The Instigator
Con (against)
1 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Should Kids be playing M rated games?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/15/2014 Category: Technology
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,911 times Debate No: 52604
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




This is an issue (or at least I think so) that is rarely brought up so let me give you some insight into my opinion. I have a step-brother who is in 3rd grade. He plays M rated games and has for several years. He is a special case in that he has anger management issues without the management part. It makes these games a bad combo for several reasons. 1. He is seeing these people do extremely violently acts which only teaches him that this is acceptable. 2. It allows his anger to be shown in the only way he has seen which is violence. (It also does not help his dirty mouth) 3. These games are showing warfare as how it was seen in WWI times; glorious and manly. I personally have several relatives who were in Vietnam. War is NOT glorious or awesome or gives you a second chance or respawn. War is ugly and usually shows all of the traits in humans that are cruel and plain evil. Now without getting off topic, this is what he was watching and is continuing to see. Now I personally thought that he was the only one because when I grew up it was go outside or play with the family and video games were just a small past time when no one else was around. This is definitely not the case today. I recently had an experience with boys who were not just friends of my stepbrother and all they did was talk about video games (ALL of them M-rated). This was an eye opener. Almost all kids his age play these extremely profane and violent games. What does that say for how they should behave? How life is and what they should do? At their age I rarely played a T game once in a while. These are playing games that show them death, gore, nudity, profane language, and so on. How can we expect the next generation to be anything better than what they are constantly seeing? That moves on to the next subtopic. The parents are more responsible for this than anyone. I know that my stepmother only gives him these games because she does not want to have to deal with him. I am sorry but what kind of mentality is that? Oh I don't want to have to raise my kid so I'll let these VIOLENT and OBSCENE games do the raising for me. Now, taking a step back I realize this may not be the case for others. The parents may have just given in to the child's want to play with his friends on these violent games or think that it is normal and alright. I assure parents this is NOT an improvement to how kids are growing up. More often kids should be out getting dirty not watching themselves shoot people. Continuing on, these games also are helping my argument just because of how they are rated; M for MATURE! Not M for parent go buy the game so that the 7 year old can play it. The developers are making these games for a mature audience not elementary school kids. To conclude, I hope to make this an eye opener, NOT as a way to bag on parents raising their kids. I realize that today is not the safest world to live in and that kids playing outside is about as rare as the blood moon we just had but there are alternatives to staring at screens. I hope you take this to heart and not to offend.


Yes, Its not necessarily M rated video games fault as the con side stated. They very first stated that they were pretty sure that M rated games were bad, but they never said they were sure. Therefore the con side can't argue this topic if there not completely sure. They also said that a 3rd grader was violent from playing M rated games and had anger issues and that M rated games have nudity, violence, and many other things but thats not really the case. Whenever I played M rated games if it had anything bad it would say "warning this is graphic and it can be skipped" and even when I did play it, it wasn't graphic at all. Also the con side stated "I only played T games every once and a while", then why should they be opposing this if they have never played rated M games? Also this article states why M rated games are not bad and are not related to real life violence.

It may be easy to blame violent video games for real life violence, but research shows that crimes and "M" rated games that show how to do them aren't related at all.

According to a study published on the Journal of Adolescent Health, researchers observed more than 1,200 seventh and eight grade gamers. It turns out that most 12-14 year olds play M-rated games, yet we don't see pre-teens shooting people. The thought of violent games causing major violence "doesn't hold water," said Cheryl Olson from Massachusetts General Hospital.

Violent video games actually help younger gamers in dealing with stress and anger. "We don't know whether playing to get anger out is a good thing or a bad thing for any individual child, but we suspect that it might be healthy for a lot of kids," Olson continued.

The stereotype of gamers being loners, anti-social, and violent was also debunked by the study. Contrary to popular belief, playing video games is actually a social activity. Even gamers that stick to MMORPGs for countless hours are still likely to play with a group of friends.

"It's not going to ruin them, they're not going to go out and pick up a gun. Violent video game play is typical and normal for kids nowadays. That doesn't mean that parents have to like it, but they shouldn't panic about it," said Olson.

So basically this article has proof saying that it actually helps to play M rated games so kids most definitely should be able to play M rated games
Debate Round No. 1


Alright, to start, kudos bro. Good argument. Now to debunk it. The idea that we don't know if video games cause violence is irrelevant. That is the whole reason it is still in discussion because there are cases where it causes violence such as when a man could not get a video game(ironically) and so threatened to blow up the entire store. He is now sitting in state penitentiary for terrorism. Although this happened I am not going to pretend that "all children become horrible people when playing video games". I even realize that it has been proven that video games can help stress rather than cause it. My uncle is a prime example because he was ADHD and so playing a video game was his way of calming down. My problem is having people calm down playing a game where people are killing each other. I'm sorry but if you calm down while killing people, virtual or not, that is a little psychopathic. To draw back to the subject, this is about young people playing games that are violent. There is opposition to this, not just to be stingy, but because there is a problem here. A man named Brad Bushman was against young people playing M games(much like myself) and was open about it. He received what his daughter called"fan mail" of the many teens AND parents who threatened, harassed, and derailed him. One in particular said, "People who think video games cause violence should be shot." All I can say is thank you for proving my point. A teenager, who most likely played video games based on his/her defense of it, said that anybody who thought video games= bad should die. That's a great example of how this influences. Not just actions but how they think. People now find it appropriate to say that people should be shot because of their opinion. This is a communist dictatorship's opinion being incorporated into modern society. In "The Argentina Reader: History, Culture, Politics" it talks about how people who were smart enough to make their own opinions just "mysteriously disappeared". My father was their during this time and said how people would just disappear one day and never be seen again. Coming back to the topic this is just one mentality we are teaching these easily influenced kids of what is appropriate. One speech by Bushman(who was mentioned earlier) was about how these games influence people. He says how "Playing violent video games increases aggressive thoughts, angry feelings, emotional arousal and aggression." They also make people "numb to the pain and suffering of others. All these effects are massive and statistically significant," Bushman added. He said the largest effects found in the science are in the area that prove violent video games lead to increased aggressive behavior. There are 140 studies with more than 68,000 participants that establish that correlation.

"People who say there aren't enough studies on violent video games don"t know what they are talking about," Bushman said. "There is little margin of error, and the findings are so statistically significant that there is no question that violent video games affect behavior."

Just to make sure that you don't think I am just picking one let me broaden the spectrum.

97% of 12-17 year olds in the US played video games in 2008, thus fueling an $11.7 billion domestic video game industry. In 2008, 10 of the top 20 best-selling video games in the US contained violence.

Violent video games have been blamed for school shootings, increases in bullying, and violence towards women. Critics argue that these games desensitize players to violence, reward players for simulating violence, and teach children that violence is an acceptable way to resolve conflicts.

Video game advocates contend that a majority of the research on the topic is deeply flawed and that no causal relationship has been found between video games and social violence. They argue that violent video games may reduce violence by serving as a substitute for rough and tumble play and by providing a safe outlet for aggressive and angry feelings.The debate over violent video games can be traced back to the 1976 release of the game Death Race. The object of the game was to run over screaming "gremlins" with a car, at which point they would turn into tombstones. Controversy erupted because the "gremlins" resembled stick-figure humans, and it was reported that the working title of the game was Pedestrian. After protestors dragged Death Race machines out of arcades and burned them in parking lots, production of the game ceased. (Now to skip a little of the timeline where all that happened has outcry about violent games)A 2005 resolution by the American Psychological Association called for the reduction of violence in video games marketed to youth because of possible links between video games and aggression towards women. In response to the discovery of disabled but accessible sexual content in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, then-Senator of New York Hillary Clinton introduced a bill in 2005 to criminalize selling "Mature" or "Adults Only" rated video games to minors, arguing that video games were a "silent epidemic of desensitization."The bill died in committee at the end of the 109th congress. This changed things plain and simple. These games are now not only showing but ENCOURAGING sexual content against women. Games such as GTA( or Grand Theft Auto) show rape scenes and even allow the player to engage in sex with prostitutes. This is not something I would want to have my 3rd grader playing when he asks to play a M game. While not all games have this feature or are not "as bad" just remember that they were rated M for a reason. Not just to make parents go with the kids to the store to get it. Thank You if you actually read this far:)


First, nice extending and making sure all points were clear, but i'm afraid I will have to argue them. My opponent stated that "the idea that we don't know if video games cause violence is irrelevant" is irrelevant itself because I never stated that point. Secondly they stated that a man threatened to blow up a store because they didn't have the video game he wanted but that is irrelevant because a man is not a "kid". The definition of a kid is a child not a grown man or a teenager. My opponent also agreed with the point that it helps calm down kids especially with ADHD therefore I win that point. Then the con stated that playing rated M games was a bit psychopathic but the definition of psychopathic states: "suffering from or constituting a chronic mental disorder with abnormal behavior." so that is false. They also spent a big chunk of there round talking about this Brad Bushman, and how he did 140 studies with many people in it, but my opponent never stated how this Brad Bushman was reliable or not so therefore that point was not reliable and can't be taken into account. Brad Bushman also got a email that said people that hate video games should die but that was only 1 person who most likely had anger issues. My opponent also stated that 12-17 year olds who played aggressive games were more aggressive but 12-17 years old is defined as "teenager" not "kid" because as I stated before the definition of "kid" is a child so, that point was non-topical to the topic. They also stated that there were "possible links between video games and aggression" but the definition of possible is "small chance of happening" so that point was also false.
The con also dropped my earlier point that they stated that they only played T games every once in awhile so they should not be debating this topic, so they agree with that statement.
Debate Round No. 2


To begin the end, this is the part where one must truly believe what they are debating in order to prevail. Should be interesting as you are a worthy opponent. I also forgot and apologize for not saying to add the ending structure as just a conclusion, no more rebuttal. Personally I keep it simple but you can run wild if you are so inclined.

The topic is asking if one should allow children/kids to play "M" rated games. I choose to oppose this for several reasons including the effect it has on behavior, how it demonstrates behavior has acceptable, and that it directly causes violent attacks against the average people of America. I rest my case by saying that if something is going to directly affect the well being of the "Average Joe" than we as an American people have the duty to take action. Whether or not it is for or against is now in your hands. Thank You for reading this ridiculously long debate and I have enjoyed it and I hope to do so again.


ninjalover36 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Polevaulter1 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.