The Instigator
Firelife
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
Daltonian
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points

Video Games cause violence

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 3 votes the winner is...
Daltonian
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/29/2014 Category: Games
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,523 times Debate No: 59694
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (24)
Votes (3)

 

Firelife

Con

Video Games DO NOT cause violence (Or at least not at a scale which is large enough to worry about.)

There is no evidence to support video games cause things such as murders or school shootings etc.

Scientests have found however there are many benifits to video games such as socialisation increased reflexes etc.
Daltonian

Pro

I thank my opponent for instigating this debate and wish him good luck!

Since Pro has not forbade me from presenting arguments in the first round, I will do exactly that.

The resolution: "Video games do not cause violence to a scale which is large enough to be worried about"

In this debate, I will not argue that video games cause kids to get up and shoot/attack someone. Rather, I will argue that there is a correlation between violent behavior of any sort to violent video games.


-------------------------

A. Definitions and Clarifications
1A - Information
Though my opponent would probably like me to argue that there is a definitive link between video games and
murderous or extreme, I will instead focus on proving that there is a correlation between video games and worrisome violence as per my opponent's resolution.

"Video Games DO NOT cause violence (Or at least not at a scale which is large enough to worry about.)"

Thus, using these definitions, I will prove that Video Games have the potential and definitively have caused worrisome violence.

1B - Assumption about the resolution
"Video games" - I will assume that this is not in reference to all video games as my opponent failed to include "all" in his resolution of this indeed the case. Instead, I will assume that the resolution suggests that "Video games with violent themes or otherwise aggressive content in them do not cause violence", as it would be pointless to debate over whether games like Mario Kart or Angry Birds cause violence. That would be extremely redundant.


1C - The Definition of Violence
Violence is not limited to actions which result in the imminent harm of another person.

vi·o·lence [vahy-uh-luhns]


noun


1. swift and intense force: the violence of a storm.


2. rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment: to die by violence.


3. an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws: to take over agovernment by violence


4. a violent act or proceeding.


5. rough or immoderate vehemence, as of feeling or language: the violence of his hatred.

B. Arguments
B1 - Violent Video Games cause worrisome violence, and all violence is worrisome
Most especially in youth, the exertion of noticeable or otherwise untriggered violence is abnormal and signatory of deviation in the proper growth and functioning of their brain. If someone exhibits violent behaviour, then that should be inherently major enough for those who care about them to consider as "big enough to worry about". For that reason, I dismiss the "big enough to worry about" part of pro's resolution.


In the linked video, you will see adolescents, children, and even adults exhibiting behavior that can be considered to be "violent" as a result of video gaming.


https://www.youtube.com...

B2 - Those who benefit from video games and never exhibit violence even though they play them are irrelevant to the resolution
My opponent has presented me with the resolution that:

"Video Games DO NOT cause violence (Or at least not at a scale which is large enough to worry about.)

Scientests have found however there are many benifits to video games such as socialisation increased reflexes etc."

Whilst it is true that in certain cases video games can bring benefits like increased reflexes, the resolution is over whether violent video games are one of the many possible causes of violence, not whether video games cause violence in every instance.

Comparison:
"Being abused as a child most definitely is a contributing cause to future violence, but not in every instance. The fact that abuse as a child does not result in violence in every instance makes it no less of a cause for those who are violent as a result of it"

This concept can be applied to video games.

B3 - The APA attributes that video games have the potential to cause violence in some youths
Youth who are troubled or have anger issues have been widely attributed to being triggered into versions of violence by video games [3]

Some people obviously experience benefits from playing video games (including myself) and have a sense of control, but for those who do not, video games pose as an extreme risk and inevitable cause/trigger of violence.

The article in which I use as a source is actually in favour of the usage of video games amongst children, as am I. However, it also attributes that video games cause violence in some adolescents. Even if the benefits of video games outweigh the negatives, video games still can be attributed as a cause of violent behavior for a significant portion of people.

The article contains a wide variety of content that is rightfully "in favour of video games", however, since violence is the only result of video games being discussed, their statements regarding it as an effect for some people prove it to be a cause.



--References--
[1] - (http://dictionary.reference.com...)
[2] - (http://www.apa.org...) moreso about TV violence but also applicable to video games

[3] - (http://www.apa.org...)
Debate Round No. 1
Firelife

Con

Your post is very interesting however let me point out some things.

In your video saying that these are people whom were violent because of video games i'm just going to point out that I think for the better of the both of us rage DOES NOT count. The reason being video games may cause this however rage can come from any single thing in the universe. Failing/being taunted and raging don't seem like something to concern. For example some people rage at Justin Bieber but I don't think he 'causes' violence in any way (I may have explained badly but I think you know where I'm getting at.)

My second point will be against those interesting documents in your reference a few things about them

1: They are from 2010 so the may not be accurate but for the sake of argument lets allow old sources.
2: This document (http://www.apa.org...) says specifically in the top video games only INCREASE (not cause) aggression in a minority of people however it goes on and says "But for others, it may offer opportunities to learn new skills and improve social networking." which is showing a positive effect instead of a negative aggressive affect

3: During an interview of some psychologists whom studied in this area (Lawrence Kutner and Cheryl K. Olson)
On a April 16, 2008 interview on X-Play, Kutner and Olson noted that although some studies have claimed to show a link between video games and violent or aggressive behavior, most research in this area has been flawed.

Also as you said your second document is about T.V so lets come back to that later if you wish as I am not sure if that can be applicable to video games
Also a show named Penn and Teller BS on there episode about Video Games they also found that there was no link between violence and video games. It is worthwhile checking out this video. (I'll leave it in comments as the title has profanity and the site does not allow profanity in arguments

References
http://www.g4tv.com... (Kutner and Olson interview)

The main problem with this debate is that different people are most likely affected in different ways. So for the sake of debate I request we single it down to a common group of people (Feel free to say no)
Daltonian

Pro

Rebuttals

1. Defining "cause"
The definition of cause is so:

cause |kôz| noun

1 a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition: the cause of the accident is not clear.

Though I understand what my opponent is getting at, by the literal definition of "cause", since the video game gave rise to the actions of rage and ensuing violence; it is thus considered a 'cause' by the literal definition.

Had the video game not existed, at that particular moment in time, there would have been no violence occurring, thus making video games a cause for that instance of violence.

Analogy: If you whip and beat an already violent person, and that person in turn becomes even more violent, the whipping and beating still can be rightfully attributed as an associated cause of said person's violence. This concept applies here, except in a less depressing sense.

Even if anger issues, bad living conditions, or etc are other causes, video games can still be attributed as one.

2. The benefits discussed here and by the APA are irrelevant to this resolution
Even if video games had extreme benefits that far outweighed it's negatives, those would be irrelevant as the topic of the debate is "Video games cause violence"

If video games caused increased social skills in some, better reflexes in most, increased brainpower in a few, and violent or disturbed/aggressive behavior in a significant portion of the video gaming population, I still have filled my Burden of Proof that video games can be attributed as a "cause to violence" one way or another.

3. Legitimacy of Penn and Teller BS
Penn and Teller BS is far from a reliable source and have seen large amounts of criticism for their supposed debunkings, which included concepts like Global Warming, the harmfulness of cigarettes on the body, and etc. [1]

New Point
A. Exposure to witnessing violence at a young age has been scientifically attributed as causing violent behavior in children later on. Why is this concept not applicable to witnessing on-screen violence?

Children witnessing or having been exposed to violence has been psychologically attributed [2] to causing violence later on in their lives.

Why would exposure to media violence be any different?

Seeing a woman be killed and raped in front of your eyes has a detrimental effect on a child's brain development and a proven potential to prompt a violent future for that child. Why would seeing a woman be raped and killed through a television screen in games like Grand Theft Auto work any different?

In fact, the AACAP recently released a study declaring that exposure to aggressive media violence has the same eventual effect that exposure to any aggressive violence may cause! [3]

1 - (http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org...)
2 - (http://www.childtrends.org...)
3 - (http://www.aacap.org...)
Debate Round No. 2
Firelife

Con

Hello thanks for the response

The Penn and Teller wasn't a full part of evidence just something intriguing about both sides.

In your statement if exposure to violence leads to increased aggresiveness as your new point you asked why is media exposure any different. Well here is how.

1: The brain is able to tell the difference between shooting a friend or cluster of pixels on screen when compared to shooting an actual person

2: If this was true I would think that if GTA V sold a couple million sales (Broke 5-6 sales records) we would see a lot of aggresive people from what I see this isn't the case

3: Some violent video games are social experiences and don't cause rage such as Borderlands 2. This game is no doubt violent but this relates to my first point. Most violent video games are so un-realistic that people see the difference. For example if I play Call of Duty (Popular FPS don't hate me) most people know its un-realistic. If you see a guy getting shot in Call of Duty it will be less traumatic then watching someone get shot in real life.

Let me give another example. Let's say that you watch a friend run over in GTA you will most likely not be traumitised forever. However if we apply this to real life most people would be in shock or traumitised.
Daltonian

Pro

Rebuttals and Refutations
I will note for my opponent that I will not be available tomorrow from 1pm to early morning/midnight, and almost all day Sunday. If this results in me forfeiting a round due to the 24 hour span, then the voters may judge conduct appropriately.

1. GTA V and violent crimes argument
I will admit that this was an argument I was expecting. To rebut my opponent's point about the lack of a major increase in crime among juveniles, I will argue that violence does not always occur in the form of a crime. Violence, as stated above, can be summarized as any use of unjust aggression or force. Modern society has educated and raised young people by the thinking that committing violent crimes is a stupid thing to do, and young people are smart enough to realize that. However, that doesn't mean no violence has occurred as a result of video gaming.


2. Unrealistic video games
The resolution of this debate is "Video games cause violence", not "All video games cause violence". Whilst some video games, explicitly things like video games for toddlers, obviously have almost zero chance of prompting violent behavior, I have still filled my BOP that Video Game(s) have prompted violence.


3. The brain
In a growing brain and in a society where media and real life are almost extremely mixed together, and where some people meet their closest friends, wed, and earn fortunes through the pixels of a computer screen, I would say that violence demonstrated on this platform most definitely has the potential to cause an imitating effect, especially if the juvenile in question has never known anything other than what society is now.


-- no sources necessary this round --
Debate Round No. 3
Firelife

Con

Thanks for the reponse I shall add a new argument onto this

1: The GTA example was a basic comparison

2: Ill let that argument pass

3: Most violent video games that are popular now adays punish extreme or unessecary violence examples of this are

-Dis-Honoured. If you kill anyone in the game the game will punish you by making enemies harder adding more enemies etc.

-Deus Ex Human revolution -This game dis courages killing and wants you to be more diplomatic and use non lethal non violent techniques (Killing also gives much less points compared to knocking out with a tranq gun)

-Gta Cops come after you

-Payday Money is subtracted from your account

And the list can go on. Most video games have a system or choice that dis courages killing.
Daltonian

Pro

Brief Rebuttals to Brief points

a) - Whether a video game condones nonviolent or ethical components in association with violence is not really relevant, as it is the exposure to the images of graphic violence and how it is portrayed as a normal element in media that allows young people to grow up and become more systematically violent (though not necessarily criminally violent)

b) - Whether or not there is punishment or reconciliation, the game still promotes violence as being an overall 'fun' activity. Some games don't cause violence, but the resolution is not that "All video games cause violence".

In conclusion, I have won this debate because I have filled my BoP with reliable sources to back it. Vote for me!
Debate Round No. 4
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Firelife 2 years ago
Firelife
Debate ability thanks for the constructive criticism i'm a little new here :P. Daltonians win rate was un settling but it was a fun debate regardless. In terms of competition i'm talking about casual laid back parties with friends or just casual gaming.
Posted by Daltonian 2 years ago
Daltonian
Thanks very much for voting, everyone!

It's a shame that other guy's vote was removed, I think it was just an error with conduct points upon reflection
Posted by debatability 2 years ago
debatability
Feel free to ask questions if any of that long mess of an RFD confuses you.
Posted by debatability 2 years ago
debatability
So basically, since the debate is over video games as a whole (and video games include factors that TV does *not* have, I can't take sources about other sources of violence into account). Had this debate been over the violence factor alone, that would be different. This round, to me, was a win for con. Though, it was very close.

R3: I definitely buy pro's attack on con's increased aggression argument. This was a good round for pro. The thing is, I don't fully buy pro's second point, but both good arguments were completely dropped by con. Con (in this round) is basically arguing that video games do not desensitize (with almost no evidence) This is a really extraordinary claim (which requires some serious evidence). This round was a win for pro.

R4: In the final round, I can really say that I buy each of pro's points. Con's rebuttals were very weak. Also, con's claim that most video games discourage killing is a ridiculous assertion. In conclusion, win for pro.

NOTES:
Pro, you seemed didn't seem to realize that when debating if video games cause violence, there are a lot more things to factor in than the "violence" within the video game. Competition also commonly causes violence. You could have literally crushed your opponent if your brought up (in addition to what you already have)...
(a) competiton causes violence
(b) an actual example of a video game causing someone to be violent
For your stance, the most effective way to go (if the debate was over solely the violence factor), would be.
P1: Video games desensitize players.
P2: Desensitization cases increased violence.
P3: Video games cause violence.
Con, you didn't seem to know the difference between aggression and violence (neither did your opponent). You probably would have won if you had noted this difference. Though your resolution was worded unfairly, you still lost because of your very weak, baseless claims.

CONCOUSION:
Good debate on both sides. I'm doing a similar one so it was fun to
Posted by debatability 2 years ago
debatability
ahh this was a fun read. I'll evaluate round by round.

ARGUMENTS:

I think that con really worded the resolution horribly which gave pro a disadvantage. In order to disprove "Video games cause violence." One only needs one example. Same goes for the resolution, "Horses are black." Obviously, if I prove the existence of brown horses, I win. (if that analogy makes sense).

R1: So, pro's arguments were not bad. I do buy both his first and second point. However, pro (as well as con) seem to not realize the huge difference between violence and aggression. Violence is an action, aggression is an intention (such as raging). Looking at pro's third point I am a bit confused. Inherently violent people being motivated by video games is a hard claim to buy because they may not be motivated to be violent due to the video game, rather be motivated to play the game because they are violent. Looking at con's arguments, I do agree that raging should not count as violence. Essentially, raging is a form of aggression (not violence). The thing is, con never *really* explains the difference between violence and aggression so I am very conflicted on whether on not to take that argument into account. Another thing, con's point about video games increasing aggression actually really hurts him. This is only because debaters literally have not distinguished between aggression and violence, con has conceded that video games cause aggression. Hopefully, con can later on make this distinction (as this can win him the debate). I also buy con's point about the 2nd source involving TV not actually counting. I've debated this topic so many times and what I've learned is that it is not the violence alone that can *possibly* promote violence. It is other factors (and how they work with the the violence in the video game). For example, competition can also cause violence. That is a factor of a video game that TV does not have.
Posted by Daltonian 2 years ago
Daltonian
Yeah, I might have accidentally selected that. I'm on a mac, so it showed up as a different font for me. Had I known..
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
Ok the problem is the font got set to "webdings." There was also a vote that awarded conduct and S&G for that (reported, that type of technical difficulties are not poor conduct; even if they can harm the argument).
Posted by Daltonian 2 years ago
Daltonian
Also, thanks debate!
Posted by Daltonian 2 years ago
Daltonian
Mrjosh, you voted for the wrong side.
Posted by debatability 2 years ago
debatability
i will vote soon
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Progressivist 2 years ago
Progressivist
FirelifeDaltonianTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Voting on your debates again!!! Guess What, I guess I Have found something we disagree on. I'm on con's side on this one personally.. that's a First!! con's arguments were short, and pro's based on the definition of violence rather than the subject. I started leaning both, and I could make the case for choosing either, but i'll just go no arguments for either side to shorten this.. Pro had better sources - renowned organizations - and con had a lot of spelling errors. After thinking about it more, I'm going to give arguments to con. Pro really only argued about violence and it's effects, rather than video games itself. It was really close, but judging con only has one point now, he deserves some recognition. Sorry, Dalton, lol.
Vote Placed by debatability 2 years ago
debatability
FirelifeDaltonianTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Comments. Enjoy the long RFD, lol.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
FirelifeDaltonianTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: conduct to con for pro's weird language; but I still felt he didn't really rebut much of pro's points to hold up his part of the resolution.