The Instigator
stupidmidget
Pro (for)
Losing
18 Points
The Contender
Fenrir
Con (against)
Winning
30 Points

video game violence

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: 12/10/2007 Category: Technology
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,055 times Debate No: 205
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (16)

 

stupidmidget

Pro

video game violence is not wrong
the children that play the games and claim that they are affected by the game just want attention. the ones that actually get violent are the abused ones.
i play many violent video games and i dont have anything wrong with me. i dont want to go start a gang or rob a bank.
Fenrir

Con

First and foremost, it's necessary to recognize that saying video games may increase the violent tendencies in some does not in any way mean to suggest that if you play violent video games you will invariably become a violent person.

However, this does not mean that most will be unaffected, either. Even if only subtley, violent video games do in fact increase violent tendencies. Studies have shown that not only do violent video games produce an increased amount of emotional arousal, even when compared to similarly exciting but less violent video games, but that they also result in a decrease in brain activity in areas involving self control.

One must also consider how younger children are much more easily influenced. Repetition is a key step in learning, and children are exposed again and again to violent actions with little or no consequences. Again, while not always, this does have potential to increase their own violent behavior--maybe not beating up any kid that looks at them, but possibly being more aggressive or reckless. And I do not disagree that a lot of this is dependent on young children playing games suited for an older audience, something that would not occur with more strict parental regulation. But seriously, let's be realistic--parents simply do not regulate things like video games to the extent they should.
Debate Round No. 1
stupidmidget

Pro

yes but children should be paying attention to the content avisory. that is why the ESRB made the rating system. if the children are playing games that do not fit there age group then they risk doingsuch things like being more emotional. plus some of the stuff that happens in he games happens in the real world.
Fenrir

Con

I agree, it would be great if children would take the initiative to play games tailored to their age level. But if even their parents let it slide, what are the chances the kids will take responsibility? Further, how should we expect them to even really comprehend the effect that playing violent video games will have? I know when I was a child, I would love to go over to friends' houses and play violent video games that were not allowed in my house. All I knew was that my parents didn't like them because there was too much blood; I had absolutely no concept of any possible psychological effects that it might have on me, and it would be unrealistic to expect otherwise.
Debate Round No. 2
stupidmidget

Pro

if the kids dont take the responsibilty then they will do it at there own risk. if the childrens parents do not take responsibilty then the parents are not doing a good job at parenting there kids. violent games do not have an effect on children. and if it supposedly does its because the child want s attention and needs the attention.
Fenrir

Con

"if the kids dont take the responsibilty then they will do it at there own risk."
So if a baby doesn't take the responsibility to not swallow something harmful youd say it does it at its own risk? The point I made before is that children simply dont understand the risk, or simply dont believe there to be one.

"violent games do not have an effect on children. and if it supposedly does its because the child want s attention and needs the attention."

I see absolutely no basis for this argument aside from personal opinion. On the other hand, I can back up my argument with scientific fact. Take, for example, the research done at the Indiana University School of Medicine:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com...
The students here were given MRIs to see if there was any actual difference between violent and nonviolent video games. Sure enough, there was a notable difference in the emotional arousal levels of those tested. I don't think you can say that the students were altering all altering the same level of brain activity just for a bit of attention.

Of course, one might argue that there is simply too much of a difference between Need for Speed and Call of Duty, the two games that were compared in that study. However, let's look at another study, by Ballard and Weist:
http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu...
In this, Mortal Kombat was used in both test groups; one had blood effects turned on, the other had them off. Even when playing the exact same game, levels of excitement were notably higher simply if there was increased gore.

And again, I know many gamers will say that they do not have violent tendencies, nor any inclinations towards criminal behavior. However, consider the study done by Lynch, found in the above link. It was found that "[s]tudents who scored in the top 20% on a trait hostility scale showed much greater increases in physiological response than students scoring in the bottom 20% of the hostility scale. Children who were more hostile also showed much greater response in adrenaline, nor-adrenaline, and testosterone than children who were less hostile after playing a violent video game. These physiological effects are important because these are the same types of physiological reactions bodies have when engaged in a fight." Thus, while many more passive gamers may not experience a significant emotional arousal or increase in violent emotions, those who are naturally more inclined towards violence will have a stronger change in emotional levels.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
I see it from the angle of the Pink Pistols: Armed Gays Don't Get Bashed. And no, I'm not gay. But that's an argument that should maybe wake up liberal state-lovers.
Posted by ruth421963 9 years ago
ruth421963
I'm amazed "we are still
talking about this".
It is all bad{my now
adult sons still love it}.
Here it is folks, free
advice, from me to you,
Looks like the gaming
firms{firm this} have won.
Take it laying down or fight
till the end{in vid games
they never really DIE}.
Good Luck,
Ruth
btw, keep the kids under
12 away...they have the rest
of their life to fall into this
trap.
Posted by RScinteie 9 years ago
RScinteie
Are you suggesting, clsmooth, that guns are some kind of equalizer between individuals, some kind of democratic tool? Isn't that the problem itself -- that a teenage boy can decide to bring an AK-47 rifle to a mall and harm countless people with the simple flexing of a finger?

Even if we were to somehow identify the spirit of your argument and stipulate women need guns to protect themselves, I can tell you quite frankly that a woman with a gun is not entirely safeguarded, and the odds are once again stacked if a man has a gun as well.

So, you see, from both angles, your argument is entirely flawed.
Posted by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
Without guns, strong people can easily overwhelm weak people. Men can easily brutalize women. When you're against guns, you're for the victimization of the weak at the hands of the strong.
Posted by RScinteie 9 years ago
RScinteie
I have an issue with this whole concept about blaming the person and not the weapon. Guns aren't inherently bad, folks, it's the people who're bad!

If you look up a man named Marshall McLuhan, you'll find that the reality is quite opposite -- the act of using a gun changes you. Who can prove whether or not you are an inherently "violent person?" Does my desire to vindicate my family if it were slaughtered by a rampaging murder mean I'm an inherently violent person? To try and decipher what a human is -- that's futile. We can experience the rainbow of human emotion, but it is our actions that bring these emotions to us.

Here's a fact: without guns, people could not kill each other as easily. Similarly, without violent video games, boys wouldn't be driven to performing violent wrestling moves on each other.
Posted by Fenrir 9 years ago
Fenrir
No, while I cannot personally prove it, I can easily reference countless studies that have. They're not just doing polls, here, or saying that because some deranged violent kid said he was trained by video games that they must be evil.

And while violent tendencies are not intrinsically wrong, I cannot say that there is nothing wrong in producing them. And yes, I would agree 100% that alcohol is wrong at least for increasing violent tendencies. Or should we ask an abused wife and a broken family what they think? Surely they would be understanding that it's not the alcohol's fault at all, it's just making daddy irrational and inclined to violence. It's all his fault that he acts the way he does when he's drunk; the alcohol doesn't matter.
Posted by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
You cannot prove that the violent video games cause the violent tendencies. It is not possible to prove or to even strongly suggest, as outlined in my earlier comments.

And even if you were right, I would still disagree. Something that increased "violent tendencies" would not be wrong. The actual commission of the violent act would be the thing that would be wrong. Let's say alcohol increases people's tendency to become violent with their spouses -- does that make alcohol wrong?
Posted by Fenrir 9 years ago
Fenrir
Is increasing violent tendencies that have the proven potential to cause harm to others not wrong?
Posted by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
I go with stupidmidget here. He says "video game violence is not wrong," and Fenrir fails to show how the depiction of violence is, in fact, "wrong."

Fenrir points to studies that show "increased tendencies." However, the accuracy of these studies is highly questionable. After all, what is the control group? What if violent video games did not exist? Who is to say that these children would not seek out other violent forms of entertainment. Who is to say that it isn't the violent children who are more drawn to violent video games, then violent video games that beget violent children?

I do see basis in stupidmidget's "attention" argument. Kids know that by blaming the violent video games, they can gain media attention and displace blame from themselves. This is objective fact. Referring back to my argument in the paragraph above, there is no way to prove or even strongly suggest that the children were not predisposed to violence, and thus drawn to violent video games. If this is the case, then the media scapegoat of violent video games is an obvious out for them.

Put it this way: Jeffrey Dahmer didn't become violent because he mutilated animals. He mutilated animals because he was violent.
Posted by Fenrir 9 years ago
Fenrir
Hey, I dont agree with me much either. I'm an avid gamer, but I'm actually studying to become a video game designer. To be honest, I love violent video games. God of War was one of my favorites, and the levels of blood in that would put Monty Python's Black Knight to shame.

On the other hand, I do still hold the personal belief that parents need to do a better job regulating what their kids play, as some games simply are not appropriate for younger children.
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by liberalconservative 9 years ago
liberalconservative
stupidmidgetFenrirTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by richguy_69 9 years ago
richguy_69
stupidmidgetFenrirTied
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 
Vote Placed by ruth421963 9 years ago
ruth421963
stupidmidgetFenrirTied
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 
Vote Placed by bsergent 9 years ago
bsergent
stupidmidgetFenrirTied
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 
Vote Placed by Mdal 9 years ago
Mdal
stupidmidgetFenrirTied
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 
Vote Placed by Schnozberry 9 years ago
Schnozberry
stupidmidgetFenrirTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by JoeDSileo 9 years ago
JoeDSileo
stupidmidgetFenrirTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by paul_tigger 9 years ago
paul_tigger
stupidmidgetFenrirTied
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 
Vote Placed by thegreats 9 years ago
thegreats
stupidmidgetFenrirTied
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 
Vote Placed by Ineffablesquirrel 9 years ago
Ineffablesquirrel
stupidmidgetFenrirTied
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