Video games count as free speech, and should be protected under the First Amendment.
Debate Rounds (3)
I hope, this being my first debate, it is a very nice one.
I accept your challenge. It is now your responsibility to present your argument. You can't use the Bill of Rights as an argument. You have to provide, beyond reasonable doubt, that it is wrong to distribute video games to whomever can pay for them.
Put as much thought as you can into it since we have only have two more rounds.
PS: Welcome to the community!
First, and foremost, I shall try to dispute the idea that exposure to violence is causing people of easy influence (Kids and the like) to act violent themselves. I am not going to try to argue that certain games are not violent, because that argument would be as moot as it is wrong. In my opinion, which is backed by many and opposed by many as well, it is not video games which have been causing us to believe there is an increase in crime, but it is the fact that reporting violent news has become easier than ever. In fact the crime rate is the lowest it has been in 30 years 
(I wrote that 2 days ago, I have been a hospital since then, I humbly forfeit on the grounds that I am in no mental, physical, nor the emotional state to make sense.)
I'm assuming that you're justifying the sale of mature video games to young children based on the idea that violence is not promoted by video games. I agree with this premise, but I do not believe that this should be the merit upon which we decide whether or not we should sell mature video games to children. Instead, I believe that we should prevent the sale of these games to children because they are not old enough to understand the implications of violence in society. A child may be desensitized towards violent displays of human interactions and this will affect his ability to react appropriately to real life demands. For example, a child may witness violence in the streets and think it normal due to prior exposure via video games.
Children are easily impressionable. If a video game commercial claims their product is cool then the child will have little contrary reason to believe otherwise. He may or may not have responsible parents that are monitoring his exposure to these kinds of adverts. A child does not typically question the suggestions and commands of others and may be influenced to purchase a product that is not appropriate for his age. The decisions of whether or not children should be playing these games should be in the hands of the parents, and not in the child's.
I wish I had used my first argument to its full extent, I hope to hear back soon.
I'm arguing that children shouldn't be able to purchase/view mature content. A parent can choose to buy it for them, which is the only to circumvent age restriction policies. Otherwise yes I do indeed believe that the state or some other form of agency should prohibit children from buying mature content.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Double_R 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:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: This debate was a little tough to follow. Pros round 2 argument about how exposure to violence does not affect young people had nothing to do with his resolution that games count as free speech. But then Con responds by arguing weather the sale of these games should be restricted to children, which had little to do with Pros new argument. In the end Pro had the BoP and did not affirm it.
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.