The Instigator
Con (against)
5 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
4 Points

Violent videogames cause violence in players

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/24/2014 Category: People
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,670 times Debate No: 53298
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)




The debate shall go as follows.

Round one-Acceptance
Round two-Main argument(s)
Round three-Rebuttals/supporting arguments
Round four-Rebuttals and conclusion-no new arguments

When I say violence I do not mean "a temporary increase in aggression" changes should be permanent and significant.
Evidence is required but logic is accepted where appropriate.
Burden of proof is on pro (my competitor) for reasons that should be obvious.
No freaking out-its the internet control yourself.

I look forward to debating and hope my competitor provides an interesting argument.


I accept and. I wsh you good luck
Debate Round No. 1


97% of teens play video games (99% of boys 94% of girls) according to a 2008 pew study. When the teens (12-17) were asked what their three favorite games were Halo 3 came in second with 104 mentions and GTA (no specific version) came in 8th with 58 mentions. With such a large amount of video game players who are playing violent video games (in their most impressionable years no less) why is it that so few people are psychopaths and murderers/rapists/harassers? Not only that, but as video game popularity has grown teen violence (10-24) has gone down, from 850.8 arrests per 1000 in 1995 to 423.1 arrests per 1000 in 2011*. Correlation of course doesn't necessarily mean causation, but it seems pretty strange that there would be a negative trend if violent games did cause violence, what could possibly be so significant a factor in crime that it would both decrease crime and eliminate video games effect in it. I'd like to see you find this magical element that is reducing crime (and find proof that games cause violence) it would be pretty interesting I assume.

*Note: This is only for males, girls have remained pretty much stationary, but this might actually help my case as, again according to pew, males were more likely to play violent video games and to play games frequently.

Over to you pro.


My opening I like your reasos but to make your argument more convincing you should have had girls and boys together so here's my argument .

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. [40] 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.
In 1993, public outcry following the release of violent video games Mortal Kombat and Night Trap prompted Congress to hold hearings on regulating the sale of video games. During the hearings, California Attorney General Dan Lungren testified that violent video games have "a desensitizing impact on young, impressionable minds." [14] Threatened with the creation of a federal regulatory commission, the video game industry voluntarily established the Entertainment Software Rating Board on Sep. 1, 1994 to create a ratings system. Based on the video game's content, the ESRB assigns one of the following ratings: "Early Childhood," "Everyone," "Everyone 10+," "Teen," "Mature," or "Adults Only." In a Pew Research Center 2008 survey, 50% of boys and 14% of girls aged 12-17 listed a game with a "Mature" or "Adults Only" rating in their current top three favorite games.
The controversy over violent video games resurfaced following the massacre of 13 people at Columbine High School in Jefferson County, CO on Apr. 20, 1999. The two teenage shooters were revealed to be avid players of weapon-based combat games Wolfenstein 3D and Doom. Following the shooting, 176 newspaper articles across thecountry focused on the allegation that video games were the cause of the tragedy .
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. [30] 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.
Debate Round No. 2


I'm not sure how to give a rebuttal for your argument, as it was more a history lesson than anything else. The only thing that I can criticize (Other than the fact that you haven't presented any sort of case.) is that you didn't cite your sources.

I hope you provide me with an actual argument next round.


The 2008 study Grand Theft Childhood reported that 60% of middle school boys that played at least one Mature-rated game hit or beat up someone, compared to 39% of boys that did not play Mature-rated games.
Violent computer games have long been popular with teenagers, and with the improvement in technology, many violent games have become more realistic. Excessive violent gaming can become a serious problem because teenagers can develop antisocial behavior and become disconnected from reality, according to Laura Berk, professor of psychology at Illinois State University.
According to Berk, teenagers who frequently play violent video games are more likely to become withdrawn. She states that addiction to violent games is a cause in itself. A 2010 BBC news report about the risk of computer addiction included an interview with a 19-year-old boy who skipped school and had angry outbursts if his parents tried to stop him from playing a violent video game. The American Psychiatric Association is calling for more research before placing computer games addiction as an international recognized mental health disorder
Violence as Normality
A research report in the May 2010 issue of "Psychological Bulletin" led by Iowa State University psychology professor Craig Anderson found that violent gaming can increase feelings of aggression and antisocial behavior in teenagers, regardless of their sex. Overexposure to violent images found in computer games can lead to the view that violence is a normal way of life. Berk also writes that the Columbine High School teenage murderers were obsessed with playing a violent video game. " Technology
Debate Round No. 3


Grand Theft Childhood was about the attacks on video games being incorrect/overstated. (

"Many violent games have become more realistic." I think that most people can still tell the difference. I would like to link to a brilliant video about how violent video games desensitizes us to violent video games, not real life violence. (

Addiction is not the same thing as violence. You can be addicted to anything non-violent video games, cheese, movies, books. To much of anything is a bad thing.

I stated in my opening that aggression doesn't equal violence. I would like to do a full take down of this study, but I can not because my opponent has, again, not properly cited his sources. I therefore ask the voters to ignore this argument.

Finally, on the assertion that the Columbine shooters played a lot of a (non-specified) violent video game. Here is some evidence that nullifies this point. "The overwhelming majority of kids who play do NOT commit antisocial acts. According to a 2001 U.S. Surgeon General's report, the strongest risk factors for school shootings centered on mental stability and the quality of home life, not media exposure." "Researchers find that people serving time for violent crimes typically consume less media before committing their crimes than the average person in the general population." (

Because my opponent failed to provide compelling arguments-and sources for those arguments he did make, while I did not I urge a Con vote.


Well it appears I'm going to have to go this far as to use my own example of why vidio games cause violence I lays thought experiments help so idecided to experiment on myself when I was 7 I told my mother my plans and she accepted yi if I wanted so there on I only played violent vidio games like all the call of ditys gtas and red dead redemtion . I started to notice that I grew up having anger problems . Let me tell you I never had anger problems I grew up smart but was till a very violent kid I think things no on ther kid will think I now love the thought of death and violance my thoughts have changed so much that the if you get me mad enough I will reach a point wre my voice gets deaper all my emotions get shut off and I will kill with ought remorse if youngest in my way of my plans
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Sam-sinha 7 years ago
SkepticalDebatee, I guess you are having a tough time. :D Really! How patient you are! You deserve an applause for your patience. :D
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by kingcripple 7 years ago
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Both had good arguments, though Con actually cited his sources. I also found Pro's grammatical and spelling errors in the last round to much to ignore.
Vote Placed by Dennybug 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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Con gets negative points in conduct since he did not take one of pros arguments seriously and said it was like a story. Pro also gets arguments since he provided more arguments for the topic at hand and con got hung up on trying to play off his arguments. Con gets sources since he was the only one that cited anything.

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