Violent video games, banning of
Debate Rounds (5)
Violent video games encourage a more violent society. The exposure to violence such as killing and assault. The extent to this brutality has become ridiculous and we are letting people play them for hours on end. What is this doing to our young people who are influenced by what they watch. For example there was an 14 year old boy committed murder with a hammer after repeatedly playing manhunt which displays the same kind of violent behavior
I will be arguing against the idea of banning violent video games.
There are three points I will focus on why banninging video games is wrong
1) No one should take away an indivduals right to choose what they do on their free time.
2) Just looking at one game, call of duty there are 100 MILLION players. How many of those are causing violence on their free time? You gave an example of one 14 year old boy. As we debate I will go into statistics and sources
3) Why should the government ban something that PARENTS should control not the GOVERMENT. Why should adults not play a game because some 14 year old was not proerply supervised by a parent. He was allowed to play a game that was rated M. Should I a grown man, not be allowed to play a game because of that poor choice? That is illogical.
Playing violent video games normalises violence to many people and the difference between watching someone shoot someone else on tv and doing that your self on a video game is that in a game you can be the one pulling the trigger, making the decision to kill someone.
You do not need statistics to see that these video games are hurting people and not doing any good how many more innocent people have to die before we wake up and do what is best for society and ban these violent video games.
Once again the flaw in your arguement is two things:
1) You are trying to enforce a government ban on games for all people. However your exmaples is less than 1% of the gaming populations, you failed to list sources of these events. Were they mentally stable? You also take away the right for parents to raise their children and make cthe choice.
You listed cases of kids doing harm but want to ban the games for adults? Please explain the logic for that as well.
2) With your stance, we might as well ban water, because people drown in water. Ban alchohol because some people abuse it. Ban pressure cookers because of the boston boming, ban forks because people have been stabbed by them. We should ban diving all together because of car accidents...
We should ban the internet because people are on it too much and it too, can lead up to a homocide.
Once again. Your opinion on what is right and wrong does not constitute a law to forbid people from playing a game. As I said before Take repsonsibility for your actions do not force the government to do it for you. That is not logical that is lazy. If you are a parent, and you know your child has violent tendancies dont let him play.
If there are well over half a billion violent video game players, and you give me individual cases of manyve .00001% do you really think that the rest of the 99.99999 percent should be affected because of it?
Your solution is radical and unethical. There are smarter and wiser solutions as I have mentioned twice now. Parenting is the key.
Violent kids are going to be violent with or without video games. One might say at least they get to act it out in a virtual world rather than in a physical world.
I have just given you examples of video games pushing people into committing violent crimes. None of these people were in the correct mental state but it was the video games that showed them how to do what they did. It is very hard for many parents to stop there children to playing violent video games with friends and older sibling who will play these video games with and there is a lot of pressure in schools to play these games therefore people feel like they have to play it to feel accepted in schools it is very easy to play these games at a friends house or borrow the game or I have encountered people selling these games to there friends in school. But if the government puts a ban on these games then they will slowly start to not play it.
Violence as entertainment is simply immoral, if society wants to stop violence then why use entertainment to glorify it this is just a mixed message. How many more people have to die before we just our common sense and stop people playing violent video games, tell me this, what good does it do?!?!
And no I do not want to ban water because water does good the human race would struggle to live with out water but the human race could quite happily live with out violent video games corrupting the minds of people.
Let me get this straight. Out of a handful of violent act of CHILDREN you think that the government should, against the MAJORITY of peoples wills.. Ban Violent Video games for ALL PEOPLE
So we are going to hurt businesses cut jobs, and the economy... Because you think that some parents have a hard time doing their job?
You logic applies to cars as well. We should not drive cars because it can be used in violent acitons,
And lets ban violent movies as well we will cure all violence with this!
except... believe it or not. Violence is human nature. Before games, before movies, we still had killers, school bullies. and bad people. They do not need video games to do such a thing.
I'll post a list of studies that refute your arguement
The government is supposed to do what is best for his/her country,weigh up the consequences and benefits and make a decision on what is best and if it saves lives to ban violent video games then so be it that is what we should do! So you think that people being able to waste there lives sitting in front of a screen for hours on end killing people is more important than even just one of the lives out of the many lives lost due to copycat crime from violent video games????
You put the word children in capital letters when you were talking about what I thought well why? what does it matter if the people killing are 17yrs old or 28yrs old the bottom line is that people are getting murdered not the age of the people killing them!!!.
And you said would I put a ban on cars because they can be used in violence well no I would not because cars have a useful purpose but what useful purpose do violent video games have?! answer me that.
And you said we should ban all movies with violence well no because there is a difference between when you watch someone shoot someone else in a movie that is not you pulling the trigger but in a game you are the one killing.
Violence maybe human nature but it is certainly not something that should be glorified and encouraged on violent video games!.
When children are growing up we teach them right from wrong by rewarding them for good behavior and punishing them for bad but in a violent video game the players are rewarded for killing someone by being moved up on a level or awarded a new gun or armor. Why this goes against basic moral standards.
A survey of 1,102 adolescents found that 97 percent had played video games in the past day. Although most parents checked the censor"s rating before allowing their child to purchase it, 50 percent of boys and 14 percent of girls favored games with an "M" (mature) or "AO" (adult-only) rating, which implies a high degree of violence
This is cause for concern. Research has long shown a cause-effect relationship between video game violence and aggression among children and youth who play it.
And morally should people really take pleasure in killing and assaulting and torturing people???.
I appriciate your concern for saving lives. it is quite noble of you. But I feel that you are looking at the solution that is not rational.
Once again rather than placing the responsibility on parents to take care of their children as most do. you think that it is more reasonable to take away millions of peoples rights?
As a question of morals and what is wrong with playing video games, you are pushinhing your opinion onto others. That is morally wrong. Many would argue they enjoy playing games because its a fun stress releiver, its not reality because they are smart enough to tell the difference between real and fake.
You have yet to accept the fact that the cause of these violent acts really have to do with video games or mental disorders. It could be simply that they are mesed up in the head and its a coincdence that they play those games.
My last round I will summarize why everyone should vote for me. I await your closing argument
Alice-is-always-right forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by SirMaximus 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Before the debate, I agreed with Con that violent video games should not be banned. Now, after the debate, I still agree with Con, because I thought that neither side's arguments were more convincing than the other's, which I will explain shortly. Con had better conduct, because Pro forfeited 1 round, but Con didn't forfeit any rounds. I counted 17 spelling and grammar mistakes made by Pro, and 35 spelling and grammar mistakes made by Con, so Pro wins that. I thought that their arguments were equally good. On the one hand, when Con said that banning violent video games because they could be used for bad things would be akin to banning ordinary things like water for the same reason, and Pro responded by saying that water could be useful unlike violent video games, Con didn't address that. On the other hand, Pro called Con out for capitalizing the word "Children", which I think is an ad hominem. Con used numerous reliable sources, while Pro didn't use any sources, so Con wins that.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.