Video games are not a significant cause of violence in children
Debate Rounds (5)
I will be debating why video games are hardly a reason to blame violent acts cause by kids. Con will do the opposite.
Keep in mind i count as a minor under the law because i am 13 years of age.
You may continue the debate
I wish you "Good Luck" my opponent, and we will see how the debate will go. You will post the first argument!
I forgot to mention some rules regarding BoP and statistics.
Burden of proof is shared, so any thing claimed as a "fact" must have a source. Anything claimed opinion has to have "logic" back that up and this affects both con and pro. It is up to the voters to decide what exactly is fact and logic to themselves.
Wikipedia is a viable source as long as the voters look over it and approve of it. They will count off for it if they dont Im guessing.
On with the debate! and "Good Luck".
I will just state a few points ahead of time to reinforce future arguments. There was violence before games and the xbox.
I become a sarcastic person in the next few lines just a reason why i have so much attitude.
Ever read a book? I have many times. And several of them have some of the most disgusting displays of violence in them that you can imagine. TV is a great way to teach grueling, cussing, alcoholic or generally bad lifestyles to children and teens. History class puts a lot of images into the minds of children. Lets read about the gassing of the 6 million Jews children! How fun! Or how in every trench hole you get up to send a letter to the general across the field and boom there goes your precious head off into the dirt and bloody mess that was WW1-2. Mayan and aztecs seem like nice things to study! Lets read about the sacrificing of willing people so they can be with a god that probably doesn't care about them cause he does not exist.
Where do good kids learn some of the worst things from? Other kids who think whatever they are doing at the moment is so great. "Look at me I am a waste of good parenting because I think its cool to do stupid things all day long." thats where.
Send your children to public school and leave them with kids who have decided to act like idiots all day and pretend to be druggies.
I'm sorry why should i be living in an R rated movie? I shouldn't because there is no reason why these kids act the way they do they just do it because to them its a life style, to mama and dada its a "phase".
I think I have established the many many many other things that cause violence and stupid acts in kids.
I am excited to see CON bring something spicy to the table.
Before continuing into my argument, I would like to define a few key words within the topic. The biggest one being video games, meaning: "A game played by electronically manipulating images produced by a computer program on a television screen or other display screen". Then there is violence, which is defined as: "Behavior involving an action intending to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something". My opponent, in most video games nowadays, isn't the goal resulting in any of the three aspects of violence when playing a video game? So isn't already causing most violence among children, when actually just plying the game? If you reply with "no", then you clearly do not see the point that video games are a significant cause in violence among children; because of its heavy popularity in modern media.
Stated in a statistic on ABC News, and the website "Education", the amount of video games played by children in 2014 was around 91%. That is a huge population of children, which practically makes up most of the U.S, and in another statistic; it states that the average amount of time played on a video game was about 13.5 hours. The reasoning of why is typically because of adults having their own responsibilities, and parents needing a way to "distract" kids from bugging them. A video game is the simple solution for the parents task.
The games the child plays varies, but most video games either have some element of violence or is within the "cool trend" among children. The most recipient, with the influence of the "cool-trend", typically rely among teenagers. The ages between 13 to 16 years old. The games typically played by this audience involves either "Action", or "Shooters"; like stated in the Sales of Video Game Genres in 2014. The most selling either being Call of Duty or Assassin's Creed, two of the most violent games within the market. My opponent may question why parents do not take these away from their children? It seems so simple, and it is, but most parents do not understand the Rating System in games. In another statistic stated on "PBS", it states that close to 90% of parents do not look at the Rating System within games because of being "too stressed" as an adult. Supporting one of my previous arguments.
In my opponents previous argument, he brought up that there are more other influences than just video games. To counter argue his statement, let me please share another statistic. Under an article, titled "Kids stay indoors: What happened to, "Go outside and play"", it states that more children stay inside than outside. The exact percentage, being 72%, states that kids rather stay inside, than outside; disproving my opponents argument of being influenced on the outside. As well as in another article titled "Why do Kids Love Video Games", it states that children were surveyed about whether they like to watch TV or play video games. 87% said that they preferred to play video games, over watching television, because of having an interactive experience within the room; instead of just sitting and watching a screen.
As it is seen, my opponents previous arguments that he has brought up are actually false, than true. Video games is the popular media in society nowadays, and is mostly the target audience of many companies. If my opponent claims its because of other reasoning's, why are video games "pushed" away; even though being the most popular trend within the United States?
Ok I will be counter arguing this round and possibly making a few new arguments.
Yes the goal in most video games is kill the enemy, destroy this, eradicate that. achieve this by ridding of this. But this debate revolves around why video games influence kids or don't influence kids to do physical harm in real life.
I would never ask "why parents do not take these away from their children?" because it has nothing to do with the argument. although I agree its a problem that parents forget about the rating system.
Ya sure kids stay indoors. That is great. So what does that prove? You know books are inside the house. Yes TV isnt really a big thing but this caters mostly to all ages between 8 and 16 but I never stated that so that is irrelevant excuse me. Continuing on most of my argument: Kids are influenced by the outside. I think most american kids go to school. And i stated there that kids influence other kids to do bad things. Also I stated that kids walk into history class and are greeted by a bloody display of human history. I am not saying we should not teach it or censor it that would be dumb, but its another form of instigating grueling violent thoughts in kids.
So my argument still stands.
Now on with more stuff:
yes you are right video games are a popular media in this day and age. BUT does that make them the cause of most of the horrible acts relating to violence in kids? No not all.
I find it funny that you say because video games are the most popular they are therefore one of the main and only reasons for violent acts and thoughts in kids.
have you ever seen or heard of a miss raised child in a bad home? I have many times. Most of the violent acts and thought come from the lifestyle they were born into. Not what their hobbies are.
Just some statistics found at this site(The following was copy and pasted): http://videogames.procon.org...
Sales of video games have more than quadrupled from 1995-2008, while the arrest rate for juvenile murders fell 71.9% and the arrest rate for all juvenile violent crimes declined 49.3% in this same period.
A causal link between violent video games and violent behavior has not been proven. Many studies suffer from design flaws and use unreliable measures of violence and aggression such as noise blast tests. Thoughts about aggression have been confused with aggressive behavior, and there is a lack of studies that follow children over long periods of time.
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 movies, books, and violence in their own writings. The report did not find a relationship between playing violent video games and school shootings.
The small correlations that have been found between video games and violence may be explained by violent youth being drawn to violent video games. Violent games do not cause youth to be violent. Instead, youth that are predisposed to be violent seek out violent entertainment such as video games.
Playing violent video games reduces violence in adolescent boys by serving as a substitute for rough and tumble play. Playing violent video games allows adolescent boys to express aggression and establish status in the peer group without causing physical harm.
I copy and pasted all of those paragraphs. That should not count me off because I linked the site up top. You can also check it out here:http://videogames.procon.org...
Thank you for reading my argument and happy fourth of july!!!
My opponent also says, after admitting the already violence in video games, and quotes: "But this debate revolves around why video games influence kids or don't influence kids to do physical harm in real life". My opponent did not clarify this in the first round or within the topic. The topic is: "Video games are not a significant cause of violence in children", where I am "Con", and stating that kids do get violent from video games, but will 99% of the time not cause any real threat within society. The definition of violence can also be defined as: "Strength of emotion or an unpleasant natural force"; not in the sense of a criminal, or unjustly action. My opponent did not clarify the definition of "violence", so it can mean multiple meanings. With that in mind, kids do get a little violent after playing video games commonly that involve any certain aggressive action. Evidence to support this argument is from the article titled: "Violent Video Games and Aggressive Behavior, where is says: "Tend to be more aggressive after playing video games for at least 30 to 40 minutes". Where I previously mentioned that 91% of kids play video games for an average time of 13.5 hours; above the requirement to get "aggressive". So following the topic, video games are, technically, a significant cause of violence.
In the previous argument, I brought up the reason of why kids 91% of kids play video games everyday for 13.5 hours, and the reasoning was because of adults and parents ignoring on what their child does; because of adult type responsibilities. My opponent states, with the given quote, that: "I would never ask 'Why parents do not take these away from their children' because it has nothing to do with the argument. Although I agree its a problem that parents forget about the rating system.". It actually does because its the biggest influence into having kids play video games with violence, with parents forgetting the rating system. Which my opponent refuses to rebuttal because of knowing the truth that this is a major influence within the debate, which actually does prove that kids play violent video games and influence violence upon them; because of the neglect of the rating system within the video game.
My opponent then agrees with me that kids tend to stay more inside, than out. Previously, I mentioned because of this more kids will tend to play video games, then watch television. And also, previously, I brought up the statistic that at least 70% of kids stay inside, when given the decision, than outside. My opponent says that this does not matter, when it does because if kids rather stay inside than outside, then there has to be an influence somewhere to play a video game. Like stated previously, 82% of prefer to play video games than any other activity. So this is relevant if kids are willing to stay inside, than outside.
For my opponents argument, he states that there is a more major influence on the outside world than inside. I will admit that there is, but I have a few statistics to disapprove my opponents argument. To begin, I like to bring up a term titled "Video Game Addiction", where it is defined as: "Video game overuse, pathological or compulsive and excessive use of computer games and/or video games". Video game addiction happens, and once it does; players do not want to stop playing the video game. Stated under the website "Addiction Recovery", it states that video game addiction occurs because of the player desiring power within their lives, which is easier done in a game, than real life. Children are more prone towards this type of addiction, because of having a more undeveloped brain, and are actually the biggest targets for this addiction. In 2014, 61% of children have at least missed more than five days of school in order to play video games; because of it being fun. So if kids are practically skipping school to play video games, why do you still think that it is more of the outside world? Even in the outside world, there are still more influences to play these violent video games, than being the "rejected" one. In a article, titled: "Global ad spending in video games to top $7.2B in 2016", it is easily stated that a ton of money is spent on advertising for a video game. Where it populates the country consistently, and in a statistic from "Statista", it states that at least 76% of people are influenced by video game advertisements.
So if my opponent claims that there are more influences in the outside world, why is there still many influences to play these violent video games? My opponent even agrees that video games are a popular source of media, and therefore stands upon my argument in which kids are heavily influenced to play these violent video games. My opponent still disagrees that because of video games being popular, with the given statement from my opponent being: "I find it funny that you say because video games are the most popular they are therefore one of the main and only reasons for violent acts and thoughts in kids". Stated under the article, titled "The Role and Influence of Mass Media", the media heavily influences a lot of actions or ideas within society. Examples, that they provided, include the different trends of clothes in different time periods (Wearing 80's clothing at the time and now being very weird towards today's society), and the determination of whether to be afraid or happy in a certain event. So media does have a huge influence, and if my opponent agrees that video games are popular; then how are video games not causing violence within children?
My opponent also brought up some statistics within the following link he provided, but that evidence can easily be counter argued with a "Copy & Paste Method". My opponent got his evidence from a "Pro" and "Con" website, where it gives the Pro's and Con's within the site. This is, factually, not a reliable source where it can be counter argued very easily; and should not be used; especially when my opponent just copied and pasted his argument, instead of stating his opinion with evidence to support it. And also breaks the moral of a debate!
To conclude this round, let me state that I have brought many counter arguments towards my opponent. My opponent provided some counter arguments, but did not bring any evidence or common logic within the debate; even though stated by my opponents rules of: "Burden of proof is shared, so any thing claimed as a 'fact' must have a source. Anything claimed opinion has to have 'logic' back that up and this affects both con and pro. It is up to the voters to decide what exactly is fact and logic to themselves". While I counter argued most of my opponents arguments, and brought up some new arguments. The new arguments of major influences of the outside world, instead of ones comfort zone.
Also for the last round (The fifth) you do not have to have an official closing, you may continue making new arguments in your respective round. although I am giving con the upper hand.
On with the debate.
Yes I have agreed with you on many things. In fact most of your argument is completely true and I know this from experience.
I have said BoP is shared, and it is. If you feel I have not brought up enough logic on my positive claim than I will start using statistics.
Monday 10 November 2014
A recent long-term study by the USA shows the violent games are not the cause for violence in society
If you read this study its states that in the first of the two historical evaluations researchers studied the links between violent films and societal violence by looking at the top grossing titles between 1920 and 2005. What they deduced was that film violence went in a rough U pattern during this time period whereas societal violence decreased in the later half of the 20th century.
The second study used data from ESRB to estimate the violent content of video games from the time of 1996-2011. It showed that as the popularity of violent video games went up, youth violence went down. you can read more of thisin the sited resources below.
To continue on into a more depressing topic, children who commit homicide have different brain structures. This article talks all about it.
Apparently researchers found that children who commit murder have lower levels of grey matter in their medial and lateral temporal lobes and the hippocampus and posterior insula, according to news release.
If you are wondering what grey matter is its the stuff that helps you process information in the brain.
This means the less grey matter you have the more likely you will become confused between violent video games and reality.
In another article posted Wed/July23/2014 showed that harsh corporal punishment can knock grey matter levels down in children. If a person receives this, they are more likely to commit violent acts in the future. This has nothing to do with the debate at hand, but what we can deduce is that when children between ages 10-17 play a violent video game they aren't losing anything beneficial to them and therefor are not violent in the future.
Again I will restate a few more points
There has never been a link between violent video games and violent acts in kids and teens.
The sales rate for video games has quadrupled from 1995-2008 along with a 71.9% drop in juvenile arrest rates and a 49-50% drop in juvenile crimes.
Any small correlation between violent youth and violent video games may be explained: Violent games do not cause youth to be violent, instead already violent youth are attracted to violent video games.
To begin, my opponent admits about my previous arguments being true. He even said it within the given quote being: "Yes I have agreed with you on many things. In fact most of your argument is completely true and I know this from experience". So if my opponent agreed with my previous arguments, did he just "drop" this debate? He admitted on my previous arguments and tries to throw in new arguments to make up for it, which actually shows that he is not counter arguing my own arguments, but shows a sign of "defeat" in a way.
Anyways, besides that statement I will counter argue my opponents new arguments, for the sake of being "fair" within the debate. My opponent begins using sources, which is kind of too late when you start the 4th out of 5 rounds, about how video games cause violence. When I previously mentioned, and my opponent refused to look at, that violence is not all about criminal acts. Violence can be an emotion, which kids do receive after playing a game for at least 40 minutes; stated in my previous argument.
Following along with the statement that violence is not all about actions, violence can also cause anger in a child's emotion. My opponent brought up a statistic, previously used, that 71.9% dropped in juvenile arrests because of video games increasing in sales. That is great and all, but how do you know they are not violent at home? Since the definition of violence can be an angry emotion, who doesn't say that the consumers don't get violent once in a while stay their home? Stated in a previous argument, 70% of kids prefer to stay inside than outside; meaning less possible actions on the outside world. Your example being criminal actions, but who does not say they reveal their violence inside their own home? Either in anger, or like the definition of your view on violence, within the privacy of home?
My opponent clearly does not really add any new points within the argument. While I, admittedly, didn't either; however, my opponent admitted on my previous arguments of being true, so no point in adding more arguments if my opponent "dropped" the debate. As well as did not define the term "violence" within the first round of the debate; where violence can now mean two different meanings. To conclude this argument, video games do, technically, cause violence within children and teens who play it for a little bit. Not in the way of "violent" or "criminal actions", but in the way of anger towards others and him or herself.
Demonoid forfeited this round.
My opponent did not define the topic of the word "violence", making it not mean only one thing but multiple, while I used the definition of violence as an emotion. Violence does occur whenever a person plays a video game for about 40 minutes, even though they may just get angry and not do any criminal action.
As well as earlier within the debate, my opponent even admitted on most of my points; meaning that he "dropped" the debate. With the given statement, on the fourth round, being: "Yes I have agreed with you on many things. In fact most of your argument is completely true and I know this from experience".
So voters, who do you think deserves the win? My opponent, who dropped the debate within the middle, or I, who pushed on and added more arguments. Thank you for this debate my fellow opponent!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by AdventurerExplorer 1 year 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:||0||1|
Reasons for voting decision: Both used good sources and debate arguments to present their case, However with the forfeiture of the last round i will give conduct to Con. My beginning position is that they don't cause damage and seeing the evidence presented i think my position is still a logical position to hold. In short, I think both debaters did a really good job :) Keep it up!
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.