The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Video Games should be banned for people 18 and younger

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Youraverageunicorn has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/8/2017 Category: Games
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 2,334 times Debate No: 103458
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (0)




For con, You will be saying video games shouldn't be banned for 18 and younger.
The rounds will look like this:
1. Acceptance [just write "I accept" in the first round]
2. Argument
3. Rebuttal
I'm looking forward to debating anyone that accepts!


"I accept"
Debate Round No. 1


To start off, I am quite aware that BANNING video games for 18 and younger may seem extreme, but there has been serious problems for kids playing video games so banning them may not be as bad as it seems.

A huge one is: They're addicting.
Here is an example,
My brother, 13 years old, is currently at an outdoor retreatment camp for a few reasons. But one of them is he is obsessed with video games. I've caught him too many times to count in the middle of the night using the computer when he was not supposed to...playing geometry dash. If he had access to a computer 24/7 whenever he wanted to use it I can assure you he WOULD be using it 24/7. I mean, he already uses it when he's not supposed to. The worse part is, when I catch him doing it, he reacts in a terrible way. He basically throws a temper tantrum, and that isn't normal for a 13 year old. The most recent one he did was when I caught him, he took my backpack and threw out every single thing in it all over the floor, and then chased me up the stairs.

Another example is his friend and my friend, Toby. He can only play video games from 8:00 AM to 12:00 P.M. And then he can get on again at 6:00 P.M. You might argue limits would be okay. WRONG! I swear from the time he can't uses the computer, he legit sits around and does NOTHING. Toby doesn't play any after school activities, I don't know what he likes to do because I either see him on the computer, or sitting on the couch.

The motivation to play video games is also a factor of addiction. Let's be honest, usually teenagers are either super social, or not social really at all. Don't deny it! No one is really in the middle. But since teenagers can also be very awkward, they can usually be caught in the introvert area. People who are caught up in the need for status or simply need an escape from problems. Playing games that give you a sense of victory or control over your life can be a helpful way of coping. This can easily lead to spending all your time online and "shutting out" the world. "When it comes to problems in socializing that might make gamers especially vulnerable to video game addiction, the following factors seem to be important:

Lack of successful experiences in real life
Low parental support
High video game use by parents
Divorce or separation of parents
Behavioural problems or problems at school
Truancy from classes
School phobia
Poor grades
Repeating a grade" From

"A recent two-year longitudinal study of more than three thousand Singapore students found that longer gaming time, reduced social competence, and a history of impulsive behaviour increased the likelihood of gaming addiction after two years. Among the outcomes of pathological gaming are depression, anxiety, social phobias and poorer performance in school.

But can social anxiety and other problems linked to excessive gaming be causing the problem or are the result of gaming addiction? A Dutch study of 543 gamers found that reduced social skills appeared to result in increased problem game behaviour six months later though the opposite effect was not observed. Loneliness appears to be a cause of pathological gaming and vice versa though the same result was not found for life satisfaction.

Looking at how problem gaming behaviour was linked to social and personality risk factors over time, a team of German researchers studied students in schools in central Germany. Florian Rehbein and Dirk Baier of Hanover, Germany"s Criminological Research Institute of Lower Saxony surveyed 1,217 fourth-grade students and repeated the survey five years later. Questionnaires included information on how children interacted with their parents at home and social adjustment. "

Which connects a little to my next point. It brings down your grades. Let's say you just learned a bunch of things at school and ONCE you get home, you want to play a video game. So you play a video game before doing your homework. If you don't give yourself enough time to really let the lessons you learn sink in, you can easily forget them. You don't think when you're playing video games, you're distracted. In fact, you get so distracted you wait until the last minute to get homework done and then you can't remember anything because all that went away when your mind was blank. Kids need to focus on their schoolwork especially when you're a teen trying to get into a good college, or even middle school. If you do your schoolwork and then just play a video game, it's not an easy balance. playing one time is different but video games are addictive. I haven't met a single person who played a video game and didn't talk about it to me almost everyday. Problem video game behaviors do persist over time. Studies show that If you had a video game addiction in fourth grade, it's most likely that you would be struggling with it way worse five year later.

Parents can also be ignorant. Back in 2011, Rebecca Colleen Christian let her 3 and a half year old daughter die of malnutrition while she spent hours playing Witch of Warcraft. A three year old.

Another thing is, even if video games have age recommendations on them, that doesn't stop anyone. I took a poll in a sixth grade class at my school for a project. I asked how many people here play video games. 70 out of 81 did. Then I asked how many people owned first person shooter games or anything that involved weapons and killing? 63 out of 81 did. Age restrictions don't stop anyone. Which could lead to real life violence.

In 2009 17 year old Daniel Petric shot both his parents which was fatal to the mom, because they took away his Halo 3.
In 2005, Qui Chengwei stabbed a friend to death when he found out he sold a virtual sword that belonged to him on Ebay for $738.00


Topic: Video Games Should be Banned for People Under 18.
Stance " Con
*Con"s case revolves around the interpretation that this topic applies to the USA.

I first want to thank my opponent for issuing this challenge. This is a topic that I have a personal passion about. To keep with the parameters of the debate, my R2 will only be the Argument for Con. My rebuttal to Pro"s R2 Argument will be in R3.

Video Games " Any various interactive games played using a specialized electronic gaming device and a television, or other display screen, along with a means to control graphic imagery.
Banned " To prohibit, forbid, or bar by law; interdiction.
People under 18 years old " Applying to US citizens in identifying the "age of voting" as the social "rite of passage into adulthood recognized by law."
For clarity, I will offer the outline for my case
"Parental Responsibilities
"Protecting Civil Liberties
"Higher Learning Opportunities, Job Placement, and Military Service through Video Games
"Video Game Addiction as a Symptom, Not Root Cause
"Driving Age is 16 " Voting/Military Service/Smoking is 18 " Drinking is 21

(I)I believe this may come down to be the core issue that surrounds this debate " the role and responsibility of parents. More importantly to that point is the significance of the "parent/child dynamic." Issuing a ban on anything is only limited to the individual decision of what the law recognizes as "legally able" to obtain restricted items. I would like to point to the underage smoking and drinking statistics as a parallel argument to support the stance that "banning an item from people under 18 does not stop people from under 18 from legally obtaining said item." If there is to be a restriction from people under 18 to play video games, it will ultimately come down to the parent"s decision on whether their kid will/won"t play. Parents do have legally protected rights in deciding the way their child will be raised, and in many states (pertaining to alcohol) the consumption of alcohol is permitted by law if the parent is "in direct, not obstructed, supervision and presence of the minor." With this, the parent also bears the responsibility of consequence of their actions. If you look at the current prescription drug problems and see that the root cause isn"t children obtaining medication from the streets, but rather from their parents. Everything under the roof of the parent is the parent"s responsibility. So, to begin this argument " A ban will do nothing since the decision to play video games under 18 is a protected parenting right. To double, a ban can be argued as "unconstitutional" as I will further elaborate later. Labels and restrictions currently exist " just the same at movies, music, tv shows, and various forms of entertainment. Regulations already currently exist " it is up to the Parent/Guardian to adhere to the ratings system and make the best decision (they feel) there is to make on the matter.
(II)The second observation is that of the civil liberties of: artists, developers, minors, and citizenship (in general) must be protected. For artists and developers there is the freedom of speech and media. To issue a ban on video games is to directly ban a form of recognized Art " which, in turn, infringes on the freedom of speech and media (1st amendment) of those creating video games. There are "unalienable rights given by their Creator" that are also in need of defense for this case. Even if you are under 18, you are still recognized as a US citizen. "Among these rights are: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." As the Con, I would like to argue that removing video games removes a viable outlet for an American citizen to "pursue happiness." Along with "liberty" Con is attempting to protect the freedom of choice for US citizens with what they consume. Pro"s argument that video games threaten "life" will be dispelled during rebuttal. A person under the age of 18 should be allowed the same protected freedoms that exist in "channel surfing" tv shows in playing video games. WHAT video game they choose to expose themselves to is a liberty each free citizen is entitled to have. We are all responsible for the choices we make " and must be allowed to make our own choices, protected by law. Personal tastes in "satisfaction" does not allow for an "absolute solution" through restriction. The solution is freedom, the American ideology.
(III)To elaborate a main point for my case I would like to state that in today"s world, video games have opened an entire industry, and with that countless opportunities. There are numerous accredited schools of higher learning that are currently recruiting and educating gamers on: game development, graphic arts, coding, programming, and even alpha/beta testing. There are recognized degrees that can be earned through the video game platform. Playing video games now provides the youth an opportunity that never existed years previous " to attain a college scholarship and degree through video games. The workforce is in demand for video gamers as well. We see the ever-increasing usage of automation in the workforce, and the need for people with sharpened "digital skills" are in the highest need ever. If we apply the same training methodology in the workforce then it can only be suggested that for a person to "better their prospects in a digital workforce" is to have as much practical experience in the digital world to grow those skills. The sooner the exposure, the greater the probability of higher skill than the labor pool compared to those who weren"t exposed as soon. We see this with specialization in the sports world as well. This is the method of job placement we utilized " gaining experience is so vital, and in today"s world, video games are providing practical experience for many in-demand jobs. Another observation to this point is that of the active military recruitment for advanced video gamers: mainly to fly drones. The "ways of war" have evolved into the unmanned/digital warfare age. Opportunities for people to serve their country have directly opened for video gamers " specifically that of "translatable skills video games provide to fly drones with greater precision than those who did not play video games growing up." I can argue that our national security is currently seeking/depending on gamers to populate the military force in the future. The last observation on this point is that video games are currently being adopted into learning institutions as we speak. More and more schools are looking for ways to engage the students and for the information to "stick" " video games have been identified as a great "tool for learning." Whether it is typing, data entry, graphic designs, software applications, digital performances, retaining attention, more opportunities to practice, instant feedback on errors, etc"Schools across the country have noticed the value of influence video games possess and implemented their usage within their curriculum.
(IV)To offer another point I would like to identify that the main problem identified by Pro is that of "video game addiction." I would like to state that video game addiction is not the root cause of "problematic behavior" but rather a "symptom." Of the examples listed from the source Con would like to argue that: the root cause to the deviant behavior is more likely to exist in the personal relationship the child has with the parent. Traumatic events (like that of divorce/separation) are identified as a more severe root cause to a child"s behavior and social assimilation. Video game addiction is nothing more than another symptom of a greater underlying problem existing in the individual " it is not the root cause. Con is arguing that by banning video games we are misdirected in working on the real issue that is causing the detrimental behavior in children, thus never truly "fixing" the real problem. Video games are nothing more than an outlet " a personal entertainment device " to the user. The contents of each game are novel to other games and thus the entire industry would be unfairly punished over the contents of a small percentage of what can be identified as "a problem for kids to play." Effects from video gaming are not 100% negative and I would like to argue that for every "bad" there is a "good" to balance. Hand-eye coordination, self-esteem growth, measurable academic improvement, increase in online social presence (which is important in today"s working world), and in some studies, it also leads to a decrease in crime. Con will not argue that there are only "good benefits" to playing video games " but I would like to exude the thought of that of " "Screen Addiction" (ancillary argument) The most measured impact on the physical nature of gamers is that of "screen exposure." This isn"t a "video game problem" as video games are consoles " this is a problem with the manufacturing of what we call "smart screens" and the intense displays of LED lighting. Turning off the video game to watch TV does not provide time to heal, it is the same lighting impacting the eyes. Studies have proven that "screen addiction" exists in children and adults and that the compulsion to stare at LED screens (via phone, tv, computer screens) are the cause of "distraction, eye damage, and sleeplessness." If Pro would like to correct a "root cause" to a problem " Con would like to suggest the energy be focused on the constant factors that video games must adhere to be "played." That may be where your problem with video game addiction exists.
(V)My final point will be that of current statue age restrictions compared to applying a video game ban to persons under 18. Driving, in the US, is legally obtainable at the age of 16. The statistics of deaths of people under 18 related to driving is staggering"and on the rise. The need to drive outweighs the risks, however the dangers are not reduced. We are actively placing people on the road facing the real possibility of dying before they are 18. To do this the person must display competence and skill in driving. Even with all these restrictions, driving accidents and deaths are not being decreased " they are on the rise. Along with the hypocrisy of banning video games until a person is 18 compared to what is legally allowable by law would compromise citizens 16 years old from using a cell phone " yet permitted to drive. Video games are not limited to a single console, and the video game industry (like all industries) strives to reach newer and more people to participate. What constitutes a "video game" currently exists with each person"s cell phone. How are we to punish a person more severely for "playing a video game" compared to the life and death moments driving offers? A game over/death in video game can be restarted"not so much with human life " regardless of age. If we are to state that people under 18 cannot handle the influence of video games, Con would like to argue that by this standard we should restructure the age of driving in harmony with the danger associated with usage. Smoking and Drinking are directly related to many unnatural deaths; thus, the age restrictions are placed (18 and 21 respectively). The number of people killed from driving would suggest that the age of driving be greater than that of drinking " and the number of deaths directly attributed to video games (to receive a ban) would raise the age of smoking/drinking ten-fold (if we are to have proportion in our legal restrictions.) Keep in mind that what you are arguing is that a person is not responsible or able to handle video games until they reach the age in which they can Vote and join the Military. The age ban has always been a key concept in increasing life expectancy.
In Closing
Placing a ban on video games is: unconstitutional, disproportionate, misguided, detrimental to the economy, limiting the future potential of citizen"s contribution to our society, and cannot be viewed as anything other than "Wrong." The consequences of removing video game access to people under 18 can only be detrimental to the social development of our youth in assimilating (plus contributing) to our evolving culture. The world of the youth is digital " to remove this from the youth can be equated to "burning books" to limit information/experience. America is the "land of the free" " freedom is scary. Our social solutions and reasonings why we have age restrictions to begin with do not apply to this argument. Video games are quite simply " and entertainment TOOL. Tools do not do anything other than what the person using the tool decides. People are responsible for their decisions and consequences " but please, for the sake of video games, do not conclude that only negative things exists in the world of "video gamers" " it is an ever-growing industry that continues to gain legitimacy in our culture and develops a newer "type" of citizen that is now more well-equipped to handle the demands of our evolving society.
"Military Recruits Video Gamers (
"Schools Adopting Video Games to Teach (
"Role of Parenting in Child Development (
"57 Schools Offering Video Game Degrees (
"Colleges Offering Video Game Degrees (
"The Business of Video Games: A Multi-Billion Dollar Industry (
"Cognitive Benefits of Playing Video Games (
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 11 through 15 records.
Posted by AveryGaleson 3 years ago
If video games were banned for people 18 and younger, they would the majority of their customers and the industry would die.
Posted by PowerPikachu21 3 years ago
As a huge video game fanatic, I'm rooting for Con. You have no idea what would happen if video games were banned for young audiences (especially games like Mario and Legend of Zelda and Pokemon...)
Posted by BMyers 3 years ago
I'm under the impression it's more of a "bigger picture" argument in literally meaning that the devices for personal entertainment shouldn't be allowed for people 18 and under.

If the debate is about a specific type of video game...I still hold 'Accept'
Posted by BMyers 3 years ago
The topic is set - it says "video games"
Posted by NDECD1441 3 years ago
What sort of video games?
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

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