The Instigator
cwyman
Pro (for)
Losing
11 Points
The Contender
kylemoto
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

violent video games should be banned

Do you like this debate?NoYes+7
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 7 votes the winner is...
kylemoto
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/19/2013 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 26,081 times Debate No: 30400
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (7)

 

cwyman

Pro

1. it desensitizes kids' sense of life and others lives
2. it is a direct insult to all men who serve in the army because as the person in the army are fighting in the army to serve their country and you are sitting on your couch laughing when someone dies
3. it leads a path to getting a gun to kill people and show off to friends
4. violent video games ratings have gone up, and so have shootings and gun related killings
5. violent games can only do bad and cant do good so what is the point of them
kylemoto

Con

1. Violent video games can improve our economy with high ratings.
2. Violent video games provide a safe outlet for angry feelings. (2007 study).
3. Violent video game ratings are going up, while murder rates have gone down.
4. Violent video games show violence, however people who play these video games do not use this violence in the real world.
Refute to opponent's arguments
Violent video games can do good because it gives people a chance to let their anger out.
Debate Round No. 1
cwyman

Pro

you said they help get your anger out, how?
many things could take stress out but to use it on something that is insulting to people in the army is just not respectful.
I know many people who played many violent video games and got sucked into it.
then they went out and got bb guns and Airsoft guns and now they want to get a gun.
the gun that someone might get after violent video games won't be for hunting and wont even be for protection.
you've been hearing about many mass shootings lately.
kylemoto

Con

They get anger out by trying to kill a person that is not actually real. Therefore, they will not hurt actual people.
You know people that play violent video games and got sucked in. However, that is just people you know.
Yes, I have been hearing about mass shootings lately. But, according to ijreview.com, the shooter in Newtown, Connecticut, did not play any video games as a child.
According to Science Illustrated November 2011, soldiers use violent video games to cure their stress.
Debate Round No. 2
cwyman

Pro

You have referenced a study from 2007 which showed that violent video games don't have negative affects but since that study violent video games have become bloodier and more realistic. I read an article and the author quoted "Video games may not be the root of school shootings, fights or any other violent acts from teens or children but they are contributing to the mindset that these actions are okay". There are many video games rated mature that underaged children play which causes aggression.
kylemoto

Con

That is true. However, kids who play these games are not mature enough to understand the link between video games and the real world shootings. So they play the game, but they do not know that the fake gun they are firing can actually be used to shoot a person in the real world. However, I have many friends who played violent video games at a young age, and they have never used any violence they could have "learned" in those games. And I have seen many games rated Mature that are not violent.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Seubs14 3 years ago
Seubs14
I really don't believe that this is even a debate. There are many worse influences on kids these days than violent games because, for starters, they promote realistic negative activities. If some kid can't handle playing a game with a little shooting without turning into a psycho mass murderer then he should already be locked in an insane asylum somewhere because he is sure to find some other motivation to become a threat to society.
Posted by enip284 3 years ago
enip284
Sorry, I made a mistake when I mentioned the fallujah game. It's six days in fallujah, not five.
Posted by enip284 3 years ago
enip284
What the heck, guys? This was a terrible debate from both the pro and con, especially on such a charged and relevant topic. Neither of you are actually debating! Listing things without analysis on any of your sources, and merely listing some sentences that we are expected accept without any explanations or analysis. Both your arguments can be easily derailed. I'm not personally attacking any of you--this is just a topic I care a great deal about.

what is the 2007 source on video games as a safe outlet for angry feelings? What is it? You don't go into it at all. games help vent anger by allowing you to kill someone virtually? Come on man. What kind of argument is that? It is a direct insult to men who serve in the army? Have you heard of five days in fallujah? It was a meant to be a shooter game to document the events that happened in the second battle of fallujah. One of the biggest reasons it was even made was because the marines who came back from it wanted nothing more but to have their story told. They went to the developers and asked them personally to make this game, to show what they experienced. Not just to tell their story--but to show, through an interactive narrative, in the hopes that by allowing people to experience it, they can understand the marines' own feelings. The game was cancelled because too many people got upset and it was a topic "too relevant" to be explored through the video game medium. People also used the argument that a violent game based on real life like fallujah is insulting to the soldiers who died, when the whole project was meant to commemorate and bring understanding. In the end, the real people who were being disrespected were the freaking marines who asked for this game to be made in the first place. Their voice was stamped out mass anxiety and ignorance. That is real disrespect. If you laugh when you kill people on a screen, that's a reflection of who you are, not the lifeless entertainment meant to engage you.
Posted by rileyretard 3 years ago
rileyretard
I really don't think that playing violent videogames is going to lead to violence in real life unless the have a mental disability. It isn't disrespectful to those who actually serve. Most of the men in my family have served and love to play videogames as a pass time. In my personal experience I've been relieved of the stresses of daily life by playing.
Posted by likespeace 3 years ago
likespeace
Hrm. I know when I present children with sheets of subtraction problems, they're less likely to complete them, than if I present them with a fun game that involves substraction. The US Military also successfully leverages video games as part of their recruiting efforts.
Posted by codyholt4 3 years ago
codyholt4
Frankly, if the video game causes kids to do crazy things, then the kid is messed up in the first place because video games are not gonna cause kids to do anything.
Posted by cybertron1998 3 years ago
cybertron1998
pro your arguments about things have changed and that cons info is outdate is, well, outdated. actually violent video games have been proven not to be the cause therefore your argument is irrelevant
Posted by WellingtonThomas 3 years ago
WellingtonThomas
Ah, cool, thanks Chaos.
Posted by The_Chaos_Heart 3 years ago
The_Chaos_Heart
Wellington, if you engage in 3 debates, talk to Airmax, and he'll work something out with you. I had to do the same thing.
Posted by likespeace 3 years ago
likespeace
The burden of proof falls upon the instigator, the one making the motion. In this case, their motion is "Violent video games should be banned". If both sides fail to convince, the motion doesn't pass, which is a victory for the contender. We don't make changes without a compelling reason.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by johannes 3 years ago
johannes
cwymankylemotoTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I've always been a violent video game player too
Vote Placed by Raymond123 3 years ago
Raymond123
cwymankylemotoTied
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: I have been a violent video game player all my life
Vote Placed by twilke 3 years ago
twilke
cwymankylemotoTied
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:42 
Reasons for voting decision: Close debate!
Vote Placed by Jarhyn 3 years ago
Jarhyn
cwymankylemotoTied
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: Con showed that violent video games =/= violent activities against people. Since violent video games are not sufficient to cause violence, they are not the bad-making quality and thus are not what needs to be banned. PRO never defended the implication that things which are not sufficient as bad-making qualities have any business being banned. CON cited studies(poorly), but CON merely sited anecdote.
Vote Placed by induced 3 years ago
induced
cwymankylemotoTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: you both made some good points, but not good enough to prove your side is better than the other
Vote Placed by likespeace 3 years ago
likespeace
cwymankylemotoTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to make a case and meet their burden of proof. Specifically, they never posted any statistics and/or evidence supporting their position that violent video games are bad for society. Even if they had succeeded in showing that it was bad in some ways and good in others, the next step would be to support why we should ban them. I thus award arguments to Con, and also sources to Con for mentioning a 2007 study which was accepted as evidence by Pro.
Vote Placed by The_Chaos_Heart 3 years ago
The_Chaos_Heart
cwymankylemotoTied
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: Con perfectly argued that people who play violent video games do not necessarily go out and commit real world violent crimes. Pro never even defined what a violent video game was. The Mario series of games feature a human being jumping and squashing strange creatures. Does this qualify as violence? In short, Pro never really made a case to begin with, and as such, failed to fulfill their BoP.