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

Violent or misleading video games or other media and content do not directly cause behavioral issues

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/9/2014 Category: Technology
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 628 times Debate No: 64858
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




First round is acceptance only.

No insults.
72 hours to argue.
10,000 characters.
No forfeiture.

I, pro, will have to state arguments as to if violent and misleading content directly causes behavioral issues.
The contender, con, will argue the opposite.

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Contentions
Round 3: Back up contentions, rebuttals
Round 4: Crystallize both contentions and rebuttals
Round 5: Crystallize both contentions and rebuttals, conclusion.

If, at any point, due to whatever reason except the contender cannot access his/her account at all, the contender forfeits, all points go to pro, and vice versa.

Let us begin!


I accept!
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to thank TheSymbiote for accepting this debate, rather very excitedly!
I hope this will be a very interesting and useful debate. Remember that the second round is strictly for contentions only, so my opponent must not state ANY rebuttals when their turn comes.

The effects of violent and misleading content: Fact or fib?

Firstly, to see whether violent or misleading content may cause behavioral problems, first we must review the main effect of viewing that specifinc content.

To make a long story short, viewing the content may or may not cause an influence on the viewer. What this specifically means is that the viewer only has a possibility of being influenced. And even that influence may be positive, or it may be negative.

To make this clearer:
  • After viewing misleading content, there are three possible outcomes:
  1. The viewer is positively influenced.
  2. The viewer is negatively influenced.
  3. The viewer is not influenced at all.

The first outcome is quite baffling, because the simple reaction that often happens in many people when they hear of things such as nudity or pornography is disgust and probably ranting on about the NEGATIVE influence of it. However, when put into perspective, these people are only proving my point. After viewing or hearing of misleading content, it is a possibility that the viewer will argue against it (example at [1]). This is a positive influence, and thus my opponent has instantly lost.

What must a viewer need to go through in order to be influenced?

Now, I am not saying that porn should be banned, since according to the resolution it is off-topic. Moreover, what the resolution is saying is that misleading content does not directly cause issues with behavior. Here is what it causes to be stated:

  1. For it to be a direct cause, the viewer who is being influenced by the content must actually view it first.
  2. Therefore, if one says that the resolution is wrong at misleading content not causing behavioral problems, their statement is an instant fallacy, as I had added in the word "directly".

This leads me to my next point, that misleading content cannot negatively influence a viewer if they do not allow it to, and vice versa. Allowing it to negatively influence a viewer must consist of not just viewing the content, but simply being negatively influenced after viewing the content without succeeding in, or even attempting to use willpower. The process to being influenced like this is not so much a 1-step process rather than a 2-step one.

Here are three pieces of proof, either a real life example or a quote:

  1. When a charger is plugged into both a device and a socket, electricity SAFELY passes through the cord of a charger. This is because the device has hardware that processes the energy and actually uses it, and the waste energy, which is at a really low level, can safely exit the wire afterward. However, when a wire with two metal ends is plugged (one metal end for each slot), the energy isn't processed. Instead, it merely passes through the wire at a dangerous level and exits through one of the slots. This may, probably, or will cause the socket to go haywire and even corruptly explode. [2] [3] (Because I learned from two sources at the same time.)
  2. This is a quote instead of a real life example, but it is quite true. In The Fault In Our Stars, there is a scene where Augustus and Hazel are on a plane to Amsterdam and Augustus is holding an unlighted cigarette in his mouth with absolutely no intention to light it. He never does, but in the case of being on a plane, it applies especially. However, when a flight attendant comes over and confronts Augustus, Hazel backs him up by saying "He puts the killing thing in his mouth, but he doesn't give it the power to kill him." When inferred correctly, this statement means that nothing can harm you if you don't allow it to in any way. [4]
  3. (I do not personally think the content mentioned in this piece of proof is misleading, however one of the persons that are mentioned in this does.) On YouTube, there is a music video for Mariah Carey's "Dreamlover". This is the comment on the video and the first few replies to the comment.

oijhgvygf commented on a video on YouTube.
Shared publicly -
Jul 9th, 2014

it's videos like these that are infecting the minds of young girls around the planet, young 12 year old girls such as ariana grande!

Hide comments

+(Full name, therfore deleted for privacy)
So Ariana is 12 years old???
(Full name, therefore deleted for privacy)
Jul 28, 2014
Any video has the potential to create unwholesome activity if we allow it. This video was around when my 3 daughters were about 10,8 & 7. They have grown up to become excellent mothers themselves with their own daughters. Have they been "infected?"
The bottom reply proves my point, that it is impossible for any content (videos in the case of this comment) to influence a viewer, even in any way, if we do not allow it to at all.


To conclude, any violent or misleading video games or other content cannot directly cause behavioral issues in people.

(2) My own experience!
(3) My tutor after my exprerience
(5);(Due to the long list of comments, it may be difficult to find that same specific comment.)

Over to you, pro!


In the past when I was young. Guns used to be the most popular thing. If you watch full house there is an episode where one of the daughters has friends over. They are boys.

She asks "Want to bake?" then I am pretty sure they say "No lets play guns!"

They made a gun from thier hand and said "Pow Pow Pow" at each other (Stephanie's Wild Ride Season 8, Episode 9)

People thought that cowboys and rangers were the coolest things ever

A 5 year old back then is influenced as much as now.

My 9 year old cousin Alex, he knows the best weapons to kill people in COD BO2.

It is sad that you think that the Sandy Hook killer wasn't influenced by those games

I try my best not to be a stickler, yet it is the truth.

FPS games involving weapons are influencing people.

Look at the trends.

Let me ananlyize

Twerking: Was an internet trend for a while and it still is. Now people are making music videos of that

Harlem Shake: Though the trend was short, people craved for one to happen for them so badly. I remember in a high school a kid went on to the PA and told everyone to go into the gym. He played the Harlem Shake. It was so over crowded that 7(I think) got hurt.

Now you are going to be asking "Why does this corespond with the debate?" But it does. That youtube video of Anocanda will make people think that showing your body and wearing small clothes are what boys want.

To conclude. People can get influenced by anything. Video Games can influence people too.

They did tests with children. They put a lunchbox in a room and they let the kids play in that room. One of the kids opened the lunch box and it had a plastic gun in it. (Check it out it was on the news) One of the kids picked it up and said "bang bang bang" They asked the parent why he might have done this and she said "He plays those gun games you know, the one with the people cursing and stuff" There was a whole segment on it. Pretty sure it was on my9 but whatever

To finish it yea people can behave more agressively because of video games

Debate Round No. 2


Once again I thank my opponent for accepting this debate. Moving on:


My opponent frequently states that violent or misleading content can cause behavioral issues to anyone, with several anecdotes and other pieces of proof. However he completely ignores the point I made in which I stated that misleading content cannot harm or cause behavioral problems to people DIRECTLY. TheSymbiote: did the people you mentioned simply just start to be perverted or violent because what they were viewing or doing just simply appeared in front of them? Or did they actually have to view the content and, after some evaluation, accept those things as normal?

What's more, my opponent only states several anecdotes to prove his point. There is a humongous flaw in doing so.
Firstly, he is trying to prove that EVERYONE is directly negatively influenced by misleading content by stating/mentioning just a few people, compared to 7 billion and counting. How can he prove this by stating that he knows of around 10 people who are influenced this way?

Around the middle of my opponent's argument, he states a brief argument:

"Look at the trends."

This does not support his statement whatsoever, and it might possibly even contradict him. Why? First, because he does not cite where to look for the trends. Secondly, he does not put any chart up to support his argument. Thirdly, it might be that not many people are influenced negatively by misleading content. Finally, because of the resolution, this debate is more of a logic debate rather than a statistics debate.

Last but not least, he makes a very general statement that "That youtube video of Anaconda will make people think that showing your body and wearing small clothes are what boys want." He does not know for sure that EVERYONE is going to think this way, and he does not have anything to back this up.

I have easily refuted all of my opponent's arguments and will move on to the backing up of my contentions.


It seems that in my previous argument, even though my opponent seems to be fine with it, one of my three pieces of proof did not seem to make much sense. I will explain this now:
  • The hardware that processes the energy represents the willpower that is being used by a person so they are not negatively influenced. This way things stay as they are.
  • The wire that does not have this hardware represents the person that is lacking willpower or does not want to use it, so they become corrupt and "explode".

I hope this makes my argument clearer.


As you can see, I have easily refuted my opponent's arguments and made my own clearer and stronger.

I hand the floor over to con! (Sorry, I addressed con as pro last round!)



TheSymbiote forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


My opponent has forfeited. Full points now go to pro. However my arguments are extended and I am planning to argue in the last round, if my opponent returns.


TheSymbiote forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


Again my opponent has forfeited, and I cannot extend my arguments any longer.

Vote pro.


TheSymbiote forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 1 year ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: ff