The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

there should be less violence in video games

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
uchia has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/26/2016 Category: Games
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 706 times Debate No: 95012
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)




Well, I have already debated on a similar topic with someone who shared similar views as i did. I couldn't find much in the area of debates in the challenge period, so i decided to make another one. First round is acceptance.
Video Game: an electronic work, specifically a virtual one ultimately comprised of data; this definition can be stretched, but shouldn't impact the debate on whole if it does.

Violence: The portrayal of one body or force physically harming an animal, in most cases a human.
==>Things are "more" violent if they encourage violent behavior or portray them as normal, display gruesome content as it applies to violence, or otherwise can offend people by means of violence. Therefore, "less", in this argument, means it does not have or use as much or any of the above characteristics I have labelled as "more" violent.

Specifications on "should be"; I will assert that it is beneficial for the majority of any parties involved with gaming and the effects thereof, directly or indirectly, for games to have less violence in them. ("beneficial" not meaning without consequence, but that the potential gain outweigh the losses.)

Also, understand we are talking in hypotheticals; if violence were to drastically decrease, i am asserting that things would be "better" (see previous paragraph). Both sides must acknowledge that we cannot fully know what would happen under such circumstances; however, we can elaborate on what we do know, and hope that is enough.

The TL;DNR version: pretty much exactly what you would expect. A few definitions and such to make the argument more rigid, which should be considered, but you don't have to memorize them or anything.


I think there should be more because people like them more then nonviolent games. A lot of people like Zelda, call of duty, anime and a lot more then nonviolent games.
Debate Round No. 1


Alright, I meant for first round to be acceptance, but that works too.

First, my arguments

1:Gaming as a medium of art

Modern gaming has a tendancy of pandering towards a teenage audience: using violence and sex to win over the audience they want (see counterarguments). The problem with this is that it prevents people from taking gaming seriously. No one wants to accept gaming as an art form, no one believes that games can convey emotion or messages, and no one believes that "mature", in reference to video games, can mean anything other than a rating. I am saying this as a teenage male gamer: games should stop trying to put people like me into a box

2:Coming under fire

You've heard the argument before: "violent videogames ruin the children", "videogames turn people into mass murderers", "videogames killed my children", etc. It will never go away unless we bite the bullet and stop pushing violence. I personally want people to start taking games seriously, as priorly mentioned, but I don't want them percieved as a threat. I can only assume you feel the same way


I think there should be more because people like them more then nonviolent games. A lot of people like Zelda, call of duty, anime and a lot more then nonviolent games.

I would ask for sources, but let's be real here, neither of us are using sources; most of the things mentioned on both sides, I would think, can be accepted by both sides as fact; as gamers, we both understand these ideas to be true. I have tried to keep numbers out of my own argument to avoid causing too much confusion.

Instead, I will ask why that is: why do people tend to like violent games as opposed to nonviolent ones? One of the issues is the AAA games (like Assassin's Creed or Call of Duty) vs. indie games (like minecraft and Don't Starve). AAA is sponsored by heavy budget studios with heavy wallets and large numbers. Indie games are created by "independent developers", which can be stretched, but for all practical purposes just means a small team of friends who just thought it would be fun to create a video game. Because AAA games have larger budgets, they can push their games with advertising campaigns. However, they also don't have much area for originality; because they spend so much money on each project, they can't afford to get a failed project, so they just rehash an old formula: buff guys shooting guns at other buff guys. Indie games usually go with violence as well, to mirror their AAA counterparts.

The issues isn't that nonviolent games aren't as good, but that they aren't as well known. What about when they are well done? Undertale, an indie game written by Toby Fox, was prided for its emphasis on nonviolence and the ability to talk with the opponents without taking their lives. Mirror's edge, while still more or less AAA (even with less marketing), did not focus on violence, but on parkour and freerunning

Quick Clarification:
I do not mean that violence should be taken out, just taken down a bit. Violence should be used when it makes sense, but not as much as it is now. The horse is dead, you can put down your baseball bats.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by datGUUYY 1 year ago
screw it im making another one...
Posted by Castile 1 year ago
I hate when time runs out for a good debate
Posted by datGUUYY 1 year ago
It's not letting me post round 2 0__0
Posted by datGUUYY 1 year ago
LOL! TheBenC clearly didn't read anything I said.
Posted by TheBenC 1 year ago
There are plenty of studies that show violence in video games does not affect a person in real life. We all know the difference between fiction and reality. If that line is blurred then we need to ban books like Romeo and Juliet, there is a hell of a lot of violence in that thing!
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.