should violent video games be banned.
Intro: 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.
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.
To start off, I would like to resolve an issue that I knew would be a problem even before this debate started. Noting the comments, you can see that people are already siding with CON on this topic mainly because they play violent video games also. Yes they're fun, I personally enjoy such video games. I am only discouraging violent video games for the practice in future debates and for this school project I'm doing right now. I know a fair amount of people in my school who play them also. I would like to ask those of you judging and voting, to vote based on how we debate rather than your own biased opinion. This for a school project and I really appreciate it. Thanks! With that cleared up, I would like to address his argument he made then move on from there.
My opponent stated:
“stores take precautions for selling games to young minds."
In response to this, I would like to state that my opponent’s arguments have no ground to stand on. there are tons of arguments out on the Internet to attack our case so far, we haven't seen any attacks on our arguments yet. His arguments are based entirely on personal views of what he thinks. im basically saying that i would like you to challenge me a bit more. To debate, you need evidence which have provided.
About 90 percent of U.S. kids ages 8 to 16 play video games, and they spend about 13 hours a week doing so (more if you're a boy). Now a new study suggests virtual violence in these games may make kids more aggressive in real life. Kids in both the U.S. and Japan who reported playing lots of violent video games had more aggressive behavior months later than their peers who did not, according to the study, which appears in the November issue of the journal Pediatric.
"It's not the violence per se that's the problem, it's the context and goals of the violence," said Olson, citing past research on TV violence and behavior. Olson is right. Imagine the goals of he violence. Rewards for killing people, shooting people, and doing drugs? In most games you are rewarded with money or points the more you kill. So in a game, the more you kill, the better you do. Do we really want youngsters being exposed to this? No, We don’t.
For my opponents first attack, he said that playing violent video games sharpens your skills in the military. First off, no it doesn’t. Video games support you to rush into a situation and be a “Hero”. Imagine doing such in a real life scenario. In all actuality, if you catch a bullet in real life, your down and its basically a real life ‘Game Over.’ No respawn or second chance. So sharpening your skills for real life situations? Not one bit.
His second argument he made was that young minds cannot purchase violent games. Ive already proved otherwise and all my arguments still stand seeing how no attacks have been made.
turdebator forfeited this round.