON(Dishoungh) due to Concession.
Debate Round No. 3


Pro has conceded and claimed forfeiture throughout the rest of the debate;therefore, the winner of this debate is obvious here. But, I'm not going to sit here. I still haven't even provided all of the professional evidence that I know that exist. I will continue my rebuts in Round 4.

Countering: "Violence and Aggression are closely akin"

I can forsee Pro's struggle through this debate, as most of his rebuts and arguments are based off of studies that either shows insignificant results, have been debunked/outdated by new and recent studies, or it's not even related to video games. For example, Pro cites a website that shows a procedure called EEG (ElectroEncephaloGram). Now, this study is claimed by Pro that EEG scans shows levels of aggression and impulsivity. But, according to Pro's own and ONLY cited source, EEG is "used to evaluate several types of BRAIN DISORDERS. Aggression does not mean you have a mental disorder. We have all felt aggression before. It does not take a genius scientist, or a 3-year psychological study to figure that out. It's just common sense.

About my father, I'm using him as a source to contradict your affirmations. Of course, Pro completely overlooked my other points that clearly disproves his rebuts. My other sources are reliable sources that completely throws your assertions off. Just because I'm using YouTube videos as a source, that doesn't mean that it is not reliable. That's just another one of Pro's biased affirms. Especially, if you have tons and tons of videos who say the EXACT SAME THING ON THE EXACT SAME TOPIC, you can obviously see a pattern here.

Pro states that all of his cases are linked together when obviously they aren't.

1. Just because they said that these actions can cause them to have violent behavior, doesn't mean it's long-term. You see, you're looking at the words, "behavior" and "personality." Aggression does sometimes lead to violence, but that is not the case for EVERYONE. People can control their emotions, some people can't. In terms of video game aggression, aggression shown in video games are FOR THE MOMENT like I said before. Do you remember that time that you got so angry after playing Call of Duty, that you were angry for 15 days? Do you remember that time that you absolutely raged at your console/PC for 10 hours? Yes, that doesn't seem right doesn't it? The only time someone is able to be that angry for that long is if they can't control their anger and/or if they have some sort of MENTAL ILLNESS. This goes back to me talking about mental instability doesn't it?

2. I've clearly said that Bandura's study is based on children of 3-6 YEARS OLD. Doesn't anyone see that using 3-6 year old children is not a valid to study to use against a community that mostly consist of ages of 12+? 3-6 year olds are in the early stage of comprehending language and they are unable to cause an extreme level of violence unless taught to them. This study that you use uses dolls to see if children imitates aggression. Gamers don't IMITATE AGGRESSION. That aggression comes from the player him or herself. So, that in itself, clearly falsifies the validity of your study to this debate topic. Also, the study of Bandura WAS CONDUCTED IN 1961. Video games were created back in the 70's by Physicist William Higinbotham. How can you conduct a study upon something that didn't even exist at that time period?

3. I already disproved #3.

Okay, YouTube celebrities? Really? The YouTube channels that I've cited HAVE AN AVERAGE SUBSCRIBER COUNT OF 123,404 subscribers. 123,000 subscribers would be considered average in the YouTube community, probably below average by some. Yes, I actually calculated that with my super awesome TI-84 Plus C Silver Edition. Thank you very much.

(I've discovered that the links are not working. They just go to the website itself which is odd. I'll try to reclarify the links again later.)

Pro is saying that I have to use evidence for every single rebut I state, otherwise, it is not a contention, yet he hasn't even done that himself for some of his arguments; common sense can be most definitely used as evidence. Evidence is not just described by statistical facts posted by a website you found on the internet. So, that argument is self-defeating. Also, Pro has clearly used the 2 terms, "Autism" and "Ageism" imprecisely. He's saying that just because I'm contradicting the study based on 3-6 year olds, I'm practicing Ageism....... I don't need to explain how that is totally erreneous and has the word, "fallacy" written all over it. Autism is "a mental condition, present from early childhood, characterized by difficulty in communicating and forming relationships with other people and in using language and abstract concepts." IQ test scores does not measure these variables. Plus, due to your usage of the word, "may", you're basing your affirm off of hypothetics instead of imitating a real-life scenario. 12 years is not early childhood. 12 years is considered the early stage of being a teenager according to this website.

(Maybe, It'll work if I don't put the links in parentheses)

Pro says that I resort to Semantics which, I'm using the most common definition of words and using general common sense. Also, I'm using the recent studies. So, this statement you made does two things. It makes you sound even more conceded. Two, it goes against what you refuted again which was assertions without evidence isn't a contention. You did not provide any evidence, so AGAIN, this assertion is self-defeating. Man, I'm running out.

Effects of video games on violence are psychologically proven

Again, Pro neglects my other points that I've made and just come down to the conclusion that neither his case or my mine is proven, YET HE SAID THAT HIS CASE SOLID AND AFFIRMED FROM PREVIOUS ROUNDS. Another assertion controverted and self-defeated. That just comes to show that he admits defeat beside the fact that he claims forfeiture.

Finally, on to my new case that I'm about to present. (Mind you, do not count this as an argument as this case contradicts Pro's sources of studies.)

Lawrence Kutner and Cheryl K. Olson, co-writers of a book named, "Grand Theft Childhood", states that there is no link between aggression and violent video games.The book consists of a study that "was funded 1.5 million dollars from the United States Department of Justice and studies on teenagers from real families in real situation." Of course, in the source material, they discuss about violence declining similar to like I affirmed in previous rounds. This is the MOST IN-DEPTH STUDY EVER DONE. So, sit back, go grab some popcorn, and watch me bury these false claims that the politicians keep spewing out.

On Page 7, you can see that these authors expose the fallacy of the Anderson and Bushman case by saying, "That logic is highly strained. It doesn’t differentiate between aggression and

violence. It assumes that the subjects in these experiments—usually college students

who participate to earn some spending money or to get extra credit for a class--cannot

tell fantasy from reality, and don’t know that "punishing" a person with a mild electric

shock or a 9mm pistol will lead to different outcomes.""Teenage murderers and rapists may have played Mature-rated video games but, as you'll see in Chapter 4, so have most of the law-abiding boys on your local middle-school soccer team."

(Pg. 8)

"Criminals are also much more likely to have past exposure to other factors, such as poverty,

alcoholism, family violence or parental neglect, that are known contributors to violent behavior."

(Pg. 8)

"Some researchers use “aggression” and “violence” almost interchangeably, implying that one inevitably leads to the other. That’s simply not true. A common definition of aggression as used by psychologists is, “behavior leading to self-assertion; it may arise from innate drives and/or a response to frustration, and may be manifested by destructive and attacking behavior, by hostility and obstructionism, or by self expressive drive to mastery.”25 As you can see, some behaviors can be aggressive but not violent."

(Pg. 15)

The authors also touch on Bandura's case and says, "One problem with this study is that there's not much you can do with a big inflatable Bobo doll other than punch it and watch it bounce back!"

(Pg. 15)

Most people outside of research associate aggression with physically

trying to hurt someone. Whether the noise blast corresponds with anything like

that is very debatable. My guess is that it's actually a better measure of

competitiveness, which is right in the name: the Taylor Competitive Reaction

Time test. In my opinion, it's a far cry from beating someone to death, or even

spanking or slapping someone, because it's not that aversive.

(This quote was from Mr. Ferguson refuting the aggression studies.)

(Pg. 16)

"According to the Surgeon General's 2001 report on youth violence,28

most children who are aggressive or engage in antisocial behavior do not grow up to be

violent adolescents or adults—and most violent adolescents were not notably aggressive

as children."

(Pg. 17)

"The results demonstrated that some people increase, some decrease and the majority saw

no change in anger ratings. Unlike past research, we also demonstrate that these changes are

mediated by the player’s feelings immediately prior to game play and a labile temperament—one

predisposed to aggression….29"

(Pg. 17)

Over and over again. You can go read it yourself that is if you even feel like reading it.

I will post the links to sources that I can't get to in the comment section. It's late, I'm kind of tired, and I'm nearly out of characters again. Don't you see that these claims that video games cause violence is fallacious, absurd, and just simply doesn't make any sense?



Magistrate forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


Pro has again forfeited. Like he said, all points shall be rewarded to me.

In closing, video games have either such little or no influence of real-world violence. Recent studies have shown and they’ve proven that. Also, it’s just common sense. It doesn’t take a 3-year study to figure that video games, TV, or any other form of entertainment don’t cause an act of violence. The aggression/violent acts come from the person’s consent. Think about it, do video games just consciously say, “Hey, go kill blah blah blah.” Does the game stop, turn around, and the character has this little soliloquy to tell you to be violent? Of course not. The player becomes aggressive on his/her own. Plus, even when they are angry, most likely video game aggression will be short-term as in 1-15 minutes.

I mean, do you seriously think that Hitler played Mass Effect or Grand Theft Auto before he went out and started the Holocaust? Did Stalin play Call of Duty before he started invading Poland and killing Russian civilians? Was Osama Bin Laden playing Mortal Kombat before he planned the 9/11 attack? I highly doubt it. Look at me, I’m 15 years old, I played M-rated games for 4 years, I started playing games since I was probably in the 1st or 2nd grade, probably longer. I’ve watched R-rated movies in my early childhood and still to this day. So, I’ve been viewing mature rated content and violence throughout my whole life basically, and I’m pretty sure millions have the same, exact case. Why aren’t we criminals? Why aren’t we desensitized, homicidal, and brutal killers yet? Why aren’t we shooting at people yet? Why aren’t we going into schools and killing innocent children yet? Where’s the chaos? Where’s the anarchy? Where is it? What’s going on? Oh, I know. Maybe because, video games don’t even cause violence in the first place; I think that’s what’s going on. The first Grand Theft Auto was made in 1997. So, GTA has been in the shelves for 17 years. So, if you were playing GTA since you were 11 years old, you’re 28 now. Why aren’t you desensitized? Like I said before, the statistic that outlaws and killers who were affiliated with gaming is not a significant epidemic. By any standard, the fact that people are trying to prove that less than one hundredth of a percentage of something is laughable. The argument is absurd. It’s preposterous. How can you possibly tell us that less than a hundredth of a percentage proves that video games causes crime and is the primary factor of violence? How can you possibly come here and tell us that video games cause crime when crime has declined over the years? It’s ludicrous. Plus, the guys who keep bringing out these fallacious claims are people who have little or no experience with video games and mental psychology.

The claims are self-defeating. It’s just an excuse because everyone knows that it’s the parent’s fault for not facilitating their child's actions. My parents have told me right from wrong; at least, they told me that I can’t play Grand Theft Auto. They still don’t let me play Grand Theft Auto today. And, you know what, that’s okay. Because, at least, my father shows some idolization and cares enough that he doesn’t want me to go out and do some crazy stuff. He cares about what I do; he cares about what I'm watching. I mean, I really don't need Grand Theft Auto anyway.

Crazy people do crazy things. Normal people do normal things; they know right from wrong; they know that it’s wrong to go around with a gun to kill people. The game doesn’t kill people. Guns don’t kill people. It’s the person behind the gun. Stop blaming the gun, stop blaming the video game, stop blaming to whatever he’s/she’s associated with, AND TAKE RESPONSIBILITY.

That’s the problem. People don’t want to take responsibility. This thing has been going on for ages. It’s nothing new people. They don’t want to admit that the parents have done a poor job on watching their child and teaching them right from wrong. It’s these kinds of parents that think they’re angels and they’re not going to do any harm when, in fact, they’re a ticking time bomb that’s about to blow up. It’s these parents who don’t give a dime about their kids and what they do. I don’t need to post a source because all of this stuff I’m typing is all coming from pure common sense. Everyone should know this by now. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out these things. It doesn’t take an Albert Einstein, a Stephen Hawking, or an Issac Newton to know that.

Look at the person who got the gun. Know about his mental status, his parents, his social environment, has he been doing well in school/work, does he have some grudge toward something, etc. Don't just look at the fact that he had Call of Duty or Battlefield on his/her shelf and stop there. That's just absurd and being lazy. That's just like investigating a drunk driver who ran over and killed a guy. The cops come out and they say, "Well, since he had the habit of drinking, it's the alcohol's fault." (Hehehe, actually, that reminds me of the song, "Blame it on the Alcohol.") Anyway, that assertion is retarded in itself because the cops don't even look at the fact that the guy broke the law in the first place. It's his fault.

I really don't need to go any further. I've proven that video games don't cause violence. It is nothing, but a form of entertainment. That's all it will ever be. Always has. Always will.

Thanks for participating in the debate, Pro. I had lots of fun debating this topic with you.



Magistrate forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Dishoungh 2 years ago
YouTube FBI Profiler:
YouTube TomoNews:

I don't think I can find the other ones, but regardless, my proof is still solid without a couple of sources.
Posted by Dishoungh 2 years ago
This debate is very fun as well. I'm impressed as, typically, I hate arguing with people, but I still do it for some reason. This debate is an exception.
Posted by Magistrate 2 years ago
No, thats totally fine. We're all new. It was just a suggestion no harm in askying you :)

I have personal issues I must attend. So hands you won. I will clearly outline it is so. I am terribly sorry for derailing it. I had fun though, i hope i didn't waste yours.
Posted by Dishoungh 2 years ago
I'm not really understanding you. I mean, I'm not trying to be offensive here, but are you saying that just because my case is different than yours, you should win? I mean, can you be a little bit more specific? I hate it when people say they should win just because they say so. They just brings bias to the table of votes. NEVER SAY "I WIN" UNLESS IF YOUR OPPONENT FORFEITS!!!

I mean, I'm also proving my case that video games are not a primary factor of violence. I still haven't even provided some sources that still prove my case because I keep running out of characters. I found 2-3 major sources that proves the studies "inconsistent". So, don't just come over here saying that you should win IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DEBATE just because YOU believe that your case is solid. YOU HAVE TO PROVE TO ME THAT YOUR CASE IS SOLID. You can't just prove it to yourself, come over here, and say it's true. That's not how reliability and credibility works.

I hope you don't take this comment personally.
Posted by Magistrate 2 years ago
Good lord, I'm not sure you understand that. I need to work on my EIINGLESH
Posted by Magistrate 2 years ago
Otherwise, we'll just continue, I'm completely fine with that. Its just that we need a direction where the debate is going
Posted by Magistrate 2 years ago
BOP is on me. Obviously on the resolution. I have the burden to proof my case that video games are a PRIMARY source of violence.

You have the burden of denouncing my case. Moreover, your arguments are just supplementary to your case, so if your case is upheld till the end and I have fulfilled my proof(that is my case is sufficient to prove that video games are primary) I win.

Similarly, If I cast a shadow of doubt over your case and I denounced it based on sufficient evidence, the doubt is just supplementary to my stance. So, If you win on annulling my BoP case, you'd still win even If I nullified your arguments.

In short, you need to nullify my case, while defense is on me. These are our main thrust. All others are supplementary.

Do you agree on this? It might need fixes, I'm new to the site so I might not convey a fair proposal.
Posted by Dishoungh 2 years ago
I don't know why the site didn't go to the link I gave. Here, I'll give the actual link.
Posted by Magistrate 2 years ago

I like the one with the chipmunk, thanks for the laugh dude.

Posted by Dishoungh 2 years ago
Okay, do the best you can.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Forfeiture