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

Violent Video Games

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/24/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,092 times Debate No: 30642
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




This is my first debate, just a side note. I have played video games since I was very little. Gaming has become a passion of mine and I want to follow that career path. Violent games I believe are not a direct source to violence in society. First from a personal note, I have had many hardships growing up and being raised and have played violent video games throughout my lifetime. In no way has video games swayed me towards violence against anyone or anything in real life. I understand not everything has my mindset. So a couple of my points are 1- Parenting. I believe parenting is a primary source to violence. In younger years of a child's life it is up to parents to decide whether or not a child or adolescent should be playing violent video games, but whether or not that actually happens, well no one actually has control over an individual"s parenting. Also family violence such as drug abuse, mental, and physical abuse, are the main factors to violence. 2- Reality vs. Fantasy. Some may not be able to differentiate reality from fantasy. To me, those people are more prone to violence without the aid of gaming. Many say violence in games cause people to act more violently, which in reality, if you think about it, how much of the violence in games is actually capable of being performed in real life? Infamous, for example, is about a man who can control electricity. How many people do you know can control electricity and shoot electric bolts from their hands? FPS (First Person Shooters) such as the Call of Duty or Medal of Honor series, have gun violence. Sure that is pretty realistic, but in some FPS you can't even cook a grenade, which is, in my opinion, very unrealistic. Also those particular series have a more historic and educational story line to them. The Crysis series, a FPS, involves aliens and abilities such as invisibility and suit upgrades. Sure you aim down a sight to shoot either human or alien, but still quite unrealistic. MOST people, I'm not saying all, can tell the difference from reality and fiction. I hope i have made my points clear, if not, please say so so I may go into more detail.


Hello, I would like to debate on the subject of violent video games. I will now counter argue my opponent's points.

First of all, you said that parenting is a primary source to violence, while this may be a legitimate statement, it does not pertain to the argument at hand. Second, you mentioned that some people may not be able to differentiate reality from fantasy, and that may cause them to be more prone to violence without gaming. This is only true in some cases. For example, a child. If a child plays this game, he will be prone to violence he is most likely has not been exposed to otherwise. You mentioned that parents should be deciding at an early age whether they should play violent video games or not. Well if video games that were violent were not sold, this would not be a problem at all. You mentioned call of duty, or medal of honor. You said that while realistic, it is educational. I have to disagree, as the last four Call of Duty games have taken place in modern ages. With most taking place in the near future. Did you know the Military uses first person shooters to make them less sensitive to killing. Why would you expose that to children? As for Crysis, it still involves shooting humans. The fact stands that you shouldn't put children in the hands of someone who is killing another person.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting, and I agree with your first statement. I would like to start with your second, that children are more prone to violence from video games. Well I still stand by my reasoning about responsibility of parents, but also a child's mindset is different then when in adolescence or older, therefore they most likely do not understand the concept of the violence that are in those video games. And how many kids have you heard violently hurting someone just because they wanted to? Even if their past growing up was not rough or devastating? Sure there are some smart kids out there, but if they were smart enough about it, they would know about violence and take in account human integrity and have some idea that it is wrong to cause violence.

I admit I may have outspoken for the more recent Call of Duty's, but the older ones did have a educational value. If violent video games could hold some sort of educational value I believe the violence would matter less The education, if prevalent enough, takes your mind off the more violent parts of the game. The emotional status of the characters, how the game makes you feel, whether it be sadness, or even hate towards another character, that emotion leads to a deeper understanding of the violence in the game, if that makes sense.

And the thing about the military? They live that on a weekly bases, even before video games became electronic. Sure it may be how they become less aware of killing another human being, but again, that is their lifestyle, and sure there are more even better ways, to deal with that, but obviously video games were the option chosen, and I would like to believe more for the fun that could be taken out of it by sitting next to your comrade in arms having a friendly competition.


I would like to thank my opponent for his great rebuttal.

You said that a childs mindset may not understand the violence portrayed in video games. My response to that is "exactly". Due to the fact that the child does not understand the violence, he or she is more likely to think that his kind of behavior is okay. Mostly because, as you have stated, they do not understand he violence, or how it is wrong. I can also give many examples in which children have commited acts of violence due to a video game. One for example,On August 2, 2008, Polwat Chinno, a 19-year-old Thai teenager, stabbed a Bangkok taxi driver to death during an attempt to steal the driver's cab in order to obtain money to buy a copy of Grand Theft Auto IV.
A police official said that the teen was trying to copy a similar act in the game. Another thing I forgot to point out. is that some video games teach kids the wrong values. Violent behavior, vengeance and aggression are rewarded. Negotiating and other nonviolent solutions are OFTEN not options. Women are often portrayed as weaker characters that are helpless or sexually provocative, is this the kind of stuff you want a small child playing?
Debate Round No. 2


Well as my opponent has, I would like to say outstanding points have been made, I feel I may find it difficult to rebut his rebuttal.

Yes as you said it is possible the understanding, or misunderstanding, of a violent video game played by a child is probable cause to violence. Again, and I apologize for constantly coming back to this, the parent is responsible not only for the games their child plays, but to help them understand through human values that violence is not only wrong, but the violence in video games is only fictional and some of the time not even possible to perform in reality.

As for the 19 year old, first he is 19, an adult and almost a full-fledged one, and knows the reality of violence, not only through games, or past situations, but through his own hands. I felt obliged to look this individual up, and as said in the article, there was history of family violence between his parents, which he was quoted upon by the police. "Police quoted Polwat as saying in a statement: "I needed money to play the game every day. My parents give me only 100 baht a day, which is not enough. I am also fed up with them fighting. They are civil servants and do not make good money," he said."
- ( )

So this 19 year old has had hardships in his life, family fighting, always low on money, and the assumption would be because of the lack of money, this individual would not have had decent living conditions. His reasoning was because he wanted money to buy the game. Sure he said he wanted to see if it was as easy to kill someone in real life as in the game. But the origin of the problem was money issues. He wanted money to buy the game, and as a secondary thought he figured he would try out the game in real life.

I will agree with your last statement. Children should not be embellished in the acts of violence in games. You say they teach the wrong values, but aren't violent video games based off of survival of the fittest? The human mindset to be the one on top, and to not be run down? If I may not be mistaken, that is the value of almost every human being, conquer any challenge in any way possible, with or without help, through or completely void of violence. And yes, it's true that most situations do not have to be resolved through violence. More recently women have taken on many different, even important, and "manly" roles in video games. Sure women are depicted as sexy or provocative, but to be honest here, what female figure ANYWHERE within the media, is not shown as provocative? Movies, music artists, fashion designers, magazines, even social networking, women are depicted or even depict themselves as attractive more or less.

The above source is a reference to my below statement. It depicts the growth in the video game industry.
I would like to bring up a new and final point, but it is a small one. The video game industry is huge, and growing bigger as more games are developed and new consoles and pc's are being made. As my source says, the market was worth $65 million, and has grown over 60% since 2006. If one were to remove violence completely, in other words if violence did not exist in video games what so ever, then where would the Video Game Industry be? Less jobs would be available, less money being brought to the governments, and also, the majority of video games have some form of violence in them. Be it mass killing or boxing. A recent game I have seen and played personally, called Rock of Ages, is a simple game in which you control a rock rolling down a hill. But the main objective of the game is to knock down the enemy gates and roll over the enemy "king". Like I said, many video games depict violence in some form, and to take that away would be like taking the meaning out of life away. Because the meaning of life is can be quite violent, and is shown not only through real life situations, but obviously in video games as well.
I rest my case.

I would kindly ask for my opponent to only create a rebuttal for my rebuttal, and bring up no new points unless it pertains strictly to the points i have made anywhere above, since this is the last round. Oh how I wish I made it five rounds now.

Good Luck opponent, it has been pretty fun having a "non violent" debate! (pun intended) :)


Before I post my final argument, I would also like to thank my opponent. He has also made some amazing points and I will take it as a challenge to rebuttal them.

The pro was talking about how the parent is responsible for what games a child plays, however this is only partly true. Sometimes an older brother or sister, or even uncle or aunt will buy a game for a child without the parents consent, or even knowledge. While not directly relevant to the point, the violent video game indirectly still ends up in the hands of the child.

You pointed out that it was hardship to blame for the violence. Even if this is true, had the game not exist, he wouldn't have to stab a taxi driver in order to buy it. Before you say anything, yes, I do understand your point, but I also stick to mine, something else MIGHT of happened, but this even wouldn't have.

As for the video game industry, I could name plenty of games that do not require violence.Animal Crossing, Nintendogs, Wii Sports, My Sims, and Tetris , just dance, and rock band. These are all games that don't have violence.

This is my final argument, I would like to thank my opponent one last time. I reccomend that the voters vote for not who they agree with, but who did a better job. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by BigSky 3 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro defended his case that violent videogames are indeed not the cause of violence in modern society. Con didn't exactly show how these games will make a child psychologically distressed enough to have voilent thoughts. Con said that Wii Sports has no violence, but it has boxing, which is technically an example of violence.