Violent video games being banned
Debate Rounds (3)
Reason #1: They do not make people violent.
After a shooting (like the one in Newtown) many people like to blame video games for the shooting. Many people think that video games cause violence. But here I am going to use logic. The USA is not the only country that has video games. Many other countries such as The UK, Canada, Australia, Japan, etc, spend just as much or more on video games (per capita) than the USA. So if video games make people violent, then these countries would be as or more violent than the USA. But the countries I listed earlier have rather low gun violence. Other countries spend more than the USA on video games, but they are safer than the USA. Another fact to point out, many people think video games sales are going up and so is violence. Video game sales ARE going up, but violence has actually been DECREASING in the U.S. so not only does that disprove saying that video games cause violence, but it also supports that video games reduce violence. Now, we can't automatically conclude that video games reduce violence from that one piece of evidence, but in order to support the fact that video games cause violence we would have to see a positive correlation between video games and violence and that correlation is just not there.
Reason #2: They are a major part of the U.S economy
By 2008, $11.7 billion wort invideo games has been sold in the U.S, and the number is rising and you read this. Over 97% of teenagers play video games, and many of those teens play violent ones. Banning video games would not only make millions of people absolutely furious, but would also severely damage the economy. Considering that the U.S economy is already quite weak, this would be a disaster for the U.S economy.
Many people like to blame video games for violence. But the truth is that video games contribute very little to actually making people violent and they are an essiental part of the U.S economy. Banning them would infuriate many teenagers, some of which would NOW become violent, and possibly collapse the U.S economy. Rather than point your finger at video games, it would be more effective to look more into things like social science so we can get to the bottom of what causes these senseless acts of killing.
Thank you for reading my post and here are my sources:
I wish good luck to you since this is your first debate!
I would like to inform Con that the whole of reason#2 is completely false. Con said that he is providing reasons for the 'violence' involved in it, not the economy. Please don't write about anything other than 'violence', that's the reason you chose the topic.
I would also like to inform Con, that recently, a teen murderer who killed his parents and his three siblings confessed that he had an addiction to video games, he said that he learnt the tactics and how to make guns from games such as Mordern Warfare and CODII. He said that his knowledge of guns helped him loads.
I would like to conclude that, as you said, 'video games' have decreased in violence, not 'violent video games',you haven't been so scientific and given enough evidence, you haven't added in your argument that since the release of COD and other violent games, violence has actually gone up.
A dozen scientists and statistic collectors have found that violence in USA has gone up by %10 after the release of games like CODI and Mordern Warfare. Con should give double the amount of evidence that he has given.
I would point out that USA has more violence than other countries only because USA has the rule saying
'People of USA are allowed to keep guns but only for self-protection.' Teens who play violent games often have guns and use it for murdering sometimes even when they are not allowed to. This also applies to adults.
I would like Con to please answer these question below-
What have these violent video games contributed to out society?
Definition of 'Violent'? (Not from oxford or other, from you)
I await for your next arguments-
Now for you saying reason #2 is completely false, that is not true. Yes I did forget to say how many "violent" games were sold, not all video games, but banning violent video games would mean teenagers could no longer buy those games , and as a result, damage the economy. In 2012, of the top 10 best selling video games, 5 of them involved certain missions in shich the objective was to kill people (or in Halo's case, aliens). Now, anyone with common sense would consider a videogame in which your objective is to kill people, violent. I know in Halo you shoot aliens, not people, but the aliens are living creatures, so, that would likely be classified as "violent" as well (either way, it is rated M for Mature). Merrian-webster classifies "violent" as to injure or abuse. Now, since you are killing aliens, I'm pretty sure that would be classified as violent. Now, if 5 out of the 10 top best selling videogames of 2012 are violent, then it's pretty safe to assume that violent video games make up a major portion of all video games. As a result, I doubt that the economy would COLLAPSE, but it would definetly suffer.
As for the teen who murdered his family, he said he was obsessed with violent games. But does this automatically mean he was right? No. He may have just been angry with his family and then blamed video games for the shooting. Either way, one shooting does not prove that violent video games make all people violent.
You stated that scientists have found that violence has gone up with the release of violent video games. Since you did not provide any links to your sources, I cannot find the actual data. So please, next time, provide links. Anyways, below is a link showing crimes and video game sales in a chart. It also shows the month in which Grand Theft Auto was released.
Now when we look at the chart here, we see the HUGE bar that shows when GTA IV was released. It is a really violent game in which you can go around a city killing innocent civilians as you go. But when we look at the "crimes" line, we see almost no effect when the videdo games release. In fact, it actually goes DOWN by a bit. So here, you see, is a study that proves the exact opposite of what you said.
Now, you accused me of not listing enough sources. I listed about 4 links, but two of them actually proved the same point, so that's 3 sources. Now you listed about 3 pieces of evidence too. But how many links did you provide? Zero. So now I cannot find out whether or not your sources are actually true. And the first one is just some kid saying he did a shooting because of video games, and he presented no evidence, so technically that doesn't count. Now, you see, you have only 2 pieces of evidence which may or may not be true. I will list more links at the bottom, I am just saying, before you accuse me of not having enough sources, have some of your own, as well.
As for your third reason, and how you said that teens often have access to guns, this couldn't be farther from the truth. You have to be 18 or older to purchase a gun. And yes, the teen CAN have a parent who DOES have gun, but unless that parent is highly irresponsible, the parent will likely have the gun locked inside a case and unloaded. And even if the gun IS lying around, fully loaded, and the teen uses the gun to shoot people, that is the parent's fault for being highly irresponsible, NOT the videogame. You said that this also applies to adults. Yes adults can own gun, and yes adults do kill people, but lets take a look at Somalia. The Global Peace Index Somalia as the least peaceful country in the world. So, the question is, do Somalian pirates play video games before they commit crimes? No, they can't even afford a TV. What does cause them to become violent is probably because Somalia is a very poor country and the only way these pirates can get resources is by stealing them from others.
You asked me to answer the question: What have violent video games contributed to our society?
Here is my answer: People do not have much chance to feel "action" or "intensity" without doing so illegally or not enjoying the action in real life. Now with violent media, people can feel intensity in a fun but safe (and raher cheap) way to experience action. Also, if a person is angry, they can play a violent video game, kill a few "virtual" people, and cool down. But if they do not have the video game, they do not have many places do express that anger, and soon the only one left will be to act violently. I can agree that you should not let a 3-year old play Call of Duty, as young children sometimes cannot differentiate between reality and fiction that well. But here I want you to answer a question, how many 3-year olds have shot others before? (I am predicting the answer will be like, 11 or something. A very small number compared to the 6.974 billion people in the world)
One more question for you: How many hours of violent video games did Adolf Hitler play? I will leave you to answer that, not me.
Here are my sources:
ChickenHead forfeited this round.
Deckofcards918 forfeited this round.
ChickenHead forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.