The Instigator
scottpreston
Con (against)
Losing
13 Points
The Contender
PoeJoe
Pro (for)
Winning
30 Points

Violent media causes people to be violent and should therefore be banned or censored.

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/24/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 13,121 times Debate No: 5128
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (9)

 

scottpreston

Con

With the recent surge of interest in ultra violent video games and violent cinema that is often deemed as 'Torture porn' there has also been in a increase in condemning of this violent media, suggesting that this type of media has a negative effect on the people of today (especially the youth) and causes people to imitate what they see portrayed in the media.

I have 3 main arguments why this violent media is acceptable:

1. The majority of this media type is sought out by men, by their very nature men have an intrinsic violent predisposition. When you take away the need to hunt and the need to fight for a mate there is a pent up rage in men that needs to be released. This type of media is an extension of this and can become the catharsis needed for men to fuel their competitive drive(in the case of video games) and allow them to experience the violence in a safe environment. Which will in effect lessen the need for people to be violent in real life.

2. Wars and violence have always existed, the media can only be based on what has already happened. Therefore it cannot be this media that is causing people to be violent, people are not imitating this violence as the media is based on previous violent acts.

3. Media has contained violence for a long time, older generations do not imitate the three stooges and beat each other violently when something goes wrong. Why would younger generations change alter this trend?

(Sorry if I am missing anything I should have, this is my first attempt at a debate)
PoeJoe

Pro

----Disclaimer----

For the record (and ONLY for the record), I do not necessarily believe the position I am arguing for this debate.

----Thank you----

I would like to thank my opponent, scottpreston, for creating such a delightful debate.

----Counterarguments----

My opponent's first argument is that men--now having had the Colosseum taken away--must deter their "violent predisposition". He claims that violent media IS that deterrent: "(Violent video games) will in effect lessen the need for people to be violent in real life." However, where are his sources? It is one thing to make a claim, and another to prove that claim. My opponent has not met the burden of proof for his first argument, and so it therefore must be ignored.

My opponent's second argument, if I understand correctly, is that: The media is entirely based on the real world, and because we live in the real world, the media cannot possibly be more violent that what we perceive around us. This argument is deeply flawed. First and foremost, most of the media is NOT based off the real world. This is an incorrect assumption. I regret to inform my opponent that heinous movies such as the Saw series were invented in the twisted minds of a few select individuals who wish to damage society. Secondly, even if all of the media around us WAS entirely based on the real world, that does not negate the fact that most people do not comprehend ALL the horrific events that have taken place. For instance, many do not know of the existence of the Nanking Massacre, a Japanese invasion that lead to severe rape and torture, and more than three hundred thousand deaths. When the movie, "Nanking" came out, many felt disgusted. Therefore, my opponent's argument--that media can never be more violent than the real world--should be ignored because (1) The statement is wrong; and (2) all the horror of the world can never be completely known, and the perception of the real world through media may be the first impression of those events.

My opponent's third argument is that media violence has been around for generations, and older generations seem to be unaffected. I will not negate that--this debate deals with the present. However, I would like to ask my opponent if he truly sees no difference between something like The Exorcist (1973), and something like Saw III.

----Argument----

Media violence has a HUGE effect on youngsters and their violent tendencies.

The most thorough study conducted (lead by L. Rowell Huesmann, Ph.D. and lasting over fifteen years) for example said that:

"Results show that men who were high TV-violence viewers as children were significantly more likely to have pushed, grabbed or shoved their spouses, to have responded to an insult by shoving a person, to have been convicted of a crime and to have committed a moving traffic violation. Such men, for example, had been convicted of crimes at over three times the rate of other men.

Women who were high TV-violence viewers as children were more likely to have thrown something at their spouses, to have responded to someone who made them mad by shoving, punching, beating or choking the person, to have committed some type of criminal act, and to have committed a moving traffic violation. Such women, for example, reported having punched, beaten or choked another adult at over four times the rate of other women."[1]

That study went on to conclude three things:[11]
"
1. Children may become less sensitive to the pain and suffering of others
2. Children may be more fearful of the world around them
3. Children may be more likely to behave in aggressive or harmful ways toward others"

And these results are not only limited to TV-violence. The Washington Post reported of a Gallop poll that discovered, "34 percent of boys who admitted to being in a physical fight over the last year have played 'GTA,' while 17 percent who were in a fight have not played the game." This is not an extraneous poll either. It is supported time and time again by a variety of studies,[2][3][4.1-.4.3][5.1-5.3][6][7][8] including one conducted by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary which wrote, "Since the 1950s, more than 1,000 studies have been done on the effects of violence in television and movies... these studies conclude that: children who watch significant amounts of television and movie violence are more likely to exhibit aggressive behavior, attitudes and values".[9] It's conclusive. Both TV and video game violence cause children to be more violent.

This makes sense really. "By the time a child is eighteen years old, he or she will witness on television (with average viewing time) 200,000 acts of violence including 40,000 murders."[10]

Again, it's conclusive. Violent media causes people to be violent. Therefore, it should be banned, or at least censored. I rest my case.

scottpreston, you have the floor.

----References----

[1] http://www.apa.org...
[2] http://news.bbc.co.uk...
[3] http://news.bbc.co.uk...
[4.1-.4.3] http://www.lionlamb.org... http://www.lionlamb.org... http://www.lionlamb.org...
[5.1-5.3] http://www.lionlamb.org... http://www.lionlamb.org... http://www.lionlamb.org...
[6] http://www.medicine.indiana.edu...
[7] http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu...
[8] http://www.psychology.iastate.edu...
[9] Senate Committee on the Judiciary (1999, September 14). Children, violence, and the media: A report for parents and policy makers.
[10] Huston, A.C. et al (1992). Big world, small screen: The role of television in American society. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
[11] http://www.psychologymatters.org...
Debate Round No. 1
scottpreston

Con

[Rebuttal]

Media is based of off people's experiences and is based of off the real world. There is no media which is based completely off fantasy, because this is not possible. Someone has to receive an idea from somewhere, and that has to be based in real life. My point being that these individuals who dream up the violence in Saw have to have based there movies on their own already violent minds. People who create and watch violent movies want to experience that kind of media.

"Secondly, even if all of the media around us WAS entirely based on the real world, that does not negate the fact that most people do not comprehend ALL the horrific events that have taken place.

I'm confused as what that refutes, I do not need to comprehend all the horrific events of the world to imitate what I see in the media. People may not be aware that more violence exists in the real world. But the topic of the debate was not if media was an accurate depiction of real life.

I have not seen the exorcist, however I have seen many films from the 70's that I would consider to be just as graphic for example: El Topo, Dawn of the Dead, Cannibal Holocaust.

The major flaw with your argument is that people seek things they are interested in, a violent person will seek out violence in the media. In the same way a person who enjoys fishing will watch programmes on fishing and read literature on fishing a person who has a violent disposition will be fascinated with violence in media. A person with a violent disposition is not likely to admit to themselves they are so inclined.

-Argument-

Here's is a simple point - If I play a game about tennis does it mean I am an adept tennis player or that I will play tennis outside of a video game? If I watch Indiana Jones will I become an architect or rob tombs? In the same way that I will not become an architect I will not go on a murderous rampage after playing Grand Theft Auto.

Now let's look at a less economically developed country such as Columbia or areas of the Congo or just generally deprived area of the world. These places must have little or no access to violent media simply because of lack of funds, do these places have less violent crime? has the crime rate of the world significantly increased upon the release of a new Grand Theft Auto.

Simply put people are violent, they will continue to be violent. Violent media is just a reflection on this.

-- Thank you for your argument --
PoeJoe

Pro

----Some thoughts----

My opponent has largely ignored the majority of my argument. I must then assume that he accepts those unaddressed arguments in their entirety; he concedes the debate. However, I will be courteous and extend my unaddressed arguments to this round.

----Response----

"Media is based of off people's experiences and is based of off the real world. There is no media which is based completely off fantasy, because this is not possible."

This in not true at all. In the PBS documentary "How Art Made the World", for instance, it was discovered that the idea of "paintings" was, for a large period of time, nonexistent--there were no paintings anywhere! Then, in an explosion of creativity, human kind created paintings in masses. How was that possible? How was the concept of a "painting" first conceived? The documentary explains: It was a way of copying hallucinations down semi-permanently.

But what does this have to do with this debate? It proves that complete originality is possible; that through altered states of consciousness, new ideas may emerge.

Media violence is becoming more and more sickening by the day--an effect achieved through the literally demented. Media violence, as I've proven, forces kids to be more violent. It therefore must be banned, or at least censored.

"I do not need to comprehend all the horrific events of the world to imitate what I see in the media"

According to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, that is not what most all the statistics say. And furthermore, your personal experience holds no value. First, you could be lying (your personal situation is completely unverifiable). And second, one personal story does not provide the bigger picture.

"People may not be aware that more violence exists in the real world. But the topic of the debate was not if media was an accurate depiction of real life."

Yes, but in proving that the media is not solely derived from the real world, I've defeated one of your three arguments.

"The major flaw with your argument is that people seek things they are interested in, a violent person will seek out violence in the media."

That's an interesting deduction. In fact, it goes in direct contradiction with my ELEVEN SOURCES! I don't feel, nor does the audience feel like trusting your unproven claims. You bear burden of proof; you prove it.

The first paragraph of your "Argument" is an explanation for the above unproven quote, so I won't address it until you provide some evidence.

"Now let's look at a less economically developed country such as Columbia or areas of the Congo or just generally deprived area of the world. These places must have little or no access to violent media simply because of lack of funds, do these places have less violent crime? has the crime rate of the world significantly increased upon the release of a new Grand Theft Auto."

Woah, woah, woah. Completely chewed logic!

I agree: Violent media is not the sole reason for violence--poverty, religion, famine, and political struggles do indeed tend to also cause violence. However, that does not negate the fact that violent media causes violence. I'm sure the audience sees the ridiculousness in this argument.

Thank you for your time. VOTE PRO!
Debate Round No. 2
scottpreston

Con

"
"The major flaw with your argument is that people seek things they are interested in, a violent person will seek out violence in the media."

That's an interesting deduction. In fact, it goes in direct contradiction with my ELEVEN SOURCES! I don't feel, nor does the audience feel like trusting your unproven claims. You bear burden of proof; you prove it.

Your eleven sources have proved this for me, by virtue of the fact that they prove that some of the violent people have watched violent media. Therefore it could either prove that media causes violence in people or that violent people seek violent media. Thank you for doing the work for me.

"
My opponent has largely ignored the majority of my argument.

I believe that the above was directly addressing your argument. You made no real claims you simply placed a series of sources with nothing pulling them together.

"
Media violence is becoming more and more sickening by the day--an effect achieved through the literally demented

Proof? you have no backing of this claim.

"This in not true at all. In the PBS documentary "How Art Made the World", for instance, it was discovered that the idea of "paintings" was, for a large period of time, nonexistent--there were no paintings anywhere! Then, in an explosion of creativity, human kind created paintings in masses. How was that possible? How was the concept of a "painting" first conceived? The documentary explains: It was a way of copying hallucinations down semi-permanently.

Just because your sourced something it doesn't make it correct. People have painted from the dawn of time, I'm not going to do any serious research but there is plenty of evidence of cave painting here [1]. Painting has existed for a very long time, these 'paintings' you speak were derived from the primitive cave paintings. Therefore they were derived from something. By suggesting art is simply a relocation on people's hallucinations suggests that people must have had the ideas before.

"
According to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, that is not what most all the statistics say. And furthermore, your personal experience holds no value. First, you could be lying (your personal situation is completely unverifiable). And second, one personal story does not provide the bigger picture".

My opponent did not source, or even mention what the Senate Committee said so therefore it holds no relevance. My personal experience is irrelevant. This paragraph is too vague and does not refute my argument. You don't have to comprehend the world to commit violence.

"
"People may not be aware that more violence exists in the real world. But the topic of the debate was not if media was an accurate depiction of real life."

Yes, but in proving that the media is not solely derived from the real world, I've defeated one of your three arguments."

Media is based of off real life, it doesn't have to be an accurate depiction. My opponent did not prove that media was derived from an un-worldly source, so therefore the claim did not defeat any of my three arguments.

"
I agree: Violent media is not the sole reason for violence--poverty, religion, famine, and political struggles do indeed tend to also cause violence. However, that does not negate the fact that violent media causes violence. I'm sure the audience sees the ridiculousness in this argument."

A fair point however it was meant to prove that people are violent without media, so therefore taking away violent media won't stop the violence.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
PoeJoe

Pro

"Your eleven sources have proved this for me, by virtue of the fact that they prove that some of the violent people have watched violent media. Therefore it could either prove that media causes violence in people or that violent people seek violent media. Thank you for doing the work for me."

My eleven sources do not prove that violent people seek violent media. In fact, it's just the opposite: My sources indicate that violent media makes people, who otherwise wouldn't be, violent. Your argument is exactly wrong. Did you read my sources?

"You made no real claims you simply placed a series of sources with nothing pulling them together."

I believe my thesis was clear:
Violent media causes people to be violent and should therefore be banned, or at least censored. Where is the confusion?

"Just because your sourced something it doesn't make it correct. People have painted from the dawn of time, I'm not going to do any serious research but there is plenty of evidence of cave painting here [1]. Painting has existed for a very long time, these 'paintings' you speak were derived from the primitive cave paintings."

That is your flaw. You write that you are not willing to do research, and instead site Wikipedia. My source, an award winning documentary, shows that there was a large period of time when paintings didn't exist. I ask the audience to please weigh our two sources.

And no, these paintings I speak of were not derived from primitive cave paintings, because these paintings WERE the primitive cave paintings. Next time, please use sources.

"My opponent did not source, or even mention what the Senate Committee said so therefore it holds no relevance."

Read my R1: "including one conducted by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary which wrote...". My argument still stands.

"Media is based of off (sic) real life, (sic) it doesn't have to be an accurate depiction. My opponent did not prove that media was derived from an un-worldly source, so therefore the claim did not defeat any of my three arguments."

I do not have to prove that media is derived from an un-worldly source. All I have to prove is that media is not solely based off major events.

"A fair point (sic) however it was meant to prove that people are violent without media, so therefore taking away violent media won't stop the violence."

Another fallacious argument. The topic of this debate is whether or not violent media causes people to be violent; it is not whether or not there are other contributing factors to violence. I believe I have successfully proven that violent media does cause people to be violent.

Violent media must be banned, or at least censored.

----In closing----

I'd like to thank my opponent and the audience for reading this debate. VOTE CON!!!
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 11 through 13 records.
Posted by s0m31john 6 years ago
s0m31john
At least you're not 11 years old or from India.
Posted by scottpreston 6 years ago
scottpreston
Kinda new to all this debate stuff and esoteric vocab, I'm not particularly heartfelt about this debate but there were no interesting topics available.
Posted by Rezzealaux 6 years ago
Rezzealaux
I agree with your position... but I can pretty much take out every warrant in your case.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by s0m31john 5 years ago
s0m31john
scottprestonPoeJoeTied
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 
Vote Placed by JBlake 5 years ago
JBlake
scottprestonPoeJoeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by Killer542 6 years ago
Killer542
scottprestonPoeJoeTied
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 PoeJoe 6 years ago
PoeJoe
scottprestonPoeJoeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by xeberus 6 years ago
xeberus
scottprestonPoeJoeTied
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 
Vote Placed by scottpreston 6 years ago
scottpreston
scottprestonPoeJoeTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by SchinkBR 6 years ago
SchinkBR
scottprestonPoeJoeTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Rezzealaux 6 years ago
Rezzealaux
scottprestonPoeJoeTied
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 
Vote Placed by gahbage 6 years ago
gahbage
scottprestonPoeJoeTied
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