Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Does banning video games violent constitution

Mathew
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2011 1:06:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Freedom of Speech is the first and possibly most important amendment to the constitution. Without this amendment we wouldn't have many of the books and movies we love today. Banning videogames is a violation to our Freedom of Speech. Many books and movies are rated R. These books and movies have the right to freely express their ideas. Does this mean we should ban all our R rated books and movies? No. Same goes for videogames. Parents should be the ones to decide what video games their children are playing. Families should be responsible for what their kids are exposed to, not the government.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2011 1:24:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/29/2011 1:06:06 PM, Mathew wrote:
Freedom of Speech is the first and possibly most important amendment to the constitution. Without this amendment we wouldn't have many of the books and movies we love today. Banning videogames is a violation to our Freedom of Speech. Many books and movies are rated R. These books and movies have the right to freely express their ideas. Does this mean we should ban all our R rated books and movies? No. Same goes for videogames. Parents should be the ones to decide what video games their children are playing. Families should be responsible for what their kids are exposed to, not the government.

There is a mis-understanding that this thread is perpetuating. This wasn't a flat out ban, this was a ban against the sale to children of violent games.

The government isn't taking the responsibility from the parents, it was forcing the parents to take the responsibility. Parents should be the ones to make the dicision, and in order for them to do so, that means they have to be the ones buying the games for their kids. If a child can go to a store and buy a violent game on their own, that is by-passing their parents, and thus taking power away from their parents to hold that responsibility.

This would have given the power back to the parent to be the ultimate sayer of "yes" or "no," not the government.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
freedomsquared
Posts: 450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2011 1:27:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/29/2011 1:24:09 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/29/2011 1:06:06 PM, Mathew wrote:
Freedom of Speech is the first and possibly most important amendment to the constitution. Without this amendment we wouldn't have many of the books and movies we love today. Banning videogames is a violation to our Freedom of Speech. Many books and movies are rated R. These books and movies have the right to freely express their ideas. Does this mean we should ban all our R rated books and movies? No. Same goes for videogames. Parents should be the ones to decide what video games their children are playing. Families should be responsible for what their kids are exposed to, not the government.

There is a mis-understanding that this thread is perpetuating. This wasn't a flat out ban, this was a ban against the sale to children of violent games.

The government isn't taking the responsibility from the parents, it was forcing the parents to take the responsibility. Parents should be the ones to make the dicision, and in order for them to do so, that means they have to be the ones buying the games for their kids.

Why is this necessary though? The kids won't buy the games unless they get money from their parents (which means the parents support the game) or if they make their own money (where the parents can still ban the game from being played at home).

This would have given the power back to the parent to be the ultimate sayer of "yes" or "no," not the government.

Parents already have the ultimate power, this law is only an inconvenience.
But it's Norway, sort of the Canada of Europe."
-innomen

http://www.debate.org...
-humorous debate with brian_eggleston

http://www.debate.org...
-tournament debate, need votes
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2011 1:40:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/29/2011 1:27:26 PM, freedomsquared wrote:
At 7/29/2011 1:24:09 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/29/2011 1:06:06 PM, Mathew wrote:
Freedom of Speech is the first and possibly most important amendment to the constitution. Without this amendment we wouldn't have many of the books and movies we love today. Banning videogames is a violation to our Freedom of Speech. Many books and movies are rated R. These books and movies have the right to freely express their ideas. Does this mean we should ban all our R rated books and movies? No. Same goes for videogames. Parents should be the ones to decide what video games their children are playing. Families should be responsible for what their kids are exposed to, not the government.

There is a mis-understanding that this thread is perpetuating. This wasn't a flat out ban, this was a ban against the sale to children of violent games.

The government isn't taking the responsibility from the parents, it was forcing the parents to take the responsibility. Parents should be the ones to make the dicision, and in order for them to do so, that means they have to be the ones buying the games for their kids.

Why is this necessary though? The kids won't buy the games unless they get money from their parents (which means the parents support the game) or if they make their own money (where the parents can still ban the game from being played at home).

Kids never ever lie to their parents about what they plan on spending their money on. And kids never know how to hide games on their computers so that there parents don't know about it. Like the porn I use to have in hidden files on my computer (terchnically my parents' computer), and that so many kids have that they hide from their parents.

If they parents don't want their kids to have something, the kids will try to find a way of getting it anyway and then hiding it. All the government is doing is enabling that behavior.

My parents didn't know that I had Conker's Bad Fur Day (well, they knew I "had" it, but not what kind of game it was), until after I moved out and left my 64 and all my games. My dad picked it up and played it and told me some years later that if mom ever known what that game was, she'd never let me play it (though he enjoyed it). And I knew that. She would never let by play a game where you get to bounce on giant flower boobs, and decapitate squirels and all of other stuff that you could.

This would have given the power back to the parent to be the ultimate sayer of "yes" or "no," not the government.

Parents already have the ultimate power, this law is only an inconvenience.

No they don't. This ban was the basic equivilent of kids going behind their parents' backs and the government saying "oh no, go ask your mother." Instead, we are saying "sure, go ahead."
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
freedomsquared
Posts: 450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2011 2:55:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/29/2011 1:40:24 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/29/2011 1:27:26 PM, freedomsquared wrote:
At 7/29/2011 1:24:09 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 7/29/2011 1:06:06 PM, Mathew wrote:
Freedom of Speech is the first and possibly most important amendment to the constitution. Without this amendment we wouldn't have many of the books and movies we love today. Banning videogames is a violation to our Freedom of Speech. Many books and movies are rated R. These books and movies have the right to freely express their ideas. Does this mean we should ban all our R rated books and movies? No. Same goes for videogames. Parents should be the ones to decide what video games their children are playing. Families should be responsible for what their kids are exposed to, not the government.

There is a mis-understanding that this thread is perpetuating. This wasn't a flat out ban, this was a ban against the sale to children of violent games.

The government isn't taking the responsibility from the parents, it was forcing the parents to take the responsibility. Parents should be the ones to make the dicision, and in order for them to do so, that means they have to be the ones buying the games for their kids.

Why is this necessary though? The kids won't buy the games unless they get money from their parents (which means the parents support the game) or if they make their own money (where the parents can still ban the game from being played at home).

Kids never ever lie to their parents about what they plan on spending their money on.

I'm not that naive, I am after all a teenager.

And kids never know how to hide games on their computers so that there parents don't know about it. Like the porn I use to have in hidden files on my computer (terchnically my parents' computer), and that so many kids have that they hide from their parents.

The child will then only be able to play his game when his parents are not around. This can be quite frustrating.

If they parents don't want their kids to have something, the kids will try to find a way of getting it anyway and then hiding it. All the government is doing is enabling that behavior.


My parents didn't know that I had Conker's Bad Fur Day (well, they knew I "had" it, but not what kind of game it was), until after I moved out and left my 64 and all my games. My dad picked it up and played it and told me some years later that if mom ever known what that game was, she'd never let me play it (though he enjoyed it). And I knew that. She would never let by play a game where you get to bounce on giant flower boobs, and decapitate squirels and all of other stuff that you could.

This law doesn't fix something like that from happening. You would've still been able to play that game at a friend's house with more open parents or just get an older kid to buy it if you really wanted it. Just like cigarettes and pot, video games would be really easy to get a hold of.

This would have given the power back to the parent to be the ultimate sayer of "yes" or "no," not the government.

Parents already have the ultimate power, this law is only an inconvenience.

No they don't. This ban was the basic equivilent of kids going behind their parents' backs and the government saying "oh no, go ask your mother." Instead, we are saying "sure, go ahead."

No, now the kids are going behind their parents and the government's backs. You are now promoting the punishment of kids for playing video games that are arbitrarily decided to be too mature for them. Kids will still get the game, except now instead of being grounded for playing them they will get fined or worse.
But it's Norway, sort of the Canada of Europe."
-innomen

http://www.debate.org...
-humorous debate with brian_eggleston

http://www.debate.org...
-tournament debate, need votes
Wain84
Posts: 41
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 10:26:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Since flag burning became an issue the Supreme Court has taken the position that freedom of expression is protected under the First Amendment. I agree with this position. Banning video games in unconstitutional.
ritz2004
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 9:44:02 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
A lot of families are irresponsible prats. Theres tonnes of 7 year olds in my school that are going round playing violent games then getting into massive fights, hitting teachers, copying inappropriate things they've heard, its just ridiculous. Im not saying they wouldn't do it if they didn't play the games. Neither am i saying that all children who play those games do it. All I am saying is that I'm sure it would be greatly reduced. To me, exposing children to things like that is a form of parental neglect. So maybe instead of banning the games there should be some fine implemented if it is found that young children are playing games like that.
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 9:46:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Violent video games do not promote violent children. Children understand the difference between hitting a person and pretend hitting a person.
Rob
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 10:03:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It's laws like these that encourage irresponsible parents give money to their kids under the pretense that the government will watch over them.

My parents NEVER gave me money as a kid because there were few laws back then to make irresponsible parenting convenient.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 10:06:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Actually I remember as a kid, when I could steal five dollars out of my mom's purse, I would sneak off to the corner bar that allowed 10 year olds to go play their quarter video games in the back, any time before 5:00 pm.

Kids are bad.
sadolite
Posts: 8,836
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 2:05:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/29/2011 1:06:06 PM, Mathew wrote:
Freedom of Speech is the first and possibly most important amendment to the constitution. Without this amendment we wouldn't have many of the books and movies we love today. Banning videogames is a violation to our Freedom of Speech. Many books and movies are rated R. These books and movies have the right to freely express their ideas. Does this mean we should ban all our R rated books and movies? No. Same goes for videogames. Parents should be the ones to decide what video games their children are playing. Families should be responsible for what their kids are exposed to, not the government.

Eh, last I checked the Constitution was a piece of toilet paper for all intensive purposes. The Constitution says what ever somebody in govt that yields power wants it to say. Nothing is unconstitutional. Saying something is unconstitutional is like two little kids saying no it isn't, yes it is. Interpretation is irrelevant. There is no one left to interpret it correctly. They all died 200 years ago.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%