Video Games increase child violence
Debate Rounds (3)
Pro: Says that video games increase child violence
Con(me): Says that video games do not increase violent behavior to children
You may go first.
Now my argument:
A diagnostic study of more than 1,000 teenagers took place in Poland between 2011 and 2012, aimed at measuring the impact of computer games on young people.
Researchers said the results showed that there was a strong link between young people who played games on a regular basis with an inability to control emotions, increased isolation from friends and higher incidences of aggression
In a study led by Gentile, Lynch, Lander & Walsh in 2004, the authors also stated that teens who play violent video games for extended periods of time: tend to be more aggressive, are more prone to confrontation with their teachers and increased incidences of fights with their peers.
There is empherical data showing that video games increase violence among children in the book "Violent Video Game Effects On Children And Adolescents"
Source: Polman, J., Orobio de Castro, B. & Van Aken, M. (2008). Experimental study of the differential effects of playing versus watching violent video games on children's aggressive behavior. Aggressive Behavior, 34(3), 256-264.
I feel that these examples show solid fact that there is a definite link to video games increasing violence among children. I look forward to your response.
Blood flow to a certain part of the brain does not necessarily mean anything at all. People's thinking is like so: Oh, tests (i'm talking about EEG experiment method) shown that the kids that play video games (violent ones actually) have increased blood flow in the part of the brain associated with copycat activities, therefor they become more aggressive and prone to copy actions from a violent video game. Wrong. Increased blood flow, as any doctor will tell you is a very broad category, and thus can we not be sure. Also, let me confirm that i know people that play violent video games, and i mean violent video games, no such as Mario and Call of Duty, and wouldn't hurt a fly in their lives. I think that brings this argument to an end.
You've done some research, but you haven't really understood what these tests have shown. Especially in the second one, there's a line that says that people who play violent video games don't do well at school and are more prone to get into an argument with a teacher or so. Actually, the people from my school that play video games turn out to be less aggressive than the ones that do play video games.
What can happen is if a guy that is really violent or aggressive plays video games. It's more likely, and official tests have shown this too, that people don't get more aggressive because of playing violent video games, but actually guys that are more aggressive are attracted more to violent video games. It all comes down to what a person likes.
Sorry for my late response, i was busy for the last 2 days.
I have no idea where my opponent is coming up with his "increased blood flow" claim, I do not see anywhere in my sources where it mentions this. Also scientists do not make anything up. These are valid studies in which I have shown that show a correlation between increased violence among children and video games together, based on study and evidence. Scientists DO NOT and CANNOT sub in made up information wherever they want. Therefore my opponents claim that:
"People's thinking is like so: Oh, tests (I'm talking about EEG experiment method) shown that the kids that play video games (violent ones actually) have increased blood flow in the part of the brain associated with copycat activities, therefore they become more aggressive and prone to copy actions from a violent video game." is an invalid claim here as I am dealing with real experiments conducted by scientists.
Also I would like to point out that my opponent shows absolutely no sources to back up his claim whereas my argument is solely built on cited sources.
My opponent shows an extreme fallacy by trying to make a claim that he knows kids that play violent video games but who aren't violent. This argument is invalid on many levels. He has given absolutely no evidence or source to back up this claim and it does absolutely nothing to attempt to disprove that "video games increase child violence".
My opponent then tries to make an argument that I have done my research but haven't really understood what the tests have shown. I have understood the tests perfectly and have made valid claims based on the results of the tests. Again my opponent has done no such thing.
Again my opponent uses a complete straw-man argument by 1st manipulating the argument to fit his desire. For example the actual line I used in my argument is
"teens who play violent video games for extended periods of time: tend to be more aggressive, are more prone to confrontation with their teachers".
My opponent manipulated this line into
"people who play violent video games don't do well at school and are more prone to get into an argument with a teacher".
A complete and unfair manipulation of my argument. My opponent then made another complete fallacy by claiming that people from his school who play video games turn out to be less aggressive than the ones that do not play video games.
Lastly my opponent claims that people "don't get aggressive because of playing violent video games" but he again has given absolutely zero references to back up this claim, or any other of his claims.
All in all I don't feel con has really attempted to try and make a strong case for his stance at all. He has merely just tried to refute my sources, with absolutely no back up, references, cited sources etc.
In simpler words, EEG tests show the activity of the brain. There are many studies that have been done, and i there are some above, and are easy to find too, that use EEG to see if kids that play violent video games have any negative effects. What EEG shows is more blood flow to certain parts of the brain. Scientists say there is no link, or the statistical evidence is insufficient. I would like you to tell me what you get from the following link:http://b-i.forbesimg.com...
My opponents words: "People's thinking is like so: Oh, tests (I'm talking about EEG experiment method) shown that the kids that play video games (violent ones actually) have increased blood flow in the part of the brain associated with copycat activities, therefore they become more aggressive and prone to copy actions from a violent video game." is an invalid claim here as I am dealing with real experiments conducted by scientists.
Scientists will tell you that there is no link between violence and playing video games. Humans work like this. From an early age almost every person understands at one point the difference between fiction and reality. Kids that play video games realize it is just fiction, and thus don't affect them in real life for the most part. If any kid gets aggressive through playing video games then you may want to get it checked out.
I would like you to explain what you mean by violence. If you are the guys that think that school shootings are directly linked to kids' exposure to violent video games, i'm sorry, but this is 2013 and you should be informed better.
Generally the whole video games cause violence thing is agenda driven. I won't say that playing video games that show violence will not change you at all, because it's all an experience. There are other more important and common things that connect to child violence, and often a kid will be living and growing under those circumstances, though media only refers to violent video games. Like peer pressure, poverty and the way kids grow up, and even more. Check it out before you bash video games: http://goodwin.drexel.edu...
The graph that i showed you before (http://b-i.forbesimg.com...) is connected to the above argument. In america, crimes happen all the time, but countries like Germany, France and more have way more sells in video games, but still the crime level is pretty low. Can you tell why that happens? Kids growing up in poverty, under heavy stress and pressure by pears, schools and their own parents or even society, health problem, and the the how easy it is to find a gun in the US. i think that my opponents argument "All in all I don't feel con has really attempted to try and make a strong case for his stance at all. He has merely just tried to refute my sources, with absolutely no back up, references, cited sources etc." is not that true after all.
My opponent said this: "A complete and unfair manipulation of my argument. My opponent then made another complete fallacy by claiming that people from his school who play video games turn out to be less aggressive than the ones that do not play video games." Saying that i misleaded his argument? Erm, do you even read the sources you post? They talk about video games causing all that stuff, including arguments with teachers. I think you are starting to realize the absurdity of your claims or you are just posting sources without reading them properly.
My opponent has said multiple times that i haven't given him any sources, repeating the same argument over and over again. I think i can fix this really easily.
Also, my opponent's sources have insufficient information, thus i don't accept them as evidence. Your second source of the irish times talks about researchers, and even a 12 year old can be a researcher, that say they have found a strong link between violence and video games, but they don't show the way the measured it. Probably the just polled some kids and made a conclusion. I will not accept this as valid proof.
My opponent cleverly skipped my question: How do you know that kids that play violent kids weren't already a bit more violent than the rest of their peers, and so they were attracted to violent games. It's the same reason why boys are not attracted to girl's games, and so violent kids won't be attracted to games about sport or love stories.
After some research, sources and media (based on a howstuffworks.com article) say that mister Dylan Klebold and mister Eric Harris that shot 20 people and killed 13 in a school shooting would play a lot of video games like Wolfenstein 3D and so and so forth. What the media is saying is that violent video games were the cause of their aggression. It's a rational statement, but quite wrong. These people did not see something on a video game, so they said they should try it out on Monday at school. These kids have been proven to be mentally unstable. If you are mentally unstable to that level, violent video games is just the drop that spilled the drink. (i hope i wrote this correctly).
Let me give you a rational question. If you yourself, mister QandA, went on and played games like Call of Duty or GTA for a month, do you think you would be able to shoot a person with no second thoughts? Do you think that playing violent games would turn you into a mad on-frenzy serial killer? I don't think so. And if that was the case, thousands of school shootings will take place every week all around the world. And if we didn't stop violent video games, in a couple of years everyone would be walking on the streets with an AK-47 mowing down people. It's not gonna happen and you know it.
Conclusions are drawn because of other causes of violence. Check out my link above that talks about the real main reasons kids become violent. What your studies won't show is if those kids didn't have any of those problems, and just played video games. If there is an official study, by an official scientist (and not researcher) that would make a study on kids that do not suffer from any of those problems and just played video games, and it would be proven that indeed violent video games cause aggression, i would step back and call it a victory for you. Until you find for me a proper science research, i won't accept it, as i know it's agenda driven and covered by tons of other reasons that increase child violence.
Thank you for round 2.
My opponent claims that scientists say that no link can be drawn from EEG tests yet he fails to back up this statement. He gives a reference that shows the statistics of video game spending versus gun related murders and video game consumption. I would like to point out that this statistic is very invalid to this debate for many reasons:
1. It just deals with gun related deaths as opposed to every other form of violence.
2. What child has access to a gun? Remember we are solely dealing with children
3. The population, size and laws of every country is vastly different e.g United States already has a massive chance of having more gun related murders over the Netherlands for example as there is a difference of about 295 million in population. Also guns are much more accessible in the US
This cannot possibly be an accurate statistical argument for this debate.
You keep saying that scientists will tell me that there is no link between violence and video games but you show absolutely no example of this. I have shown plenty of examples for my contrary motion.
I found it very humorous that my opponent asks "If you are the guys that think that school shootings are directly linked to kids' exposure to violent video games, I'm sorry, but this is 2013 and you should be informed better" yet included gun related murders as a statistical source. You are the one that brought up gun violence my friend, not me.
My opponent lists a source that claims to know all the causes of youth violence and he is basically saying that because video games is not on the list then it doesn't increase child violence. Therefore according to the list and my opponent, the only causes of child violence must be what the list says: Home environment, depression, stress and anxiety, weapons, media, peers, learning difficulties/health problems, lack of guidance and attention seeking. Although I don't discount that these cause child violence, it would be foolish to think that this is a definitive list. I have shown multiple examples of the positive connection between video games and increased violence.
Again the graph that my opponent shows solely deals with gun-related violence and I have shown the problems with this argument. My opponent tries to argue that in America crime happens all the time but countries like Germany and France have way more video game sales yet crime rates are lower. Again I reiterate that my opponent can not speak on behalf of crime rates from the graph, just gun related murders. It is a completely invalid argument. So yes I don't think you have tried to make a strong case for your stance. Only this time your attempted refutes stem from invalid arguments.
Yes you did mislead my argument.
I said "teens who play violent video games for extended periods of time: tend to be more aggressive, are more prone to confrontation with their teachers".
You turned this into "people who play violent video games don't do well at school and are more prone to get into an argument with a teacher". Total manipulation.
You say "I think you are starting to realize the absurdity of your claims or you are just posting sources without reading them properly."
Again I laugh at the fact that my opponent tries to make a claim that my cited references are more absurd than his totally non-cited references. He tries to say this multiple times during the debate.
Why do you not accept my sources as evidence? You say they have insufficient evidence? Let me get this straight, you can call my sourced claims insufficient but I'm supposed to accept your totally non-sourced claims? On what basis? There is absolutely no basis for me to accept them. I can however refute them.
You try to refute my Example 1 experiment by saying that (1) a 12 year-old can be a researcher, (2) that they don't show the way they measured it and (3) that they probably just polled some kids and made a conclusion.
(1) unless you think that a 12 year old can research a diagnostic study of more than 1,000 teenagers then I think we can rule that out.
(2) They showed it was the result of a survey (1000 kids to get a fair, random and accurate result).
(3) Again, they showed it was the result of a survey (1000 kids to get a fair, random and accurate result).
I didn't skip your question, I just felt it did not need an answer as it does nothing to enhance your argument. Example 1 of my round 2 argument holds a 1000 child survey. Unless all 1000 of those children were more prone to violence than their peers I think we can rule that one out.
In your Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris paragraph you say the confusing sentence that "These people did not see something on a video game, so they said they should try it out on Monday at school." I am having trouble trying to comprehend this sentence, as there is an apparent contradiction in it. However if you are trying to say that that they did not cause the murders as a result of video games then obviously that is very likely but you seem to think that I believe that every act of violence caused by a child/teenager must be because of video games. That is ridiculous of course.
One or two people can not speak for everyone, as the case of your argument however 1000 people for example, can speak for a lot more. (My argument). We are slightly getting off topic. Remember the debate is whether or not video games increase violence not whether every act of violence is a result of video games. It is totally invalid to say that Klebold and Harris didn't kill people because of video games so therefore video games can't increase violence.
You ask me the question that if I played violent video games then would I shoot a person. Of course I wouldn't but what are you trying to prove? You seem to think that shooting is the only form of violence. I never said anything about shootings in my argument. I only mentioned things such as higher incidences of aggression, more prone to confrontation with their teachers and increased incidences of fights with their peers. I don't know why you are so caught up with just shootings. If you are trying to make the argument that video games doesn't increase violence because there isn't school shootings every week then I'm sorry but that is a seriously flawed argument.
In your last paragraph you tell me to check the link that talks about the real main reasons kids become violent. Again this is extremely flawed. If that link did in fact show evidence of the main reasons of child violence (which it doesn't, just opinions) then it would still in no way disprove that video games increase child violence.
Again my opponent feels as if I should take his unreferenced claims while he shouldn't take my referenced claims.
All in all I feel I have refuted all of my opponents attempts at making a point while at the same time defended my solid sources. With all do respect I don't feel that any of my opponents points were valid or that my opponent really addressed the title of the debate.
Having said that, I thank him for the debate and wish him luck.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.