The Instigator
Urkle911
Con (against)
Tied
10 Points
The Contender
Masterdebatr91
Pro (for)
Tied
10 Points

Violent video games being banned

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 4 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/15/2013 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,989 times Debate No: 33730
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (1)
Votes (4)

 

Urkle911

Con

Violent video games should not be banned. The retail in the U.S. for violent video games is twenty one billion dollars. If people ban the violent video games, and corect me if i'm wrong, it will almost wipe out our economy. It has been proved that one-eigth of the school attackers have been more interested in violent movies, violent books, and their own violent writings. Almost every teenager plays violent video games, and you don't see them running on rooftops with a sword and hidden blade trying to kill redcoats. Yes, I do play violent video games, and yes, there are violent video games out there that are really bad, I'm not denying that, I'm just saying that violent video games are not the root cause of the shootings, and killings in America. The mass killer, Adam Lanza, the guy that killed 26 people in Newtown, Conneticut, was not interested in video games as a child. If the government regulates everything, what are we then? We aren't the free America that we used to be. We will be a dictatorship. A socialist country. And we don't want that. "If video games cause people to go out into the world and kill people, then guns kill people, pens and pencils misspell words, cars cause people to have accidents and drink and drive, and cutlery causes obesity. We cannot blame mere objects for people's accidents and mistakes." I found that on Google Images. That statement means that people can blame anything and everything for their mistakes, and the government will just try to ban it. So will the government ban forks and knives? Cars? No, they won't. We need cars to get places. We need forks and knives to eat. So why should we ban video games when it's not the violent video games that kill people. It's also movies and books. That's that
Masterdebatr91

Pro

I am happy to accept this debate and hope my one argument will be compelling! Keep in mind, that I am a teenager and I too participate in violent video games, such as Call of Duty. I have accepted this debate simply for practice on debating different intriguing topics. I encourage everyone to vote based on who presented the best arguments and not on our own opinions. Thank you.

I will begin by stating my arguments then proceed to pointing out some flaws in my opponents case

Blood and gore intense violence, strong language, strong sexual content, and use of drugs. These are the words that you will see on every M-Rated Violent Video Game. The people who rated these games are not lying. The words speak for themselves. In this Debate, I will prove that the bad effects of video gaming outweigh the so called "fun" of video gaming. For these reasons and more, I strongly affirm the resolution which states: that
Resolved: Violent video games should be banned.

Contention #1: Brain Change

A new study, conducted at Indiana University School of Society and presented at the congress of the Society of Radiology in Chicago found the first hard evidence of the effects of video games using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Playing violent video games for only one week can change the brain in regions associated with cognitive function and emotional control, the study found. A volunteer group of 22 young men aged between 18 and 29 years with low past exposure to video games were asked to play Call of Duty games for 10 hours a week for one week and to avoid playing at all the following week. A second volunteer group didn't play a violent video game at all. Each group was performed a test that quizzed their emotional and functional parts of the brain After only one week, those volunteers who played violent video games showed less activation in the area of the brain that control emotion and aggression.

What this basically means:

The test speaks for itself, playing video games effects how people think and tares apart their emotional and logical sides of their brains and can only lead to more harm than good.

Contention #2: Why It's Particularly Bad for Young Brains

Little kids have a hard time distinguishing the line between the real-world and the gaming world, as young minds are still forming what is real and what is make-believe. To kids, these virtual experiences feel very real, not only because the graphics today are so amazing, but because they are taking on a first-person role in the killing process. Rather than just watching a rated-R violent movie, when kids play a game, they are one of the main characters inside the adventure. The entire experience becomes a more meaningful -- and deadly -- in their brains, which are forming new connections

What this basically means:

Smaller children are affected the worst by video games because they cannot see the line between the real world and the gaming world. These kind of problems can lead to school attacks. An excellent example of such is the Connecticut school shooting. Adam Lanza was an American teenager who killed 26 innocent people during a school shooting. Adam went to the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut on Dec. 14 and shot dead 20 children and 6 adults, including the school principal. He also killed his mother, Nancy Lanza, before he went to the school. He then killed himself, and the entire community has been left reeling in the wake of the horrific massacre. This is all because of video games. Adam was obsessed with Call of Duty, a very popular M-rated video game, and other extremely video games.

Now on to my opponents case:

First argument:

If people ban the violent video games, and correct me if i'm wrong, it will almost wipe out our economy.

My response:

You are wrong.... this argument make absolutely no sense. Our country sells millions of other items to citizen of America and citizens all over the world to keep the economy.

Another argument my opponent made:

The mass killer, Adam Lanza, the guy that killed 26 people in Newtown, Conneticut, was not interested in video games as a child.

My response to this:

I would like to see some evidence on this because all the research I did brought me back to one point.... Adam Lanza was addicted to video games and guns in general. This should be another easy argument that should flow to my side simply because this is a key example of how video games can threaten citizens lives.

Another argument stated:

If the government regulates everything, what are we then? We aren't the free America that we used to be. We will be a dictatorship. A socialist country. And we don't want that.

My response to this:

Really? You believe that if the United States bands video games, we will turn into a dictatorship? I strongly encourage my opponent to do some research on dictatorship and socialist governments.....

I believe my opponent had no other arguments that I need to address.

Thanks for the fun and short debate! :)

Sources:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk......
http://www.africa-news.eu......
\ http://parentables.howstuffworks.com......
http://videogames.procon.org......
Debate Round No. 1
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by csillere99 4 years ago
csillere99
I will 'correct' you, you have spelt correct wrong, you wrote 'corect'.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Juris_Naturalis 4 years ago
Juris_Naturalis
Urkle911Masterdebatr91Tied
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 Checkmark--1 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: counter Lotus.
Vote Placed by LotusNG 4 years ago
LotusNG
Urkle911Masterdebatr91Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering effimero89
Vote Placed by effimero89 4 years ago
effimero89
Urkle911Masterdebatr91Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: ..........
Vote Placed by welsh12 4 years ago
welsh12
Urkle911Masterdebatr91Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Con could have done better