Should Violent Video Games be Banned?

I think that its very sad that we are poisoning the minds of are youth with this junk that some think is "fun". Whoever thinks killing someone and many other things in violent video games is a good thing has a problem. You can make a fun video game without blood and violence.

It is a tragedy whenever a school shooting happens, it is a travesty whenever anyone loses their life due to gun violence; however, that does not mean that we should ban violent video games. As little children we are taught that pretending to be a cop chasing down a bad guy is fun. By this precedent that mode of thinking would ban the timeless game of cops and robbers. Tens of millions of people in America play violent video games but there are not tens of millions of people emulating the actions in those games. There are some that may emulate those actions but they are few and moronic. Their problems and mental issues could just as easily be fanned by violent movies, should we ban those?

We as Americans hold our civil liberties very dear and should not allow misguided grief and anger take those civil liberties away. Instead of blaming the video games for gun violence let's give credit where credit is due. It is the parents of these children, it is the abuse for which these kids endure, it is the environment for which they grow up in that causes them to commit these atrocities. Two of the three most devastating school shootings occurred not because of "violent video games" but because of other grievances. In 1966 when there was no such thing as a video game Charles Whitman murdered 14 at UT and just last year at Virginia Tech 33 students perished due to Seung-Hui Cho's anger at college debauchery. Should we make it illegal to drink and be sexual pervasive as well? The answer is unequivocally no! We hold our civil liberties dear and should put more responsibility on society and keep government out of "moral" affairs.

As I do some-what agree with you I also believe that its not just playing a video game and going out into the real world and shooting people, but also the fact that its just something not nescasary for our youth to see. Just like inappropriate websites. There not hurting anyone, but they are still bad. One other thing is that it just puts bad thoughts in to there minds.

I will not disagree that children should not be able to purchase violent video games, that is why there is an ESRB rating on video games that does not allow them to buy it; however, it is the parents who buy the games who have the responsibility of making sure that their children are mature enough to separate fantasy (the video game) from reality. Regardless, millions should not be deprived of fun and entertainment like Halo or Call of Duty, which according to some experts these games actually relieve tension rather than feed it.

There is no direct correlation between violent video games and real world violence by one expert's estimation this is the least violent generation since the 1950s.

"Mr. Johnson said another objection he hears is about Grand Theft Auto, a violent game involving carjacking. His response is that this is the least violent generation of youth since the '50s. When asked, don't video games cause aggression? He said: so can high school football. To the question of whether video games influenced the youths who killed at Columbine, his answer was that Mark Chapman, who killed singer John Lennon, read J.D. Salinger's 'Catcher in the Rye.'" (http://www.nysun.com...)He claimed that reading "Catcher in the Rye" influenced him to kill John Lennon, should we ban that too?

Anything can cause a murderer to snap, it's not just video games. According to the same article "David 'Son of Sam' Berkowitz was supposedly influenced by the dog next door."

Pornographic websites may be unhealthy for some because of the possibility of sex addiction but alcohol carries the same risk. The point is that these are things that are fun and used responsibility by most; therefore, the rest of us should not be deprived of them. However, my point remains that video games do not lead to violent behavior, the murderers' past does. This is evident in the fact that violent video games are more prevalent than ever yet this is the least violent generation since the 50s. We need to look at keeping these killers from being created by promoting tolerance and understanding in our schools. It is the ridicule and social abuse that they endure that causes them to kill, not video games. We should focus our attention on these causes, the true causes, and ignore this nonsense about video games causing violence. Regardless of whether or not these video games may put bad ideas in their heads, the intent to kill is already there and could be triggered by anything from "Catcher in the Rye" to the dog next door, there is no rhyme or reason to what makes these people tick, it could be anything. We should not be denied the fun and entertainment of video games because some misguided fools see it as the root of these murderers, no offense. The truth is that their reasoning is clearly wrong and we should NOT compromise our liberties by giving in to this nonsense.

First to all voters, I implore you to vote regardless of your personal positions and look at the debate. My opponent has made only one point, that video games poison minds and has given no evidence to back this up. Therefore, by default the votes should go to me, the Con. However let me sum up my points:

Anything can make a killer tick. Murderers have blamed everything from the dog next door, to "Catcher and the Rye", to God and the Bible, to pretty much anything. These are not the causes of their murderous actions, their childhood and their abuses are.

My opponent says that these games put bad images in our children's heads but so do books, so does the Bible, so do violent movies and violent television shows, so does the game cops and robbers or cowboys and indians, so do many things that our children are exposed to--should these things be banned as well? It is the job of parents to make sure that their kids are mature enough to handle these images appropriately, not the government. We must not allow the government more control over our personal lives, they have too much control already. Why should everyone have to sacrifice their freedoms because some parents may act irresponsibly? We should not, we deserve our freedoms and we should retain them.

My opponents argument was based off of a common misconception and not even explained fully; therefore, it should be easy to see that I am the winner of this debate, vote Con.