The Instigator
missylacy
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
PartamRuhem
Con (against)
Winning
40 Points

should vilent video games be banned

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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/15/2011 Category: Technology
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,342 times Debate No: 18356
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (8)

 

missylacy

Pro

Violent video games require active participation, repetition, and identification with the violent character. With new game controllers allowing more physical interaction, the immersive and interactive characteristics of video games can increase the likelihood of youth violence.

Playing violent video games causes the development of aggressive behavioral scripts . A behavioral script is developed from the repetition of actions and affects the subconscious mind. An example of a common behavioral script is a driving script that tells drivers to get in a vehicle, put on a seat belt, and turn on the ignition. Similarly, violent video games can lead to scripts that tell youth to respond aggressively in certain situations. Violence in video games may lead to real world violence when scripts are automatically triggered in daily life, such as being nudged in a school hallway.
PartamRuhem

Con

I thank Pro for initiating this debate.
It is upon Pro to show that Violent video games should be banned. I must show that violent video games should not be banned.

Refutations
A. Aggression increases
The statement Pro really seems like he is making is that violent video games increase aggression in youth, a claim that is completely unsupported. In fact, I have a substantial amount of evidence to cause Pro's point to fall. Let's look at the supreme court case that came out of this accusation, and the verdict.

"In sum, the evidence presented by the State does not support the Legislature's purported interest in preventing psychological or neurological harm. Nearly all of the research is based on correlation, not evidence of causation, and most of the studies suffer from significant, admitted flaws in methodology as they relate to the State's claimed interest. None of the research establishes or suggests a causal link between minors playing violent video games and actual psychological or neurological harm, and inferences to that effect would not be reasonable. In fact, some of the studies caution against inferring causation." [1]

Violent games seem to have no negative factors on youth. Medical and psychological experts agree, saying:
"It's clear that the ‘big fears' bandied about in the press - that violent video games make children significantly more violent in the real world; that children engage in the illegal, immoral, sexist and violent acts they see in some of these games - are not supported by the current research , at least in such a simplistic form. That should make sense to anyone who thinks about it. After all, millions of children and adults play these games, yet the world has not been reduced to chaos and anarchy." [2]

To show even more proof that disproves Pro's statement's, we can see actual statistics in correlation between violent video game usage and actual juvenille aggressive reports...

"According to federal crime statistics, the rate of juvenile violent crime in the United States is at a 30-year low. Researchers find that people serving time for violent crimes typically consume less media before committing their crimes than the average person in the general population. It's true that young offenders who have committed school shootings in America have also been game players. But young people in general are more likely to be gamers - 90 percent of boys and 40 percent of girls play. The overwhelming majority of kids who play do NOT commit antisocial acts. " [3]

Now, why would it be that in the last thirty years, the time period where violent video games have shot up in development [4], that the juvenile violent crime rate is at an all time low if these games increase aggression? Pro's point falls

Pro then makes a second point which is really another way of saying the first, so I will only lightly touch on it...Behavioral scripts. This claim is again completely opinionated and backed with no source. If Pro is to say behavioral scripts develop " from the repetition of actions ", then you can say that someone who brushes their teeth every morning will brush their teeht automatically when they see a toothbrush. Equally, it's like saying a person who has to wake up early the majority of the year for schooling will ALWAYS wake up early; I think we all know this not to be true.

Now moving on to my contentions.

1. Violent video games prepare the youth

"Violence has always been and remains a central interest of humankind and a recurrent, even obsessive theme of culture both high and low. It engages the interest of children from an early age, as anyone familiar with the classic fairy tales collected by Grimm, Andersen, and Perrault are aware." Posner adds, "To shield children right up to the age of 18 from exposure to violent descriptions and images would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it." [5]
Violence is all around us; whether it's foreign countries, domestic gangs, or through whatever medium, it's here to stay. Banning violent video games because of potential aggression harm younger individuals, as the quote above states. A younger person is much more likely to overreact when exposed to a violent situation if he has never been exposed to violence before....this is just common sense. Violent video games give a good medium for these kids to experience the world's anger, and prepare for it.
"The Sims designer Will Wright argues that games are perhaps the only medium that allows us to experience guilt over the actions of fictional characters." [5] This says that through games, one can actually at a younger age start to identify morals and guilt, and make decisions that have consequences, preparing them for the real world. Many violent games these days have open ended decision making: just a few are Grand theft auto, Fallout 3, and Oblivion.

2. Revenue would drop, harming the economy

The video games system we live in this day and age brings in a vast sum of money; in 2008, $11.7 billion dollars was gained through video games [6]

"97% of 12-17 year olds in the US played video games in 2008, thus fueling an $11.7 billion domestic video game industry. In 2008, 10 of the top 20 best-selling video games in the US contained violence. " [6]

It's safe to say that banning these games, which I have proven have no negative effects on adolescents and have no imact on their aggression level, would just cause a lot of problems. You would ruin the gaming industry, have kids who wouldn't be prepared for the real world, and in reality just take out very fun aspects of games. What a bore video games would be if all of them were violence free; we all feel this way, and it's common sense that these video games are the best of the best. After all, 10 of the top 20 best-sellers had violence.

Thank You

Sources
1. Video Software Dealers Association v. Schwarzenegger, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in a 3-0 majority opinion written by Consuelo Callahan, JD, on Feb. 20, 2009

2. Grand Theft Childhood: The Surprising Truth about Violent Video Games: Lawrence Kutner, PhD, and Cheryl K. Olson, ScD, co-founders of the Harvard Medical School Center for Mental Health and Media

3. Henry Jenkins, PhD, Provost's Professor of Communication, Journalism, and Cinematic Arts at University of Southern California

4. http://www.suite101.com...

5.http://www.pbs.org...

6.http://videogames.procon.org...
Debate Round No. 1
missylacy

Pro

Playing violent video games increases aggressive behavior and arousal . A 2009 study found that it takes up to four minutes for the level of aggressive thoughts and feelings in children to return to normal after playing violent video games. It takes five to ten minutes for heart rate and aggressive behavior to return to baseline. Video games that show the most blood generate more aggressive thoughts. When blood is present in video games, there is a measurable increase in arousal and hostility .
A 1998 study found that 21% of games sampled involved violence against women . Exposure to sexual violence in video games is linked to increases in violence towards women and false attitudes about rape such as that women incite men to rape or that women secretly desire rape.
PartamRuhem

Con

There are a couple key issues with my opponent's argument. First, I would like to state that she has avoided all my contentions, leaving them standing. Also, she has dropped a contention of her own (behavioral scripts) and brought in a brand new one. (violence towards women)

I will refute my opponents argument then extend my case.

Refutations

Pro brings up sources, which she lacked last round, yet still provides not details to these sources. They are simply stated as "A 2009 study" and "a 1998 study". Are these reliable sources? Can you, as the reader, verify any of this? Of course not, but I will show how it is irrelevant anyway.

In my last round, I quoted the co-founders of the Harvard Medical School center for mental health and media, and they explicitly said "...that children engage in the illegal, immoral, sexist and violent acts they see in some of these games - are not supported by the current research". The last part is key. IT shows that all research up to date is not conclusive and should be written off, which is exactly what you should do with my opponent's "facts".

This, and the fact that my opponent still has provided no actually source, causes her whole argument to fall, and I win.

Seeing as there has been no discussion of my two points as to why violent video games should not be banned, I won't sit here and just give more details; keeping it easy on the reader's eyes. I will simply extend all arguments, and hope that my opponent's next response is more whole.

Thank You
Debate Round No. 2
missylacy

Pro

missylacy forfeited this round.
PartamRuhem

Con

I extend all arguments...if Pro gives a response after this, I hope the judges don't let her FF take a huge toll on the voting.
Debate Round No. 3
missylacy

Pro

missylacy forfeited this round.
PartamRuhem

Con

Disappointing...extend.
Debate Round No. 4
missylacy

Pro

missylacy forfeited this round.
PartamRuhem

Con

I hope everyone votes accordingly... thanks
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
missylacyPartamRuhemTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
missylacyPartamRuhemTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
missylacyPartamRuhemTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's forfeited rounds had better arguments then the ones she didnt forfeit....
Vote Placed by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
missylacyPartamRuhemTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: lol
Vote Placed by seraine 5 years ago
seraine
missylacyPartamRuhemTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: 4fit
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
missylacyPartamRuhemTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit loses arguments and conduct. SG is obvious from title. Only Con presented sources.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
missylacyPartamRuhemTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit
Vote Placed by DetectableNinja 5 years ago
DetectableNinja
missylacyPartamRuhemTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeits all points.