The Instigator
tmoney226
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
link100
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

Video games should be censored

Do you like this debate?NoYes+7
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 3 votes the winner is...
tmoney226
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/27/2010 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 11,340 times Debate No: 11892
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (25)
Votes (3)

 

tmoney226

Pro

Most would argue that they enjoy video games not being censored well, TO BAD!
your opinion doesn't mater in a debate were you debate the facts. What good does cussing and violence do?

This should be good?
link100

Con

Let me start by saying that even if we would like there to be no cuss words in games, guess what? You can't do anything about it either. Why? Because of the first amendment. It, as most people know, "addresses the rights of freedom of religion (prohibiting Congress from establishing a religion and protecting the right to free exercise of religion), freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of petition" (form wikipedia). As we do, all companies have these rights and we can do nothing about it. As such all games should be able to have language that might be, lack of a better word, strong. Also, game makers have rating companies (ESRB for example) rate the games on their content. This lets people know what to expect during game play, and if they don't want to be subjected to the language, they have a choice. From the evidence I have presented the only possible answer to this debate is that video games should NOT be censored.
It is for these reasons that I strongly stand in the position of Con.
Debate Round No. 1
tmoney226

Pro

I will start by addressing the point that video games are protected by the first amendment. First off, I never stated that we are debating whether we CAN censor video games. I stated we SHOULD censor video games. My opponent fails to recognise that the resolution never states the United States as being the only country we are debating about. We are debating about all countries and all nations. Video games are widely popular around the world. take Nintendo for instance, Nintendo is a company based in Japan. While my partner is correct, video games are protected by the first amendment, their argument is rendered useless because of the limited impact the US has on the video game industry. My opponent is correct in his point that video games are rated but, how many of your friends abuse and often overlook these ratings? Maybe even you have before? The point is that even when they have these ratings, there is no restriction to who can buy them. If they have the choice, so be it, but they may get the idea that the content is okay when in reality, it is completely the opposite.

It is for these reason I vote PRO.
link100

Con

Actually, you are wrong. Nintendo does have first amendment rights. Why do they? Because they have an administration office (or HQ, whichever you prefer) specifically for America. So they do have the right to freedom of speech. Nintendo also isn't only a game DEVELOPER, it's a parent company. If your wondering what a parent company is, it's a company that starts up another corporation (subsidiary corporation), and the original (parent) company itself owns the shares of the subsidiary. The individual shareholders of the parent own the subsidiary, but indirectly. They are not, themselves, shareholders in the subsidiary -- the parent owns the shares.

The one difference is that Nintendo doesn't start a corporation it provides advertisement and other services to the game producer. And, as it states below, Nintendo DOES already have censorship regulations, and it will not promote any game that does not meet these standards.

I have found the following at: ~http://www.filibustercartoons.com...~

"The following Game Content Guidelines are presented for assistance in the development of authorized game paks (i.e., both Nintendo and licensee game paks) by defining the type of content and themes inconsistent with Nintendo's corporate and marketing philosophy. Although exceptions may be made to preserve the content of a game, Nintendo will not approve games for the NES, Game Boy or Super NES systems (i.e., audio-visual work, packaging, and instruction manuals) which:

• include sexually suggestive or explicit content including rape and/or nudity; (1)

• contain language or depiction which specifically denigrates members of either sex; (2)

• depict random, gratuitous, and/or excessive violence; (3)

• depict graphic illustration of death; (4)

• depict domestic violence and/or abuse; (5)

• depict excessive force in a sports game beyond what is inherent in actual contact sports; (6)

• reflect ethnic, religious, nationalistic, or sexual stereotypes of language; this includes symbols that are related to any type of racial, religious, nationalistic, or ethnic group, such as crosses, pentagrams, God, Gods (Roman mythological gods are acceptable), Satan, hell, Buddha; (7)

• use profanity or obscenity in any form or incorporate language or gestures that could be offensive by prevailing public standards and tastes; (8)

• incorporate or encourage the use of illegal drugs, smoking materials, and/or alcohol (Nintendo does not allow a beer or cigarette ad to be placed on an arena, stadium or playing field wall, or fence in a sports game); (9)

• include subliminal political messages or overt political statements (10)"

The censorship regulations here proves that games are already being censored, and that it is up to the companies who manufacture and advertise the games to decide whether they should be censored.
In short, companies have the right to make any game they want because THEY ARE PROTECTED UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT. Which blatantly proves that GAMES SHOULD NOT AND CANNOT BE CENSORED UNLESS IT IS PREDETERMINED BY THE SPECIFIC PARTY!

My opponent also states that we abuse and overlook ratings. Well that may be true for some of us, but at SEARS they have a policy that if you do not have an adult (over 17 years of age) with you at the time of purchase, then you cannot buy an M rated game which shows there is a restriction on who can buy them. And any way plenty of parents look over games ratings before buying them, I know mine do, and like you said they have a choice and if they choose not to then they probably don't care if their kids and teens are playing games that have such ratings, which is OK if that is their stance.
And let me state that my opponent, although he has done a good job at trying to deter my case has not put forward one piece of evidence, but instead used assumptions, like when he said "there is no restriction to who can buy them" them being video games, to prove his point.

Because of the evidence and points that I have presented that I firmly stand Con.
Debate Round No. 2
tmoney226

Pro

My opponents argument against Nintendo is flawed because I used the company Nintendo to promote my point that the US is not the only video game producing country. While Nintendo does have branches located in the us, the HQ is still located in Japan. That makes Nintendo a Japan based company. I have nothing against Nintendo because they do already promote censoring their video games. In my opinion, the rest of the video game industry should follow in example (as proof of my stance.) As I stated before, we are not debating whither you CAN censor video games, we are debating whither we SHOULD censor video games. because of that reason, my opponents first (and main) argument is irrelevant.
Their argument against 'we abuse and overlook ratings' was giving rules and regulations from Sears. Well I don't really need to say any thing, my opponent took the words RIGHT OUT OF MY MOUTH: 'plenty of parents look over games ratings before buying them, I know mine do'. my opponent is correct, most parents overlook these ratings, that is why we need to censor video games.

I would like to propose a new argument, that if a child views violence or 'bad words', then that child could get the idea that the content is okay. It is simple logic, the parent allows the child to buy the video game and when the child is exposed to the language and violence, they start to be repeated. In no way can this be interpreted as being good, and because this is true this is why video games should be censored.
my opponent states that I have been 'trying to deter' his case, TRYING really, considering all of my points compared to yours, you have NOTHING left.
link100

Con

I perfectly understand what you were saying when you said that the US wasn't the only producer of games but what I meant by what I said was that international game producers have rights, and thus my argument is flawless. But the point, as we discuss it more, is taking us off topic. You also say that I am not understanding the resolution that video games SHOULD be censored when in reality, I do. As proof let me say this. When I argued that the first amendment protects us from censoring the games (and as I can tell the argument still stands), I not only meant that we cannot censor them but we should not either, because when you think about it, censoring games would take away the rights of game makers and producers. Doing this would ultimately rob us of our democracy and promote fascism. Are you really taking a fascist stance, a stance were a freedom is taken away? If this were to go through, it would open the door for even more freedoms to be taken away. This is an example on how I am following the resolution, and thus my arguments are not irrelevant, flawed, or wrong and still stand.

As you say, I took the words right out of your mouth when I said that my parents LOOK OVER the ratings, when I did just the opposite, I said that they "look over" not overlook and if you cant see that to look over means to look at then please tell me to speak in plainer terms, so really I was never supporting your argument and it still stands.

You say that if a child is subjected to language of the darker nature through video games then they will think its ok? Well, let me ask that if a parent were to cuss and/or promote violence in the home and it makes an impression on the child to where they think it's ok, dose it make it ok? Of course it does. now I bet a ton of readers right now are all like "what the crap is he talkin' bout'!" and "how the heck does it make it ok!?!?!?!?!?"
These questions are somewhat hard to answer but I have given it hard thought and have come up with answers.

If we're talking about the U.S.,the Government greatly supports the family, and also recognises the leaders of it as "the last line" in matters that pertain to the raising of the children, as long they are not abusing them in any way whether it be mentally, or physically. This means that if the parent is ok with it, so is the government as long as the parents don't hurt the child in the process. So you were wrong when you said "in no way can this be interpreted as being good" you were wrong, because in the eyes of the parents it's acceptable, even if it's not exactly ethical.

All in all video games shouldn't be censored, it's against what our country in general is based off of, and I have presented evidence and points that support the stance of con but have no evidence to support you or any points I haven't shot down. Friend, no offense, but look who has "NOTHING left" now.

(also, you keep on saying "we" like in round 2 when you said "I stated we SHOULD censor video games". Who is "we" anyway? you cant battle all the countries of the world you cant say that the worlds video games needs to be censored it's too broad to even begin to discuss, so if you'd please clarify who is "we" so I can actually know who I'm debating for and about then I would appreciate it, but until then I am only going to refer to the U.S. due to my limited knowledge on other countries)
Debate Round No. 3
tmoney226

Pro

tmoney226 forfeited this round.
link100

Con

to be completely fair to my opponent I hereby forfeit this round and this round only, and eagerly await my partners response soon.
Debate Round No. 4
tmoney226

Pro

Sorry I had to forfeit round 3 due to tight scheduling. I thank my opponent for forfeiting round 3 with me, I am sorry for any inconveniences it caused him.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
my opponents stated that the first amendment protects us from censoring video games, when in fact it does the exact opposite. The first amendment says that we have the right to produce video games with inappropriate content, not that we CAN'T censor them. We CAN censor video games and just because the first amendment allows 'bad' content, that does not make it the right thing to do. He also states that the more we discuss this topic, we are getting more off topic. I believe that we have been on topic this entire time.

I apologize for my miss-read. I took 'looking over' as the same as 'overlooking.' Apparently you have responsible parents, but you must realize that not all parents are like that. some do overlook ratings. Again I apologize for my miss-read

My opponents third point, although I give him credits it was a nice try, has a fatal flaw. If I were to be living in a house were the residence was filled with dirty language and cussing, after only a short period of time it would become mentally abusive. I know what you are going to say ' because the parent views the language as acceptable, it is okay.' Well, let me put it this way, WRONG. Thanks for pointing it out for me 'it's not exactly ethical.' You are stating that the government will not intervene unless the child receives any type of abuse, still, cussing and violence are not okay. no matter how you put it. You also stated that is okay as long as the parents don't hurt the child in the process. All of that cussing and violence will hurt the child in the long run, they will be scared for life after hearing and seeing those types of things. And because of these reasons I am still asking myself "what the crap is he talkin' bout'!" I have to say your definition of okay, and mine, are to different things.

Finally for some strange reason my opponent has yet to see that all along I have been addressing 'we' as the world, the US, and the entire video game industry. I have no jurisdiction over the video game industry so if I were to say, 'I should censor video games, or you and I should censor video games' not possible.

I encourage a fair voting period for this debate, this means please vote on who won the debate, not which side YOU think should win without even reading our debate. Because censoring video games is the right thing to do, VOTE PRO.
link100

Con

ok so I guess you CAN censor them, but it also states that there shall be no amendment/law that impends first amendment rights, so we can censor them, but we can't MAKE any one censor them because that would impend on the right, and because your entire argument is pretty much based off this, it makes your entire argument flawed and when I said that we were getting off topic I was specifically talking about the Nintendo subject, I'm sorry for not making it clear enough.

my friend, you state that if the child is subjected to vulgar and profane language and what not for long enough, it becomes mental abuse, and even though this is off topic, I will address it. It can't be counted as mental abuse unless it's detrimental to the child's emotions, and as I again see, you have no proof that it is detrimental in any way. and yes, our definitions of 'okay' are different, but mine are based off of facts that I have proven to be facts and yours is merely your opinion, which you said "don't matter in a debate".

We SHOULDN'T censor games .again because it would lead us to fascism, and like I asked earlier, are you really taking a fascist stance?

Voters, I too promote a fair voting period and I kindly ask for a pro vote.
Debate Round No. 5
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Noneja 4 months ago
Noneja
I agree with link100. However, I agree for different reasons. I don't believe that video games should be censored, due to the fact that censorship itself is biased. I would like to put forward an example that proves my point. In 1992, a game was released call Night Trap. The goal of the game was to protect girls from being attacked by vampires. Due to the recent hype over "Death Race", this game was immediately attacked by the congress. During the hearing, Senator Joe Liebermann reffered to it as "disgusting", "shameful", and "ultraviolent". The game was described as the point being to kill the girls, instead of saving them, and there was a lot of attention towards one scene in particular, known as the "bathroom scene". This scene involved a girl being murdered while in a skimpy outfit. The court viewed it was a scene that you see when you beat the game, when in actuality it ws a game over screen. Due to bias, the game was censored. Later, it was revealed that no one in the case had ever actually played the game, and that the creator tried to testify, and was "silenced." This is just one example.

http://www.denofgeek.us...
Posted by link100 4 years ago
link100
Thank you for agreeing with me!
Posted by Lovebotlass17 4 years ago
Lovebotlass17
Yeah I'm not sure how Pro won but I say the votes were botched. lol
Posted by link100 4 years ago
link100
The voting in this debate was byast and you know it Trevor! The only reason yo won is because Sam voted for you!
Posted by link100 4 years ago
link100
sam did he tell u to vote for him!!!!!
Posted by link100 4 years ago
link100
uhh i meant vote con..... and yes i agree with tmoney :)
Posted by tmoney226 4 years ago
tmoney226
Just because i choose PRO in this debate doesn't mean that i feel that way in real life. I like cussing and violence in video games as much as the next person. I just thought it would be fun to debate the PRO side, i was right. I have to agree, video games are getting much worse.
Posted by tahthedon 4 years ago
tahthedon
hey tmoney, art's gonna be art. if u limit art it will suck, art has no limits, games are art.
u dont like cussing or violence in games? 2BAD!!! get used to it cuz theyre getting worse. lol
Posted by link100 4 years ago
link100
thats one of my poitnts in a wrap!
Posted by Lovebotlass17 4 years ago
Lovebotlass17
A child shouldn't be playing a game that wasn't designed for them in the first place. A child cannot purchase a game if they are not old enough, and it is probably the parent or guardian who buys a Mature rated game for a kid way too young. That's the responsibility of the parent, not the games, because they clearly label their content. No more censorship! :)
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by stargateman 4 years ago
stargateman
tmoney226link100Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by tmoney226 4 years ago
tmoney226
tmoney226link100Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by russianmaster999 4 years ago
russianmaster999
tmoney226link100Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07