The Instigator
Con (against)
7 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Violent Video Games Lead to Real Violence (First Debate)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/18/2016 Category: Games
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 797 times Debate No: 86827
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)




I feel that violence in video games does not create the player to become a more violent person, nor does it lead to more crime in the world by its players. A study that Villanova and Rutgers University had published "found that when shooting game sales are at their highest, crime numbers tend to drop" (1). There was also a study done in 2010 that found that used 103 young adults to solve a frustration task in groups, with some playing video games and some not. They found "that the games had no impact on aggressive behavior whatsoever, and that the group which played no game at all was the most aggressive after the task, whereas the group that played the violent games were the least hostile and depressed" (2). Studies like this exemplify that well known saying, ""Correlation does not imply causation".


(This is my first debate on this website so I might not do well/not know how to respond properly)


Well, it is definitely the case that violent video games lead to violence in real life due to the fact that it encourages new ideas to try illegal things which are seen as "cool" by teenagers. For example, the violent 18+ video game, which is played by those much younger too, show that speeding cars and not following rules is fun and thrilling. This leads to people trying this in real life...
Debate Round No. 1


I feel that just because a video game have the ability to glamorize illegal things (such as using and selling drugs, speeding cars, and murder) does not mean that people who play these games will actually do illegal things. If people are influenced by taking drugs, running red lights, or being violent in anyway because they did it on a video game then there is something else driving that person to do it. No moral and mentally healthy person would go kill people for fun due to a video game. No one wants to sell drugs due to it "looking fun". No one wants to get into a fist fight because "why not". No one wants to get police to chase them in a speeding car for the hell of it. There are definable other aspects in said persons life that would lead them to that. I think it is quite clear that people get desensitized to violence in general due to video games and movies, however that does not mean people are going to be violent. Desensitization of violence doesn't necessary mean you will be a violent person, but will not be mentally affected by it if you see it.

On a personal note, I have been playing video games ever since I could remember with games like Pokemon, and Runescape. To this day, I am still a big gamer and have played most mainstream games. When I saw the Deadpool movie this weekend (extremely graphic), I did not freak out at the crazy amount of violence. I would say I'm desensitized to most violence, but I'm also basically a pacifist and never really hit anyone or got into a fight. I acknowledge this is my situation, but I wasn't raised around violence. I never really saw a real fist fight. Real violence wasn't around me, so that's probably why I'm a pacifist. But that is kind of my point, it's individual experiences that might make people violent, not from a role-playing game on a television. From my perspective anyone who plays violent games with a relatively healthy mind knows that these games are fake.

Someone who is violent probably did not get it from watching fake scenarios of violence, like in movies or video games because it is clear it is fake. There is no urge (from a mentally healthy person at least) to go and try this in real life. I just don't feel that anyone who is a normal human being would take something from "Grand Theft Auto" and go steal cars, kill police, and punch hookers. I just don't see it happening. Again I do see the desensitization of violence, but I don't see it causing extra violence in stable teenagers (or anyone for that matter). I keep saying "stable" and "mentally healthy" because if someone has a mental problem they might do something crazy from an idea a video game gave them, but that's not exclusive to video games.

(I hope this all makes sense)


Maybe you and the majority of people can cope with violent video games and are sensible enough to not recreate any of these acts in real life. However, there are people (people who do it for fun and mentally incapable people) who will simply get ideas from this violence and feel the need to do it in real life, to find out other people's reactions.
Petty crime has increased after these violent video games, as these now provide new ways of doing crimes without getting caught - you can say almost like a "tutorial" as the levels can be replayed and as it gives advice.
Debate Round No. 2


Evan_the_Meatball forfeited this round.


RazorxLeaf forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by KingoSchenk 2 years ago
Your second source has some sketchy information. Video game sales have little or no effect on crime rates dropping. The two things do not correlate in that way. "Crime rate decline" has actually slowed down since violent video games were created. Look at the graph on your Forbes source. - The crime line goes continuously down and then turns at a lower angle. Because of this, I could even say that, without video games, crime rates would drop even faster.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by U.n 2 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Con supported his arguments by citing a study which shows crime drops when shooting games are at their highest and another study which concluded that video games resulted in no aggression. Pro did not support their own argument with any cited sources - I would have liked to see possibly a study that arrived at conflicting results? Or even a quote from a doctor by Pro.
Vote Placed by Hylian_3000 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Both forfeited once S&G: No spelling or grammatical errors spotted Arguments: Con did a good job making arguments and explaining them. He also supported them with evidence. Pro did a poor job explaining his points and his entire argument was flawed and full of speculation. No evidence was given to support Pro's arguments. Con wins by a landslide. Sources: Con was the only one to use sources.