Video Games do not increase or perpetuate juvenile violence
Debate Rounds (3)
First Round: Case Presentation
1. Statistics point to the Pro argument
According to the FBI in 2009,The arrest rate for juvenile murders has fallen 71.9% between 1995 and 2008. The arrest rate for all juvenile violent crimes has declined 49.3%. In this same period, video game sales have more than quadrupled. The FBI statistics show that video game sales have been on the rise, while all juvenile violent crimes have fallen in the same amount of time. Looking at today's debate, you have to see that Pro shows with this evidence that the claim that video games cause violence is not backed up by reasonable statistics. Therefore, the claim is false.
2.There is no correlation between violence and video games.
A 2004 US Secret Service review of previous school-based attacks found that one-eighth of attackers exhibited an interest in violent video games, less than the rate of interest attackers showed in violent books, movies, and writings. The report did not show any link between video games and school based violence.
3. Violent video games can indeed be a healthy outlet.
A 2007 study by the Journal of Adolescent Health reported that 45% of boys played video games because "it helps me get my anger out" and 62% played because it "helps me relax." Those statustics show that children go to video games to give them an escape from the pressures of life around them. Also, video games can provide helpful lessons for the future. They allow people to explore situations like war, violence, and death without real consequences.
Overall, statistics show that there is no correlation between video games and juvenile violence. In fact, video games help more than they hurt.
physiologically immature or undeveloped", :reflecting psychological or intellectual immaturity", and "of, relating to, characteristic of, or suitable for children or young people." Therefore, since no exact age-bar ws given by the Pro, we can assume anyone is a juvenile if they match the description. This means adults who have mental disabilities, and people of all ages who bear these characteristics meeet the criteria of "Juvenile."
First - Kids/Juveniles who play violent video games are prone to Violent Videogames, as told by a journal Pediatrics in it's study in 2008. Anne Harding of CNN, who covered the study, reported on three groups in the study:
"In every group, children who were exposed to more video game violence did become more aggressive over time than their peers who had less exposure."
CBSNews' 60 Minutes even went on about how a violent video game, Grand Theft Auto, led to a rampage by one of the kids who played it: "And now, the game is at the center of a civil lawsuit involving the murders of three men in the small town of Fayette, Ala. They were gunned down by 18-year-old Devin Moore, who had played Grand Theft Auto day and night for months."
American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry elaborate on these effects:
"Studies of children exposed to violence have shown that they can become: “immune” or numb to the horror of violence, imitate the violence they see, and show more aggressive behavior with greater exposure to violence. Some children accept violence as a way to handle problems. Studies have also shown that the more realistic and repeated the exposure to violence, the greater the impact on children. In addition, children with emotional, behavioral and learning problems may be more influenced by violent images."
Therefore, the effects of violent video games are true, and do exist. Therefore, I contend that video Games do increase juvenile violence, as anyone, including children, who are deemed able to be a "juvenile" by definition, can be pushed into doing violence.
The American Psychological Association states on June 7, 2010, that the only children who showed aggression after exposure to violent video games already displayed aggressive characteristics beforehand. This evidence indicates that video games do not increase violence, as stated in the resolution, as people who have violent characteristics in the first place are drawn to it. Therefore, per the resolution, we see that video games do not increase violence, nor perpetuate it.
Regarding his 60 minutes evidence, this goes along with the above contention, that people with violent characteristics go the video games in the first place. The evidence says, "who had played Grand Theft Auto day and night for months." That quote alone shows the kind of mental state this person was in beforehand. Once again, this evidence is pointing to the Pro side, that video games do not increase or perpetuate violence.
Regarding his desensitization of violence argument, Richard Rhodes of Rolling Stone found several flaws methodologically with over 200 studies regarding violent video games, and came to the conclusion that "The research no more supports the consensus on media violence than it supported the conclusions of the eugenics consensus eighty years ago that there are superior and inferior 'races,' with White Northern Europeans at the top."
The studies that my opponent has been bringing up always mention some form of correlation between video games and violence, however, correlation does not necessary mean causation. According to british psychologist Guy Cumberbatch, "Finding that people who enjoy violent media may also be aggressive is tantamount to observing that those who play football also enjoy watching it on television. 'The correlational nature of this study means that causal statements are risky at best,' the authors admit. ...All in all, new evidence is exceptionally weak, and in its one-sided approach it has a depressingly familiar ring to it. ...Studies to date have been notably biased towards seeking evidence of harm. This 'blame game' may be fun for some researchers to play, and knee-jerk reactions such as the APA's press release may be media-friendly. But we deserve better."
All in all, there is no link between correlation and causation.
For the reasons I stated in opening, and the fact that there is no link between correlation and causation, I urge Pro vote.
WheelChairDebste forfeited this round.
1. Causation vs Correlation.
In my opponents first argument, he stated that video games had some correlation with violent attacks, yet there is nothing that proves that video games were the CAUSE of such violent attacks. I'd like to bring up the quote from my opponent's 60 minutes evidence," who had played Grand Theft Auto day and night for months." Now, we look to my American Psychological Association evidence that states that children who showed aggression after exposure to video games expressed said characteristics beforehand. My opponent's quote illustrates my point. Video Games do not increase any violence, as it does not create any new violent characteristics, as my opponent is arguing. That point is mute because we see that there is no link between correlation and causation.
My FBI evidence states that while video game sales had quadrupled in the 13 years between 1995 and 2008, the arrest rate for juvenile murders has fallen 71.9%, while all juvenile violent crimes have declined 49.3%. The statistics clearly point to the Pro argument. This point ties together with correlation and causation, as we see that the point of causation is refuted by statistics.
3. Overall benefit
My Journal of Adolescent Health evidence shows that 45% of boys stated they play video games because it helps get their anger out, and 62% stated because it helps them relax. It also allows children to explore real life situations like war and violence without true consequence.
So overall, the statistics I bring up clearly show that the Pro side is right today.
WheelChairDebste forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by boredinclass 5 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|
Reasons for voting decision: forfeit
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.