The Instigator
AlFox
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
FuzzyCatPotato
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

Video games make you violent

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 2 votes the winner is...
FuzzyCatPotato
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/13/2017 Category: Technology
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 542 times Debate No: 100888
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

AlFox

Con

Video games don't make you violent, there are multiple studies that that says they don't make you violent,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

http://www.independent.co.uk...
FuzzyCatPotato

Pro

Hello. I contend that video games have caused a nonzero amount of violence.

PROOF 1:


The topic is: "Video games make you violent". I am the "you" in this sentence. Video games make me violent. When I am displeased with a game I say foul words like "darn" or "gosh golly". That's verbal violence right there.

PROOF 2:

Video game rage can be violent. Evidence:
    1. https://www.youtube.com...
    2. https://www.youtube.com...
    3. https://www.youtube.com...
I rest my case.
Debate Round No. 1
AlFox

Con

Every person will react different, if you are displeased and you say "darn" or verbal violence, that is you, not the game, you actually can say the same things without verbal violence.

About the videos...

1st The German kid like I said earlier, he is just impatient
2nd A tiny truth joke: "Video games don't make us violent, the lag does"
3rd If you notice, it's not the game at all, it's they losing, impatient people, someone calling the other fat.
4th They don't make you violent for a long term
FuzzyCatPotato

Pro

PROOF 1.

Con concedes that video games make me violent: "verbal violence, that is you".

Con concedes that "you" in the topic refers to me, Pro.

Thus: I have proven that "Video games make [me] violent".

PROOF 2.

Con disputes how much violence is caused by video games.

But Con concedes that my violence examples were caused by video games.

Thus: I have proven that video games cause nonzero violence.

Don't let Con make new responses to conceded points.

Con concedes all critical points.

Game over!
Debate Round No. 2
AlFox

Con

The violence is not caused by the video games, they are not designed for that, that other people tells you "fat" (like in the video you showed me) or they losing and scream because they lose, can happen not just by losing in video games, in every single thing that requires competition. Or the German kid impatient for playing and he don't know how to lose.
FuzzyCatPotato

Pro

Con's final response: violence isn't caused by video games they are not designed for that.

Cars aren't designed to kill pedestrians. Design can and does fail.

===

My burden of proof (BOP), from Rnd1, was: video games cause a nonzero amount of violence. Con doesn't contest this.

Two proofs:

1: Video games make me foul. Con has no standing arguments against my testimony.

2: Video games make others violent. Con concedes the video proof that video games caused this violence.

I've fulfilled my BOP. Vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by AlFox 10 months ago
AlFox
I've been playing video games since I am a kid, and I never been like those guys
Posted by michael.syrstad 10 months ago
michael.syrstad
Video games do not condone violence. Mostly everybody in my grade has played a "violent game", but even if it can be considered violent, people know that it is fake, even if they try to rein act the game they figure out it is not the same. Most people know that at a young age death is real and every act has a consequence. Video games do show some bad things but are all animated or you can tell it is fake.
Posted by btrxscopez 10 months ago
btrxscopez
Got me excited for a second, thought you would be pro.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Yraelz 10 months ago
Yraelz
AlFoxFuzzyCatPotatoTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro wins convincing argument by virtue of having argued that "you" means FuzzyCatPotato. Since Con never contests this point Pro gets undisputed inroads into personal examples of video games making him/her violent. There's no argument to the contrary by Con. Con wins reliable sources as he/she cited two peer reviewed studies. Pro cites youtube - a website with no fact checking function.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 10 months ago
Ragnar
AlFoxFuzzyCatPotatoTied
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: Pro case ended up including the claims that video game lag and losing are the causes of violence, but an insistance that itd not long term... con trolled with violent language like "gosh golly," but also video evidence of tantrums which went was than non-contested. Grasping at straws pro tried a claim that they are not intended to cause violence, was was easily countered with a car analogy. ... regarding the video evidence, pro really should have made the claim those were violent people (thus meaningful violence is decreased), and caught that the second video had nothing to do with games, just people breaking things. Con almost certainly would have still won, but at least they'd be counter points.