The Instigator
Paramountdesktop
Pro (for)
Losing
28 Points
The Contender
TheSkeptic
Con (against)
Winning
38 Points

Violent videos games lead to aggression in individuals

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
Pro Tied Con
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: 9/23/2008 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,995 times Debate No: 5507
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (12)

 

Paramountdesktop

Pro

Violent video games desensitizes individuals, causing them to take real violence lightly. People habituate the video game violence and become physiologically numb to it.

Nicholas Carnagey, an Iowa State psychology instructor and research assistant, and ISU Distinguished Professor of Psychology Craig Anderson collaborated on the study of "The Effects of Video Game Violence on Physiological Desensitization to Real-Life Violence" with Brad Bushman, a former Iowa State psychology professor now at the University of Michigan, and Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam.

257 college students, 124 men and 133 women, were tested individually. After measuring their heart rate and galvanic skin response and asking questions about their video game preferences and general aggression levels, each participant was exposed to one of eight randomly designated violent or nonviolent games for 20 minutes. The four possible violent games were Carmageddon, Duke Nukem, Mortal Kombat or Future Cop; the non-violent games were Glider Pro, 3D Pinball, 3D Munch Man and Tetra Madness.

After the 20 minute duration, the test subjects were subjected to the same tests and then asked to watch actual violent episodes constructed from TV episodes and commercially-released films in the contexts of courtroom outbursts, police confrontations, shootings and prisons fights.

Physiological differences were observed throughout the entire viewing.

When viewing the actual images of violence, participants that played the violent video games had a significantly less skin response than those that had played nonviolent video games. In addition, the participants that had played the violent video games had a lower heart rate than those that played nonviolent video games.

The people that participated in the experiment had no discrepancy in heart rate or skin response before the beginning of the study or immediately after playing the assigned games

The results demonstrate that only 20 minutes of exposure can cause people to be less aroused by violence.

When desensitized to violence and accepting it as the norm, one is more apt to commit violence.

Video game players can become more aggressive in outlook,
perceptual biases, attitudes, beliefs, and behavior than they were
before the repeated exposure or would have become without such
exposure.

In a study entitled "Video Games and Aggressive Thoughts, Feelings, and Behavior in
the Laboratory and in Life', it was found that violent video game play and aggressive personality separately and jointly
accounted for major portions of both aggressive behavior and
nonaggressive delinquency.

"Violent video game play was also
shown to be a superior predictor of both types of delinquency
compared with time spent playing all types of video games. This
is also consistent with our GAAM formulation and suggests that
future research (unlike most past work) needs to distinguish between
these types of video games.
The positive association between violent video games and aggressive
personality is consistent with a developmental model in
which extensive exposure to violent video games (and other violent
media) contributes to the creation of an aggressive personality.
The cross-sectional nature of this study does not allow a strong test
of this causal hypothesis, but a zero or negative correlation would
have disconfirmed the hypothesis, so the test is a legitimate one."

I conclude, from the evidence stated, that video games lead to aggression.

If you wish to verify these studies or this information, go to

http://www.sciencedirect.com...

http://www.apa.org...

http://www.public.iastate.edu...

Hope you accept this debate!
TheSkeptic

Con

As of now, every lawsuit that has been filed against the game industry for cases such as this have been thrown out. Why, you ask? Because the science doesn't back up such claims. As we all should very well know, correlation doesn't imply causation; this is basic psychology. The burden of proof is on my opponent to show the causal link between video game violence and an increase in aggression.

As is with most studies, the one my you have posted simply concludes that individuals who play violent video games experience an increase in physiological signs of aggression. However, this still does not address the issue at hand, of whether or not violent video games lead to real life violence. Such experiments are methodologically unsound' the environment is drastically different, and participants are in situations they normally wouldn't be. Even so, such experiments don't establish this "link" between violent video games and aggression. [1]

People know what they are playing, and what context it is. It's for fun, and they are conscious of what goals they are playing it for: entertainment. Studies in apes show a distinction between play fighting and ripping each others gut out in real combat. It shows that apes do make distinctions between the two, so why can't humans? [1]

Yeah, individuals get a physiological response to violent video games, as do people who watch porn. In the same way, the movie industry has been here long before video games came along, and the violence in many movies such as Saw (yummy) is no secret.

Roughly 79 percent of America's youth play video games, many of them for at least eight hours a week. [2] Holy camels there must be shootings and beatings and rapes all over the street! But wait a minute, then explain to me why the crime rate in America is going down. [3] Surely, it should be spiking up with the video game industry exploding in its few decades of existence, but the evidence speaks otherwise.

---References---
1. http://www.pbs.org...
2. http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu...
3. http://www.livescience.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Paramountdesktop

Pro

I would like to include that I am not suggesting a correlation between video games and violent acts, such as murder. The supporting and dissenting evidence, regarding this subject, is lacking, so I will not make such an empty claim.

Repeated and long terms exposure exposure to violent video games cause aggressive arousal by a number of physiological and hormonal cues. This effect does wear off after a period of time.

These Salient cues, such as a provocation, can result in misattribution of arousal that was engendered by a
violent video game. For example, an individual could anger at a salient provoking person, which in turn could increase the likelihood of an aggressive behavioral attack. As with the affect state, this arousal effect
is not specific to violent video games, but could occur with any game that happens to be very exciting. [1]

Long-term media violence effects on aggression result from the development, overlearning, and reinforcement of aggression related knowledge structures. Each time people are exposed to violent video games, they rehearse aggressive scripts that teach and reinforce vigilance for enemies (i.e., hostile perception bias), aggressive action against others, expectations that others will behave aggressively, positive attitudes toward use of violence, and beliefs that violent solutions are effective and appropriate.

1. http://www.apa.org...
TheSkeptic

Con

"I would like to include that I am not suggesting a correlation between video games and violent acts, such as murder. The supporting and dissenting evidence, regarding this subject, is lacking, so I will not make such an empty claim."

-So let me get this straight. You say you aren't claiming that violent video games cause or even correlate with aggression in individuals...it it just me or is that a forfeit in disguise?

"Repeated and long terms exposure exposure to violent video games cause aggressive arousal by a number of physiological and hormonal cues. This effect does wear off after a period of time."

-As is the same with porn and horror movies. The physiological effects are temporary. Thus, my opponent has once again admitted that violent video games do not lead to more violent people in real life.

*Basically as of now, my opponent has only shown that playing violent video games invoke physiological responses, which in themselves don't show much. He has admitted to saying that it eventually dies down (usually in less than a hour), and that there is no correlation or causal link between violent video games and aggression in individuals. He has failed to address the points I have made in the previous rounds, and thus I urge a vote for Con.
Debate Round No. 2
Paramountdesktop

Pro

I would like to remind you that the proposition is "violent videos games lead to aggression in individuals" not "Violent video games lead to violent acts."

1. Yes, I have proved that violent video games invokes physiological responses, such as AGGRESSION.

2. Saying that aggression dies down after a period of time does is not contrary to the fact that violent video games invoke aggression.

3. I urge you to vote PRO. Even my opponent, as evident, has conceded that violent video games elicit aggression.
TheSkeptic

Con

"...The positive association between violent video games and aggressive personality is consistent with a developmental model in which extensive exposure to violent video games (and other violent media) contributes to the creation of an aggressive personality."

-This is the report my opponent has posted in his opening argument. It was quite clear from his arguments that he was claiming violent video games lead to a more aggressive personality, which means it would leave a permanent mark on the individual.

*Essentially my opponent is playing a semantics debate. He jumped from his original position of wholly supporting that violent video games lead to aggressive personalities, to now stating what he meant was that individuals show temporary physiological responses. He has failed to meet his burden and it is evident from his opening argument that he initially intended to argue for a permanent result from violent video games, until he noticed his evidence was lacking.

Sure, you could vote for Pro...if you like sneaky semantic debaters! So even if you had at least a minuscule twinkling of common sense, vote for Con ;D
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Kylie-7496 1 year ago
Kylie-7496
Violent gaming increases aggressive behavior, health issues, and desensitization. Scientists have shown that while playing violent games, the brain reaches a certain amplitude that shows aggression increasing. Several studies have been done comparing violent and non-violent gamers. One study shows that those playing violent games were much louder than those who were playing the non-violent games. Violent games also increase stress which also can lead to health issues. Stress increases blood pressure and gives the desire to eat which can eventually lead to obesity. Desensitization is another occurring behavior when one is exposed to violent gaming. Desensitization is when one feels no sympathy or sadness in cases of murder, robbery, etc. Violent games are made to purposely put the player in stressful situations. A way to solve this issue so that this aggression does not get to a dangerous level is to be aware of the effects of gaming and limit time spent gaming.
Posted by VenomousNinja 8 years ago
VenomousNinja
I'm laughing in my head right now... So much...

Sure, Con(in my view) proved his point, but barely used any good sources. Such as more recent studies. Long term studies.... Any good studies, dare I say it...

I was hoping for this to be an epic debate when I started reading it, I was disappointed.
Posted by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
"Uh, CON, that smells like a concession to me. I'll read the rest of this debate later, but so far, I'm geared towards a PRO vote."

From his opening argument, PRO was arguing that violent video games lead to aggressive personalities in individuals. Physiological signs of aggression wade off, like watching porn. Of course, towards the end he went total semantics on me.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
"As is with most studies, the one my you have posted simply concludes that individuals who play violent video games experience an increase in physiological signs of aggression."

*reads topic which states: Violent videos games lead to aggression in individuals*

Uh, CON, that smells like a concession to me. I'll read the rest of this debate later, but so far, I'm geared towards a PRO vote.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
ParamountdesktopTheSkepticTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by Robert_Santurri 8 years ago
Robert_Santurri
ParamountdesktopTheSkepticTied
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:06 
Vote Placed by Killer542 8 years ago
Killer542
ParamountdesktopTheSkepticTied
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 VenomousNinja 8 years ago
VenomousNinja
ParamountdesktopTheSkepticTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
ParamountdesktopTheSkepticTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Canadianbaldeagle 8 years ago
Canadianbaldeagle
ParamountdesktopTheSkepticTied
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 CattyCake 8 years ago
CattyCake
ParamountdesktopTheSkepticTied
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 monkeyyxxsun 8 years ago
monkeyyxxsun
ParamountdesktopTheSkepticTied
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 miditime 8 years ago
miditime
ParamountdesktopTheSkepticTied
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 Paramountdesktop 8 years ago
Paramountdesktop
ParamountdesktopTheSkepticTied
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