Question: Do violent video games contribute to youth violence?

Title: ban the sale of violent video games/censor violent video games. Content: Violent Video Games cause Violent Behaviour

Title: ban the sale of violent video games/censor violent video games. Content: Violent Video Games Prevent Violent Behaviour

Title: do video games cause viloence Content: do video games really cause violence?

Title: restrict violent video games Content: Research has shown violent video games encourage criminal and anti-social behaviour

Title: Ban on sale of violent video games to minors Content: Youth playing violent games exhibit more aggression.

Title: Video Games cause violence Content: Rebuttals and RefutationsI will note for my opponent that I will not be available tomorrow from 1pm to early morning/midnight, and almost all day Sunday. If this results in me forfeiting a round due to the 24 hour span, then the voters may judge conduct appropriately. 1. GTA V and violent crimes argumentI will admit that this was an argument I was expecting. To rebut my opponent's point about the lack of a major increase in crime among juveniles, I will argue that violence does not always occur in the form of a crime. Violence, as stated above, can be summarized as any use of unjust aggression or force. Modern society has educated and raised young people by the thinking that committing violent crimes is a stupid thing to do, and young people are smart enough to realize that. However, that doesn't mean no violence has occurred as a result of video gaming.2. Unrealistic video gamesThe resolution of this debate is "Video games cause violence", not "All video games cause violence". Whilst some video games, explicitly things like video games for toddlers, obviously have almost zero chance of prompting violent behavior, I have still filled my BOP that Video Game(s) have prompted violence.3. The brainIn a growing brain and in a society where media and real life are almost extremely mixed together, and where some people meet their closest friends, wed, and earn fortunes through the pixels of a computer screen, I would say that violence demonstrated on this platform most definitely has the potential to cause an imitating effect, especially if the juvenile in question has never known anything other than what society is now.-- no sources necessary this round --

Title: Violence is clearly an issue, not just in the United States but EVERYWHERE! Content: I accept to represent the con side of this debate. I will argue that video games do not correlate to any violent activities people will undertake. I would also ask pro to try use sources to back up any assertions made. Let's start.

Title: Resolved: Violent video games cause increased aggressive behavior Content: Hello, 16kadams! I will argue for the case that violent video games do not cause increased aggressive behavior. The burden of proof is on pro; pro is arguing for the contention. == 1. The supposed link is unclear == P1. If there is a clear link between violent video games and violence, pro meets his burden of proof. P2. There is no clear link between violent video games and violence. C. Pro does not meet his burden of proof. Justification for Premise 2: While there are some studies which supposedly demonstrate a link between violence and violent video games, some recent studies suggest that this is not the case: real life environments are different than experimental environments in terms of how they influence people. Research has shown that sometimes violent media correlates with more violence; however, during other time periods, the influence inverts. This shows that the relation between the two is most likely correlation, and not causation. (http://www.sciencedaily.com...) == 2. Violence has been going down, despite the rising popularity of video games == P1. If video games cause violence, then increased popularity of violent video games would increase violence. P2. Violence is decreasing, yet the popularity of violent video games is increasing. C. Video games do not cause violence. Justification for premise 2: despite the fact that the popularity of video games increased between 1990 and 2010, the crime rates actually dropped. (https://commons.wikimedia.org...)(http://www.bjs.gov...) This shows that there is a lack of correlation between the popularity of violent video games and crime rates. By the way, for my case to work, the popularity of video games should have increased over the past years; this is indeed demonstrated by the fact that the video game industry grows by around 16.7% annually. (http://www.forbes.com...)

Title: ban the sale of violent video games/censor violent video games. Content: Violent Video Games Cause Social Interaction Problems

Title: Ban on sale of violent video games to minors Content: Thank you for your quick response. My opponent's attack on evidence is contradictory to his position in this debate as each attack supports my position of the topic. "does not take into account the fact that participants who are predisposed to be violent or have violent tendencies will have an increased reaction violent video games because of the familiarity of the situations and the association between real world past and the games." This is supportive to my case as it shows that violent video games have the tendency of rapidly amplifying an individuals violent acts. Finally, the study does not have to incorporated these aspects of the link between violence and video game, rather it does have to accurately describe "A" link between violence and video game-which it does.- "The first was observed aggression such as participants pushing shoving ect ect. These measures are extremely subjective due to the fact that aggression is not always such an outward display and most people who resort to these kind of emotional outbursts exhibit anti social behavior which is the root cause of their problems." Could it be possible that Anti-social behavior could be another effect of video games? The answer being an absolute yes. Immense amounts of studies have shown that kids often get use to the violence in games even enjoy these violence. Now at first, this kid might play these games for fun, but over a period of time, they start to crave these games thus leading to unusual amounts of time spent playing these games. This can be seen as a form or rather a remedial stage pf anti-social behavior which as time goes on progresses. The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry wrote in an Aug. 2006 article "Children and Video Games: Playing with Violence" published in their Facts for Families information sheet series: "These data suggest very strongly that participating in the playing of violent video games by children and youth increase aggressive thought and behavior; increase antisocial behavior and delinquency; engender poor school performance; desensitize the game player to violence." http://videogames.procon.org... "These traits are swell much closely correlated with children who exhibit anti social behavior as well as children who have a lack of attention in their lives. With both these problems excessive video game playing could be seen as an escape or a way for kids to distract themselves from their own life." These traits are not an excuse to sell violent video games to minors. The fact is that if these kids were as unstable as you describe them to be, then supplying them with violent video games is much like the government giving crack to a homicidal crack head. There are many games within there age level that can and possible will keep them preoccupied. "The final measurement of aggressive behavior is reported aggression. This is extremely unethical and due to the fact that each participant will have different peers and teachers(study used reports from teachers on aggression) also the logical connection can be made that teachers will find students more aggressive if they are socially awkward and exhibit anti social behaviors. In many cases this will also cause teachers to think less of students do to the frustration and unwillingness to cooperate with authority which anti social people tend to exhibit" Ones again, this should not be an excuse to sell games to minors. Rather than encouraging them to do something that can be hazardous to there mental as well as physical being, we should encourage them to seek valuable resources. VOTERS:You should vote for me, because unlike my opponent, i have argued based on the topic itself and not based on the evidence provided. 2. I presented more evidence to support my case 3. My opponent not only failed to make a case, but also failed to refute any of my argument 4. I have offered good reasons as to why a ban on selling video games to minors is a bad idea. Thank you.

Title: Video games cause violence Content: First of all, I would like to state my appreciation and respect for the opponent. I believe this is the first debate for both of us. I will be presenting my case that video games do indeed cause violence in our society today. Thank you again, and I will see you in Round Two.

Title: restrict violent video games Content: Video games are an outlet for childhood aggression

Title: Video Games do not Cause Violence Content: I will be arguing that video games do not cause violence. First round is for acceptance. Good Luck!

Title: Video Games do not increase or perpetuate juvenile violence Content: So this may be short, but I am hoping to get at what voters should consider when looking at this debate. 1. Causation vs Correlation. In my opponents first argument, he stated that video games had some correlation with violent attacks, yet there is nothing that proves that video games were the CAUSE of such violent attacks. I'd like to bring up the quote from my opponent's 60 minutes evidence," who had played Grand Theft Auto day and night for months." Now, we look to my American Psychological Association evidence that states that children who showed aggression after exposure to video games expressed said characteristics beforehand. My opponent's quote illustrates my point. Video Games do not increase any violence, as it does not create any new violent characteristics, as my opponent is arguing. That point is mute because we see that there is no link between correlation and causation. 2. Crime My FBI evidence states that while video game sales had quadrupled in the 13 years between 1995 and 2008, the arrest rate for juvenile murders has fallen 71.9%, while all juvenile violent crimes have declined 49.3%. The statistics clearly point to the Pro argument. This point ties together with correlation and causation, as we see that the point of causation is refuted by statistics. 3. Overall benefit My Journal of Adolescent Health evidence shows that 45% of boys stated they play video games because it helps get their anger out, and 62% stated because it helps them relax. It also allows children to explore real life situations like war and violence without true consequence. So overall, the statistics I bring up clearly show that the Pro side is right today.

Title: Violent video games should NOT be banned Content: First of all this is my first debate so go easy on me. Lets start, Most of the bad effects of video games are blamed on the violence they contain. Children who play more violent video games are more likely to have increased aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, and decreased prosocial helping, according to a scientific study (Anderson & Bushman, 2001). The effect of video game violence in kids is worsened by the games" interactive nature. In many games, kids are rewarded for being more violent. The act of violence is done repeatedly. The child is in control of the violence and experiences the violence in his own eyes (killings, kicking, stabbing and shooting). This active participation, repetition and reward are effective tools for learning behavior. Indeed, many studies seem to indicate that violent video games may be related to aggressive behavior (such as Anderson & Dill, 2000; Gentile, Lynch & Walsh, 2004). However, the evidence is not consistent and this issue is far from settled. Many experts including Henry Jenkins of Massachusetts Institute of Technology have noted that there is a decreased rate of juvenile crime whch coincides with the popularity of games such as Death Race, Mortal Kombat, Doom and Grand Theft auto. He concludes that teenage players are able to leave the emotional effects of the game behind when the game is over. Indeed there are cases of teenagers who commit violent crimes who also spend great amount of time playing video games such as those involved in the Columbine and Newport cases. It appears that there will always be violent people, and it just so happen that many of them also enjoy playing violent video games. Too much video game playing makes your kid socially isolated. Also, he may spend less time in other activities such as doing homework, reading, sports, and interacting with the family and friends. Some video games teach kids the wrong values. Violent behavior, vengeance and aggression are rewarded. Negotiating and other nonviolent solutions are often not options. Women are often portrayed as weaker characters that are helpless or sexually provocative. Games can confuse reality and fantasy. Academic achievement may be negatively related to over-all time spent playing video games. Studies have shown that the more time a kid spends playing video games, the poorer is his performance in school. (Anderson & Dill, 2000; Gentile, Lynch & Walsh, 2004). A study by Argosy University's Minnesota School on Professional Psychology found that video game addicts argue a lot with their teachers, fight a lot with their friends, and score lower grades than others who play video games less often. Other studies show that many game players routinely skip their homework to play games, and many students admitted that their video game habits are often responsible for poor school grades. Although some studies suggest that playing video games enhances a child"s concentration, other studies, such as a 2012 paper published in Psychology of Popular Media Culture, have found that games can hurt and help children's attention issues " improving the ability to concentrate in short bursts but damaging long-term concentration. Video games may also have bad effects on some children"s health, including obesity, video-induced seizures. and postural, muscular and skeletal disorders, such as tendonitis, nerve compression, carpal tunnel syndrome. When playing online, your kid can pick up bad language and behavior from other people, and may make your kid vulnerable to online dangers. A study by the Minneapolis-based National Institute for Media and the Family suggests that video games can be addictive for kids, and that the kids' addiction to video games increases their depression and anxiety levels. Addicted kids also exhibit social phobias. Not surprisingly, kids addicted to video games see their school performance suffer. Kids spending too much time playing video games may exhibit impulsive behavior and have attention problems. This is according to a new study published in the February 2012 issue of the Journal of Psychology and Popular Media Culture. For the study, attention problems were defined as difficulty engaging in or sustaining behavior to reach a goal.

Title: Video games encourage violent behavior Content: Thank you for this debate. We agree that video games although they are not the only cause of violence, they are a cause. Since exposure to the flashing screen is always present in the video games, playing video games leads to violence. I think it would be safe for anyone to infer fro your information that playing video games for more than three hours a day would cause an increase in behavioural problems. Because your statment only focuses on 5-7 year olds there is no way to know whether it only affects children of that age or if it affects children of that age the least meaing there is a significant increase of behavour problems in children age 8-11 which isn't shown. I don't believe that your arguments follow. that just because a part of these videos are fake that all of them are fake.The audio of kids playing xbox should be enough to prove the increased violent behavior. It ought to be concern to everyone who hears the amount of "I'm going to kill you," and you suck at life type comments. If someone talked to me on the phone like that, I'd call the police. However, this behavior seems all to commonplace in the virtual world. Sadly it carries over into the real world and thats one of the points of the study you first posted. At the end of this debate, There is this conclusion. Video games are not the only encouragement of violent behavior. My opponent provides evidence that they are a method of encouragement for violent behavior even though his stance claims that cracked (a dirty european fluff magazine) is more credible than a study vetted and published by a leading college. Cracked doesn't even include sources. Because my opponent provided the study that he wanted to debate, my burdon of proof was to provide social evidence of the behavior in question which I did. My opponents burdon of proof was not to prove that other factors also encourage violent behavior in children. It was to prove that vidoe games are not a factor which he failed to do.

Title: In general, violence in video games has not caused real-world violence. Content: Since my opponent has not defined one key word in this debate I shall.Violence is the use of physical force to harm someone or damage property. (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Contention 1: Studies show they cause violence. We can see by this chart above that people believe that these violent video games cause violence. (http://yougov.co.uk...)Now you may ask me why does video games cause violence? The answer is simple. It's the media's effectiveness to market products and slogans to a younger audience causing them to practically do what the company wants them to do. Craig Anderson, Professor at Iowa St University lead a research of over 3,000 children and found that children who play violent video games for a short period of time during the week lead to permanent changes in the brain, causing them to become more violent towards other. (http://time.com...) They also found in a study in Singapore that when they did the same study with children between the ages of 8-17 that violence increases over a three year period. They hit, kick, and push a whole lot more. (http://www.foxnews.com...) In a 2008 study of Grand Theft Childhood, they found that 60% of Middle Schoolers that beat up someone up played at least 1 M rated game compared to the 39% of kids who did not. (Grand Theft Childhood: The Surprising Truth about Violent Video Games and What Parents Can Do, Apr) According to an FBI study done in 2000, they found a link between violent video games and school shootings. (http://videogames.procon.org...) Con also says that if sales are linked then why are they going down, but let me show you this graph here. Coincidence? I think not. How can we dwarf an entire continent in both game sales and homicide rates?I will hand things off to Pro once more.

Title: Ban on sale of violent video games to minors Content: Violent video games are real danger to young minds.

Title: Video Games cause violence Content: The resolution: "Video games do not cause violence to a scale which is large enough to be worried about"In this debate, I will not argue that video games cause kids to get up and shoot/attack someone. Rather, I will argue that there is a correlation between violent behavior of any sort to violent video games. -------------------------A. Definitions and Clarifications1A - InformationThough my opponent would probably like me to argue that there is a definitive link between video games and murderous or extreme, I will instead focus on proving that there is a correlation between video games and worrisome violence as per my opponent's resolution. "Video Games DO NOT cause violence (Or at least not at a scale which is large enough to worry about. )"Thus, using these definitions, I will prove that Video Games have the potential and definitively have caused worrisome violence.1B - Assumption about the resolution"Video games" - I will assume that this is not in reference to all video games as my opponent failed to include "all" in his resolution of this indeed the case. Instead, I will assume that the resolution suggests that "Video games with violent themes or otherwise aggressive content in them do not cause violence", as it would be pointless to debate over whether games like Mario Kart or Angry Birds cause violence. That would be extremely redundant.1C - The Definition of ViolenceViolence is not limited to actions which result in the imminent harm of another person. vi·o·lence [vahy-uh-luhns] noun 1. swift and intense force: the violence of a storm. 2. rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment: to die by violence. 3. an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws: to take over agovernment by violence 4. a violent act or proceeding. 5. rough or immoderate vehemence, as of feeling or language: the violence of his hatred. B. ArgumentsB1 - Violent Video Games cause worrisome violence, and all violence is worrisomeMost especially in youth, the exertion of noticeable or otherwise untriggered violence is abnormal and signatory of deviation in the proper growth and functioning of their brain. If someone exhibits violent behaviour, then that should be inherently major enough for those who care about them to consider as "big enough to worry about". For that reason, I dismiss the "big enough to worry about" part of pro's resolution. In the linked video, you will see adolescents, children, and even adults exhibiting behavior that can be considered to be "violent" as a result of video gaming. B2 - Those who benefit from video games and never exhibit violence even though they play them are irrelevant to the resolutionMy opponent has presented me with the resolution that:"Video Games DO NOT cause violence (Or at least not at a scale which is large enough to worry about. )Scientests have found however there are many benifits to video games such as socialisation increased reflexes etc. "Whilst it is true that in certain cases video games can bring benefits like increased reflexes, the resolution is over whether violent video games are one of the many possible causes of violence, not whether video games cause violence in every instance. Comparison:"Being abused as a child most definitely is a contributing cause to future violence, but not in every instance. The fact that abuse as a child does not result in violence in every instance makes it no less of a cause for those who are violent as a result of it"This concept can be applied to video games. B3 - The APA attributes that video games have the potential to cause violence in some youthsYouth who are troubled or have anger issues have been widely attributed to being triggered into versions of violence by video games [3]Some people obviously experience benefits from playing video games (including myself) and have a sense of control, but for those who do not, video games pose as an extreme risk and inevitable cause/trigger of violence. The article in which I use as a source is actually in favour of the usage of video games amongst children, as am I. However, it also attributes that video games cause violence in some adolescents. Even if the benefits of video games outweigh the negatives, video games still can be attributed as a cause of violent behavior for a significant portion of people. The article contains a wide variety of content that is rightfully "in favour of video games", however, since violence is the only result of video games being discussed, their statements regarding it as an effect for some people prove it to be a cause. --References--[1] - (. http://dictionary.reference.com...)[2] - (. http://www.apa.org...) moreso about TV violence but also applicable to video games[3] - (. http://www.apa.org...)

Title: Video games encourage violent behavior Content: Many people say that video games are making children violent people, (https://www-inst.cs.berkeley.edu...), however, I completely disagree. I will be giving arguments in future rounds. I look forward to future arguments and seeing how this will come out.

Title: restrict violent video games Content: Violent video games can cause psychological disturbances

Title: Can video games be healthy Content: My final argument is as follows:- Most of the bad effects of video games are blamed on the violence they contain. Children who play more violent video games are more likely to have increased aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, and decreased prosocial helping, according to a scientific study (Anderson & Bushman, 2001). Also according to Dmitri A. Christakis of the Seattle Children"s Research Institute, those who watch a lot of simulated violence, such as those in video games, can become immune to it, more inclined to act violently themselves, and are less likely to behave emphatically. The effect of video game violence in kids is worsened by the games" interactive nature. In many games, kids are rewarded for being more violent. The act of violence is done repeatedly. The child is in control of the violence and experiences the violence in his own eyes (killings, kicking, stabbing and shooting). This active participation, repetition and reward are effective tools for learning behavior. Indeed, many studies seem to indicate that violent video games may be related to aggressive behavior (such as Anderson & Dill, 2000; Gentile, Lynch & Walsh, 2004). However, the evidence is not consistent and this issue is far from settled. The American Psychological Association (APA) also concluded that there is a "consistent correlation" between violent game use and aggression, but finds insufficient evidence to link violent video play to criminal violence. An open letter by a number of media scholars, psychologists and criminologists, however, find APA"s study and conclusion to be misleading and alarmist. On the other hand, many experts including Henry Jenkins of Massachusetts Institute of Technology have noted that there is a decreased rate of juvenile crime which coincides with the popularity of games such as Death Race, Mortal Kombat, Doom and Grand Theft auto. He concludes that teenage players are able to leave the emotional effects of the game behind when the game is over. Indeed there are cases of teenagers who commit violent crimes who also spend great amount of time playing video games such as those involved in the Columbine and Newport cases. It appears that there will always be violent people, and it just so happen that many of them also enjoy playing violent video games. Too much video game playing makes your kid socially isolated. Also, he may spend less time in other activities such as doing homework, reading, sports, and interacting with the family and friends. On the other hand, a study by researchers at the North Carolina State University, New York and the University Of Ontario Institute Of Technology points out that gamers usually do not replace their offline social lives with online game playing, but rather it expands them. In fact, among gamers, being a loner is not the norm. Some video games teach kids the wrong values. Violent behavior, vengeance and aggression are rewarded. Negotiating and other nonviolent solutions are often not options. Women are often portrayed as weaker characters that are helpless or sexually provocative. On the other hand, a University of Buffalo study suggests that violence and bad behavior played in the virtual world may be contributing to better behavior in the real world. Gamers who play violent games may feel guilty about their behavior in the virtual world and this may make them be more sensitive to the moral issues they violated during game play. Games can confuse reality and fantasy. Academic achievement may be negatively related to over-all time spent playing video games. Studies have shown that the more time a kid spends playing video games, the poorer is his performance in school. (Anderson & Dill, 2000; Gentile, Lynch & Walsh, 2004). A study by Argosy University"s Minnesota School on Professional Psychology found that video game addicts argue a lot with their teachers, fight a lot with their friends, and score lower grades than others who play video games less often. Other studies show that many game players routinely skip their homework to play games, and many students admitted that their video game habits are often responsible for poor school grades. Although some studies suggest that playing video games enhances a child"s concentration, other studies, such as a 2012 paper published in Psychology of Popular Media Culture, have found that games can hurt and help children"s attention issues " improving the ability to concentrate in short bursts but damaging long-term concentration. Video games may also have bad effects on some children"s health, including obesity, video-induced seizures. and postural, muscular and skeletal disorders, such as tendonitis, nerve compression, carpal tunnel syndrome. When playing online, your kid can pick up bad language and behavior from other people, and may make your kid vulnerable to online dangers. A study by the Minneapolis-based National Institute for Media and the Family suggests that video games can be addictive for kids, and that the kids" addiction to video games increases their depression and anxiety levels. Addicted kids also exhibit social phobias. Not surprisingly, kids addicted to video games see their school performance suffer. Kids spending too much time playing video games may exhibit impulsive behavior and have attention problems. This is according to a new study published in the February 2012 issue of the Journal of Psychology and Popular Media Culture. For the study, attention problems were defined as difficulty engaging in or sustaining behavior to reach a goal. According to Catherine Steiner-Adair, a Harvard-affiliated psychologist and author of the best-selling book "The Big Disconnect: Protecting Childhood and Family Relationship in the Digital Age", if kids are allowed to play "Candy Crush" on the way to school, the trip will be quiet, but it"s not what kids need. "They need time to daydream, deal with anxieties, process their thoughts and share them with parents, who can provide reassurance." I accordace to the latest comment, check the previous argument, it has links to websites OK, moving on here are a few links for you: 1. http://healthresearchfunding.org... 2. greengarageblog.org/10-primary-pros-and-cons-of-violent-video-games 3. https://my.vanderbilt.edu... 4. www.thesun.co.uk/sol/.../Pros-and-cons-of-playing-video-games.html 5. nlcatp.org/5-major-pros-and-cons-of-violent-video-games/ 6. 7. https://prezi.com... 8. 9. https://prezi.com... 10. 11. 12. https://prezi.com... 13. https://archive.org... 14. http://www.barnegatschools.com... 15. http://sharpbrains.com... 16. www.showandtellforparents.com/wfdata/frame156-1002/pressrel51.asp 17. www.happychild.com.au/articles/violence-in-video-games-what-parents-need-to-know 18. https://www.psychologytoday.com... 19. money.cnn.com/2015/08/17/technology/video-game-violence/ 20. www.cbsnews.com/news/do-violent-video-games-lead-to-criminal-behavior/ 21. www.healthline.com " Healthline News 22. www.independent.co.uk " News " Science 23. www.bbc.com/news/technology-33960075 24. time.com/4000220/violent-video-games/ 25. http://www.scientificamerican.com... 26. news.sky.com/.../study-violent-video-games-lead-to-aggression 27. 28. www.theonion.com/.../case-and-against-letting-children-play-video-... 29. gamerant.com/video-game-violence-survey/ 30. studymoose.com/do-violent-video-games-cause-bad-behavior-essay

Title: Violence in video games does not significantly contribute to real world violence. Content: Thank you debatability for challenging me to this topic. It's been a pleasure. INTRODUCTION I think pro has came at this debate the wrong way. Since the start of round 3 she has been on the defensive, which is really bad. The reason being is because, depending on the judge's voting style she'll typically either have the full burden of proof or at least share it with me. She has spent most of this debate attacking my arguments while barely defending her own and at the end of the day when the dust clears. My arguments still stand and hers have completely fallen. AFFIRMING THE DISJUNCT My opponent claims she hasn't committed this particular logical fallacy, and she is absolutely wrong. She has on multiple occasions stated that video game doesn't significantly contribute to real world violence because poverty does or because videogames cause aggression not violence. What she doesn't realize is that every statement she made could be true and it wouldn't show that violence in videogames doesn't contribute to real world violence. Remember pro has a certain amount of burden to show that videogames in fact do not contribute to real world violence. She hasn't met it. Revisit her arguments. They all make use of the logical fallacy I've mentioned. some arguments from pro; In round 2 pro asks "What really causes violence in teens? ". She answers this by saying serious crimes and aggression does. The truth is this doesn't rule out violence in videogames being a significant factor. This is her first real argument and is entirely affirming the adjunct. The 2nd argument in round 2 discusses a chart which she admits after posting it means absolutely nothing. her 3rd and final argument discusses " Video game's effect". summed up she says that people play video games to release aggression and also that people who love violence may be attracted to them. This is yet another case of Affirming the Adjunct. Just because violent people are attracted to them (which she hasn't proven) and they help release aggression doesn't mean that they don't significantly contribute to real world violence. These are her opening arguments. This is the foundation for her entire case. Her case is a chart she admits doesn't mean anything and 2 arguments affirming the adjunct. She has some BOP in this debate and she has came nowhere near meeting it. NOT BORN TO KILL My opponent misses the point with the government training. I'll take this point by point. PRO-"The first thing to look at here is the difference between video games and these "killing sessions. " My opponent essentially drops this argument. " I never dropped this argument at all. I attacked it head on. Go ahead to the last round and reread what I said. The differences made in training to up kill rates was a replacement of circle targets with human looking ones. Not only in the shooting range, but also the ones that pop up in simulations. Also video games that soldiers participate in to simulate killing. This is science at it's best, in practice. A bunch of people noticed a problem. The problem was a huge amount of soldiers not killing in battle or police officers not taking out a suspect who is an imminent threat. After seeing the problem, they came up with a hypothesis that if true could help. hypothesis- Simulating killing humans will desensitize people and make them more likely to kill. test- This hypothesis was tested out by replacing shooting range targets with human shaped targets and the popup targets in simulations with human looking pop up targets. Also some videogames were added in. repeat- This test was repeated with several government organizations and proved successful. That is the scientific method and the scientific method is common knowledge so I won't cite it. The scientific method has proven that simulating violence causes people to be more likely to act on violence. Videogames simulate violence. Those simulated experiences desensitize people to violence and makes it more likely that they'll commit acts of violence. " The reason firing rates went up is because of the implementation of a method known as "point shooting. " This is a new argument and should be completely disregarded, but I will briefly touch on it. My studies have shown that people in the civil war weren't even firing their weapons but only pretending. I can buy that point shooting will increase accuracy in close combat situations, but it isn't increasing the percentage of people pulling the trigger. DESENSITIZE ME "My opponent points out some flaws in my desensitization study. " Yes, and I urge voters took look at the prior round to see those flaws. None of them have been addressed. "1. My opponent's study has multiple variables since it involves the actual playing of a video game. Essentially, the competition factor is very present in this study. There is no way of knowing whether the violence, the desensitization, or the competition caused the willingness to push the button. " It wasn't the competition that caused it. There was a close to an even number on each side. Half being avid violent video game players. Half not being. They all participated in the competition, so it's not a factor. The violent gamers were more willing to dish out physical pain to their opponent. They all participated in the game. If competition was the only factor than significant differences should not have been noticed in their willingness to dish out pain. The study proved that people who play violent videogames have less qualms about hurting you. That part is indisputable and has been shown in several similar studies. "We can't look to a study with multiple variables that shows, at best, a correlation rather than a causation. My study further weakens this point by disproving the correlation between desensitization and violence in video games. " I've shown the flaws in your study, and they were ignored. I welcome the voters to take another look at the previous round. The study alone may be brushed away as correlation, but when taken with all the other evidence It serves as some damning evidence in my favor. DR BRUCE What I've tried to get across to the voters as well as my opponent, is that Violent video games contribute significantly to an overall culture of violence. In the famous Kitty Genovese event what is known as the bystander effect took place. Though the concept known as diffusion of responsibility certainly played a factor it wasn't the only factor. As Dr. Bruce mentions in the article I cited. Growing up in rough urban environments can cause desensitization, just like videogames. A lot of people just didn't give a damnn if that girl was being murdered outside their windows. CONCLUSION My opponent hasn't really upheld her BOP in this debate. She is attacking my arguments but not doing enough to defend her own. I should win this debate, because I've proved that violent videogames have increased state violence. I should win, because I've shown it increases not only the likelihood somebody will engage in violence, but also that it contributes to a culture of violence. My opponent has largely ignored my arguments concerning the overall culture of violence and psychopathy. For all the reasons mentioned.

Title: Video Games cause violence Content: Brief Rebuttals to Brief pointsa) - Whether a video game condones nonviolent or ethical components in association with violence is not really relevant, as it is the exposure to the images of graphic violence and how it is portrayed as a normal element in media that allows young people to grow up and become more systematically violent (though not necessarily criminally violent)b) - Whether or not there is punishment or reconciliation, the game still promotes violence as being an overall 'fun' activity. Some games don't cause violence, but the resolution is not that "All video games cause violence". In conclusion, I have won this debate because I have filled my BoP with reliable sources to back it. Vote for me!

Title: Violent video games can cause psychological disturbances Content: Multiple groups contend that the interactive nature of computer games considerably blurs the line that separates fantasy from reality1. As a result, game players are likely to become psychologically disturbed by the violence contained within these products. It is conceivable that many young gamers will view the new age of video games as fair depictions or representations of reality, real-world themes, real-world personalities, real-world violence. Because violent video games frequently develop and an exaggerated level of violence and destructiveness, they may arouse a belief that in a "scary world". If this is true, a greater level of fear and paranoia can be expected from such gamers in the real world than is justified. This may have the potential to lead to many adverse social effects from these gamers, such as social disengagement. 1 Gentile, D. A., Lynch, P. J., Linder, J. R., & Walsh, D. A. (2004). The effects of violent video game habits on adolescent hostility, aggressive behaviours, and school performance. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from Jounral of Adolescence

Title: Video Games do not increase or perpetuate juvenile violence Content: As Pro, I am advocating that video games do not increase or perpetuate violence. First Round: Case Presentation Second:Rebuttals Third:Voters 1. Statistics point to the Pro argument According to the FBI in 2009,The arrest rate for juvenile murders has fallen 71.9% between 1995 and 2008. The arrest rate for all juvenile violent crimes has declined 49.3%. In this same period, video game sales have more than quadrupled. The FBI statistics show that video game sales have been on the rise, while all juvenile violent crimes have fallen in the same amount of time. Looking at today's debate, you have to see that Pro shows with this evidence that the claim that video games cause violence is not backed up by reasonable statistics. Therefore, the claim is false. 2.There is no correlation between violence and video games. A 2004 US Secret Service review of previous school-based attacks found that one-eighth of attackers exhibited an interest in violent video games, less than the rate of interest attackers showed in violent books, movies, and writings. The report did not show any link between video games and school based violence. 3. Violent video games can indeed be a healthy outlet. A 2007 study by the Journal of Adolescent Health reported that 45% of boys played video games because "it helps me get my anger out" and 62% played because it "helps me relax." Those statustics show that children go to video games to give them an escape from the pressures of life around them. Also, video games can provide helpful lessons for the future. They allow people to explore situations like war, violence, and death without real consequences. Overall, statistics show that there is no correlation between video games and juvenile violence. In fact, video games help more than they hurt.

Title: Both experimental and non-experimental research have shown that violent video games damage young people. Content: Both experimental and non-experimental research have shown that violent video games damage young people playing them in both the short and long term, leading to criminal and anti-social behaviour. Exposure to violent video games causes aggressive thoughts and feelings. It also creates unwanted psychological arousal and belief in a ‘scary world’, especially among young children. This is particularly significant as video game graphics develop to become ever more realistic. The effects of violent video games are even worse than those of films and TV because of the interactive element that exists in video games. In addition, most video games are played alone, whereas cinema and television are usually a social experience, allowing social pressures to filter the experience of violence upon the viewer.

Title: Video games are not a significant cause of violence in children Content: To begin my argument, I first like to bring up some points my opponent has brought up on why Video Games are not a significant cause of violence. My opponent brought up other types of reasoning's of why video games are not the significant problem towards the violence in children; examples being television and school. But I must ask my opponent one question, dealing with his arguments, being: "Do Video Games cause technically cause violence"? Before continuing into my argument, I would like to define a few key words within the topic. The biggest one being video games, meaning: "A game played by electronically manipulating images produced by a computer program on a television screen or other display screen". Then there is violence, which is defined as: "Behavior involving an action intending to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something". My opponent, in most video games nowadays, isn't the goal resulting in any of the three aspects of violence when playing a video game? So isn't already causing most violence among children, when actually just plying the game? If you reply with "no", then you clearly do not see the point that video games are a significant cause in violence among children; because of its heavy popularity in modern media. Stated in a statistic on ABC News, and the website "Education", the amount of video games played by children in 2014 was around 91%. That is a huge population of children, which practically makes up most of the U.S, and in another statistic; it states that the average amount of time played on a video game was about 13.5 hours. The reasoning of why is typically because of adults having their own responsibilities, and parents needing a way to "distract" kids from bugging them. A video game is the simple solution for the parents task. The games the child plays varies, but most video games either have some element of violence or is within the "cool trend" among children. The most recipient, with the influence of the "cool-trend", typically rely among teenagers. The ages between 13 to 16 years old. The games typically played by this audience involves either "Action", or "Shooters"; like stated in the Sales of Video Game Genres in 2014. The most selling either being Call of Duty or Assassin's Creed, two of the most violent games within the market. My opponent may question why parents do not take these away from their children? It seems so simple, and it is, but most parents do not understand the Rating System in games. In another statistic stated on "PBS", it states that close to 90% of parents do not look at the Rating System within games because of being "too stressed" as an adult. Supporting one of my previous arguments. In my opponents previous argument, he brought up that there are more other influences than just video games. To counter argue his statement, let me please share another statistic. Under an article, titled "Kids stay indoors: What happened to, "Go outside and play"", it states that more children stay inside than outside. The exact percentage, being 72%, states that kids rather stay inside, than outside; disproving my opponents argument of being influenced on the outside. As well as in another article titled "Why do Kids Love Video Games", it states that children were surveyed about whether they like to watch TV or play video games. 87% said that they preferred to play video games, over watching television, because of having an interactive experience within the room; instead of just sitting and watching a screen. As it is seen, my opponents previous arguments that he has brought up are actually false, than true. Video games is the popular media in society nowadays, and is mostly the target audience of many companies. If my opponent claims its because of other reasoning's, why are video games "pushed" away; even though being the most popular trend within the United States? Sources: http://www.pbs.org... http://www.statista.com...- http://abcnews.go.com... http://www.education.com... http://www.pbs.org... https://www.minnpost.com... http://learningworksforkids.com...

Title: The content of Video Games Content: It's a good thing that the rate of teen violence has been decreasing. But we are not here to debate whether the rate is higher or lower than before. Instead, we are here to discuss whether there is a direct correlation between engaging in violent video games and acting out violence in real life, for teenagers. Psychologists have shown that youngsters spend a significant amount of their spare time playing video games, boys more so than girls. While not all video games contain violence, the most popular ones do. More importantly, playing violent video games has been linked to having aggressive thoughts (http://www.apa.org...). In my opinion, having aggressive thoughts is, for a teenage, the first step toward becoming violent in action. Since violent media games lead to aggressive thoughts and aggressive thoughts may lead to violent action, by the rule of transitivity, for sure violent media games contributes to teenage violence. There is no doubt about it.

Title: The content of Video Games Content: No, violent or inappropriate video games do not necessarily cause teens to act violent. Hundreds of years before the present day, teens were surround with violent things. People would see death and violence much more often than we do today. Not only that, if video games did cause teens to be violent then we would see a much higher crime rate. According to http://www.pbs.org... According to federal crime statistics, the rate of juvenile violent crime in the United States is at a 30-year low. Not only that, but 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. If you just take a look at the topic, it will be clear that violent games do not invoke violence in teens.

Title: should vilent video games be banned Content: It is upon Pro to show that Violent video games should be banned. I must show that violent video games should not be banned. Refutations A. Aggression increases The statement Pro really seems like he is making is that violent video games increase aggression in youth, a claim that is completely unsupported. In fact, I have a substantial amount of evidence to cause Pro's point to fall. Let's look at the supreme court case that came out of this accusation, and the verdict. "In sum, the evidence presented by the State does not support the Legislature's purported interest in preventing psychological or neurological harm. Nearly all of the research is based on correlation, not evidence of causation, and most of the studies suffer from significant, admitted flaws in methodology as they relate to the State's claimed interest. None of the research establishes or suggests a causal link between minors playing violent video games and actual psychological or neurological harm, and inferences to that effect would not be reasonable. In fact, some of the studies caution against inferring causation. " [1] Violent games seem to have no negative factors on youth. Medical and psychological experts agree, saying: "It's clear that the ‘big fears' bandied about in the press - that violent video games make children significantly more violent in the real world; that children engage in the illegal, immoral, sexist and violent acts they see in some of these games - are not supported by the current research , at least in such a simplistic form. That should make sense to anyone who thinks about it. After all, millions of children and adults play these games, yet the world has not been reduced to chaos and anarchy. " [2] To show even more proof that disproves Pro's statement's, we can see actual statistics in correlation between violent video game usage and actual juvenille aggressive reports. .. "According to federal crime statistics, the rate of juvenile violent crime in the United States is at a 30-year low. 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. It's true that young offenders who have committed school shootings in America have also been game players. But young people in general are more likely to be gamers - 90 percent of boys and 40 percent of girls play. The overwhelming majority of kids who play do NOT commit antisocial acts. " [3] Now, why would it be that in the last thirty years, the time period where violent video games have shot up in development [4], that the juvenile violent crime rate is at an all time low if these games increase aggression? Pro's point falls Pro then makes a second point which is really another way of saying the first, so I will only lightly touch on it. .. Behavioral scripts. This claim is again completely opinionated and backed with no source. If Pro is to say behavioral scripts develop " from the repetition of actions ", then you can say that someone who brushes their teeth every morning will brush their teeht automatically when they see a toothbrush. Equally, it's like saying a person who has to wake up early the majority of the year for schooling will ALWAYS wake up early; I think we all know this not to be true. Now moving on to my contentions. 1. Violent video games prepare the youth "Violence has always been and remains a central interest of humankind and a recurrent, even obsessive theme of culture both high and low. It engages the interest of children from an early age, as anyone familiar with the classic fairy tales collected by Grimm, Andersen, and Perrault are aware. " Posner adds, "To shield children right up to the age of 18 from exposure to violent descriptions and images would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it. " [5] Violence is all around us; whether it's foreign countries, domestic gangs, or through whatever medium, it's here to stay. Banning violent video games because of potential aggression harm younger individuals, as the quote above states. A younger person is much more likely to overreact when exposed to a violent situation if he has never been exposed to violence before. .. .this is just common sense. Violent video games give a good medium for these kids to experience the world's anger, and prepare for it. "The Sims designer Will Wright argues that games are perhaps the only medium that allows us to experience guilt over the actions of fictional characters. " [5] This says that through games, one can actually at a younger age start to identify morals and guilt, and make decisions that have consequences, preparing them for the real world. Many violent games these days have open ended decision making: just a few are Grand theft auto, Fallout 3, and Oblivion. 2. Revenue would drop, harming the economy The video games system we live in this day and age brings in a vast sum of money; in 2008, $11.7 billion dollars was gained through video games [6] "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. " [6] It's safe to say that banning these games, which I have proven have no negative effects on adolescents and have no imact on their aggression level, would just cause a lot of problems. You would ruin the gaming industry, have kids who wouldn't be prepared for the real world, and in reality just take out very fun aspects of games. What a bore video games would be if all of them were violence free; we all feel this way, and it's common sense that these video games are the best of the best. After all, 10 of the top 20 best-sellers had violence. Thank You Sources 1. Video Software Dealers Association v. Schwarzenegger, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in a 3-0 majority opinion written by Consuelo Callahan, JD, on Feb. 20, 2009 2. Grand Theft Childhood: The Surprising Truth about Violent Video Games: Lawrence Kutner, PhD, and Cheryl K. Olson, ScD, co-founders of the Harvard Medical School Center for Mental Health and Media 3. Henry Jenkins, PhD, Provost's Professor of Communication, Journalism, and Cinematic Arts at University of Southern California 4. . http://www.suite101.com... 5. . http://www.pbs.org... 6. . http://videogames.procon.org...

Title: Video Games are a primary source of violence Content: Before I state my arguments on the matter, I would like to say I am aware that the reoccurring of this topic is getting annoying and it's repetitive. However, I've never talked about this controversial topic before, and I want to try debating on it. Schedule Round 1: Acceptance and Arguments Round 2: More Arguments and/or Rebuttals Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: More Rebuttals Round 5: Conclusions and Goodbyes Thesis Statements Even though video games does cause violent acts sometimes, that doesn't really mean it's a primary source of violence. Don't just stereotype the gaming industry just because, sometimes, people use video games to do violent things. That assumption is ambiguous, it's full of fallacy, and I'll prove that it's fallacious. Arguments 1. There is no statistical evidence supporting claim. According to the information on Harvard Medical School's website, the research that is conducted to support the "video games cause violence" claim "relies on measures to assess aggression that don't correlate with real-world violence. Some studies are observational and don't prove cause and effect. Federal crime statistics suggest that serious violent crimes among youths have decreased since 1996, even as video game sales have soared." (http://www.fbi.gov...) (http://www.washingtonpost.com...) (http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org...) (http://www.washingtonpost.com...) Researchers have made assumptions that the reason behind this decline of crime rates is because of video games because violent video games has been used as a substitute to express anger and other strong emotions to a virtual world instead to reality. Chris Ferguson, chair of psychology and communication at Texas A&M International, has conducted several studies on video game violence and its affect on youth. He actively believes that video games DO NOT cause real-world violence. Quoting, "Video games is just not a common factor among mass homicide perpetrators. Some have been players, other have not been." 2. The killer who was involved in games either had some sort of mental illness and/or had poor parents. (Mostly, it's the parents fault). In almost every single shooting where violent video games were blamed, the individual involved was mentally unstable, ill, . But of course it's way more appealing for the media to blame violent video games and pay no attention to the fact that most of these tragedies are linked to mental instability and/or poor parenting. The blame on the matter at hand should be directed to the parents because there are ESBR ratings on the front cover of every single game you purchase. GameStop warns the parent and the child that there is mature rated content and asks if the parent consents on allowing the child to play the game. Therefore, it is the parent's responsibility to facilitate on what the child is playing. According to HuffingtonPost, studies have showed that the majority of parents don't care if their kids play violent video games. Quoting "The majority of parents don"t check age restrictions on video games and don't think violent games affect their kids, according to a new poll. The study, conducted by gaming price comparison and swap site www.Playr2.com. 1,221 parents of children aged 17 who frequently played video games were surveyed. The parents were surveyed, and were asked if they checked the age restrictions of their children"s video games before allowing them to play. Just under two thirds (64%) answered no. The majority of these parents, 55%, agreed that they did not think that age restrictions mattered on video games. Similarly, they were not concerned that their under-18s could be playing grown-up games. Asked "Would you be concerned if your child was playing video games with an age restriction of 18?", 51% said no." "Richard Wilson, CEO of TIGA, the trade association representing the UK games industry, told The Huffington Post: 'Age ratings exist to provide parents and consumers generally with information about games and the suitability of games for children. Just as parents should not buy 18 rated films for minors, so they should not buy 18 rated games for children. Parents must take responsibility.'" I'm not stating that just because someone is mentally unstable will most likely become extremely violent. But, studies have shown that mass murders have occurred because of mental illness. Aaron Alexis, the murderer of 12 people in the Washington Navy Yard, was mentally unstable. The lawyers of James Holmes, shooter of the Denver theater at the premiere of the Dark Knight Rises film, had repeatedly stated that he is "mentally ill." 3. The very vast majority of gamers are not violent. Just because video games only affect that small percentage of players, doesn't mean that video games cause violence entirely. You can say the exact same thing for films. Most of movie watchers are not violent themselves even though they watch violence all the time. I really don't need to go full into detail on this point as it's self-explanatory in itself. Sources 1. 2. 3. http://www.washingtonpost.com... 4. http://www.health.harvard.edu... 5. http://www.fbi.gov... 6. 7. 8. http://kotaku.com... 9. http://bigstory.ap.org... 10. 11. http://www.forbes.com... Sorry that my argument post looks like a mess. I initially attempted to post graphs supporting my thesis, but the script is discombobulated and just simply retarded. So, instead, I'm posting links to the pictures. Anyway, I hope to my opponent, good luck. Now, the entire "rich text" is screwed up. I only have to type in normal text. :(

Title: This house would sell violent VDO games to the hands of parents!!~ Content: Alright, sorry for missing out on this debate so far. I'm still a bit busy with classes, thus I'm simply going to use this first round for C/X. #1. Do you have any credible sources to support your claim your first argument? Suggesting that children and teenagers will absorb "bad things" (presumably, you mean that their personalities and actions will be influenced towards violence) is quite a leap. #2. For your second point, why would violent video games in particular be a cause for poor education? Why not video games in general? In addition, would you please be so kind as to cite your claim with a reliable source? I'll refute it in the next round, but believe you argument would be a bit stronger if you had some official to back you up. #3. Do you have any evidence that shows violent video games correlate with criminal activities? That's all the questions I have. When these are answered, I believe our debate can really begin (though I'll really begin next round regardless of how you answer).

Title: Research has shown violent video games encourage criminal and anti-social behaviour Content: Both experimental and non-experimental research have shown that violent video games damage young people playing them in both the short and long term, leading to criminal and anti-social behaviour. Exposure to violent video games causes aggressive thoughts and feelings. It also creates unwanted psychological arousal and belief in a 'scary world', especially among young children. This is particularly significant as video game graphics develop to become ever more realistic. The effects of violent video games are even worse than those of films and TV because of the interactive element that exists in video games. In addition, most video games are played alone, whereas cinema and television are usually a social experience, allowing social pressures to filter the experience of violence upon the viewer. An Australian Senate Committee established to look at this issue in 1993 concluded 'there is sufficient anecdotal evidence of a linkage…that the community cannot fail to act to control a situation which has the very real potential…to affect young people’1. 1Senate Committee, 1993.

Title: Should kids play MA video games Content: Ah, yes. The age-old philosophical question of whether or not kids should be able twist video game characters' heads right off of their bodies and watch the pixelated blood go spurting. Or watch them smoke cigarettes, or whatnot. What a deep query you have made, my son. The answer: The actual studies say there is no causal link between violent video games and aggressive behavior: . http://psycnet.apa.org...Case closed.

Title: In general, violence in video games has not caused real-world violence. Content: I'll start out by saying I agree with my opponent's definition. I'll use this round to address each of the studies my opponent has cited in their case.Survey StudyThere are a couple reasons that this study does nothing to prove my opponent's point. Firstly, this is not a study over whether or not video games cause violence. It is a study over whether or not people believe video games cause violence. In the chart my opponent has provided, we can see that more people think video games cause violence than not. This argument can't be taken into account because it is a logical fallacy known as bandwagon. (assuming something is true because many people believe it is) The article linked by my opponent seemed to show that those who play video games are less worried about negative affects. So, it is quite obvious that this article is not actually claiming that violence in video games is harmful. The article ends with this... "It is possible that concerns about games could fade away in much the same way that fears about rock music, comic books, and radio dramas dissolved when these forms of entertainment gained wider acceptance."Time StudyThis study notes that video games (even if played for a short period of time) can cause permanent changes in the brain and aggression. (Note: My opponent says violence, but the article says aggression) I showed in R2 that violence and aggression are not actually the same thing. Aggression is an intention, violence is an action. Moreover, nothing about this study suggests it was the violence in the video games that resulted in the aggression. There is a good chance that the competitive factor so often found in violent video games was what caused such feelings of aggression among the children. American Psychological Association notes (after observing several studies), "More competitive games produced greater levels of aggressive behavior than less competitive games, no matter how much violence was in the games. (1)" Remember, my opponent must prove that violence factor in video games results in real-world violence. Fox News StudyThis study is very similar to the time study, so I'll go ahead and cross-apply what I said earlier. I would like to note that my opponent's source concedes that this study is flawed. The source says, "However, experts not involved with the study say that the research has flaws, and does not add anything meaningful to the debate over whether violent video games increase aggression, which has been a contentious issue."Grand Theft ChildhoodMy opponent cites a study that explains how 60% of middle schoolers that beat up someone played at least one M rated video game. I'd like to reference something I said in R2, "It turns out that delinquent peers, depression, and an abusive family environment account for actual violence incidents…" If a middle schooler is beating up their classmates, it is more likely to be because of the reasons I have listed. In order for this study to count, my opponent will need to explain exactly how, in this study, the violence factor of video games is contributing to this violence among kids.School Shooting StudyPage four of my opponent's source explains that many factors contribute towards school shootings and that not one factor is decisive. Here we can see that violence in video games alone does not cause such shootings to come about. Most likely, other factors are coming into play as I have shown in previous evidence. Just because a shooter plays violent video games doesn't mean that is what caused them to commit such a violent crime. Moreover, this resolution does say "in general." School shootings are very rare. Even if literally every school shooting was a result of violence in video games, this would not be enough to cause me to not fulfill my BoP.Video Game and Homicide CorrelationThis chart compares video game sales in Europe and America, as well as homicide in Europe and America. It important to realize that we don't know exactly what caused this correlation. My opponent has not proved that violence in video games directly have caused this link. This is a logical fallacy known as false cause. Essentially, this correlation could be caused by anything. For example, Europe and the US have different gun control policies, different laws, and different atmospheres. Anything could cause this correlation. In the chart I provided, I was not aiming to show a direct correlation, rather, I was aiming to show that video game sales certainly are not causing violence to go up.(1) https://www.apa.org...

Title: Video Games Are Causing Violence In Children Content: Thanks Con for this good topic. The following argument will have: Why Video Games, are Influencing, and Causing Violence amognst kids. Some Rebuttals on what Con had stated. Violent video games are causing children to have the mindset that, it ok to deal with your problem(s), in a anti-social way. 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. http://videogames.procon.org... Con has stated examples of Violence in Children. "Many people after the Sandy Hook Shooting blamed violent video games on the shooters behavior because he tended to play them a lot." "I myself play a lot of violent video games, assassins creed, black ops, GTA, and others yet feel no compulsion to go and shoot out a super market or stab random people on the street. If a child plays a lot of call of duty, it does not mean that he is going to try and kill someone at school. " However these occurances are rare as it is. We dont see another replica of the Sandy Hook incident everyday. We dont see kids going out and shooting other people. BUT, the perpitrator, during the Sandy Hook shooting, was mentally ill! So this impared his ability to judge how realistic these games he was player were! So this brings the question -- Could he have thought he could did this no problem? I think YES. Cons argument basically says that Video Games arent causing EXTREME violnece suvch as shootings, and murders. But there are other types of small violence that are coming from video games that just arent making world headlines. Bullying is a type of Violence that is extermely commom amongst kids these days and these game can turn kids INTO bullys. Games are making kids change thier thoughts, on how to deal with small everyday problems. To hit or punch a kid because he mad you mad THATS VIOLENCE. This can be influenced because lets say this kid was playing Battlefield thother day and when he got mad at other player online, he KILLS them. So thought before he hits someone is "I can kill people in Battlefield or Call of Duty! I can hit this kid" Its a small form of violence, but it is still violence. Many children playing games such as Call of Duty, Battlefield, and especially GTA, are UNDER THE AGE OF 12. So many of these children are not realizing that in Real Life, you can not just punch someone and run away. You have to answer for what you did. In these games you would never see that. People kill other people, and think like its no big deal. Yes, this will not translate into someone going to shootout a scholl, BUT IT WILL TRASNLATE INTO KIDS COMMITING SAMLL FORMS OF VIOLENCE AMONGST THEMSELVES. Con states: "Therefor, if a child does cause harm, the parents are the ones to be to blame as they bought the game for their child and are responsible for the outcomes of what happens to their child." Not true. If a parents buys a violent game for a child, this child will be influenced by THAT GAME. Unless the parents are teaching them that its ok to enflict harm on other people. (Which we all know that hardley ever happens) This game is what made/contributed to making that kid commit violence. Not the parents buying the game.

Title: Are Video Games the main cause for Violent Juvenile Crimes Content: From what I have seen in that post you have utterly copied and pasted a whole entire website page which shows you are obviously avoiding the question, the question is " Are Video Games the main cause for Violent Juvenile Crimes " A causal link between violent video games and violent behavior has not been proven. Many studies suffer from design flaws and use unreliable measures of violence and aggression such as noise blast tests. Thoughts about aggression have been confused with aggressive behavior, and there is a lack of studies that follow children over long periods of time.

Title: Violent videos games lead to aggression in individuals Content: I would like to remind you that the proposition is "violent videos games lead to aggression in individuals" not "Violent video games lead to violent acts." 1. Yes, I have proved that violent video games invokes physiological responses, such as AGGRESSION. 2. Saying that aggression dies down after a period of time does is not contrary to the fact that violent video games invoke aggression. 3. I urge you to vote PRO. Even my opponent, as evident, has conceded that violent video games elicit aggression.

Title: Violent video games and school shootings are related Content: In recent years the video game industry has surpassed both the music and video industries in sales. Currently violent video games are among the most popular video games played by consumers, most specifically First-Person Shooters (FPS). Technological advancements in game play experience including the ability to play online has accounted for this increase in popularity. Previous research, utilizing the General Aggression Model (GAM), has identified that violent video games increase levels of aggression. The following abstract taken from the US national library of medicine shows a direct connection between video games and aggression. Longitudinal effects of violent video games on aggression in Japan and the United States. Anderson CA, Sakamoto A, Gentile DA, Ihori N, Shibuya A, Yukawa S, Naito M, Kobayashi K. Abstract CONTEXT: Youth worldwide play violent video games many hours per week. Previous research suggests that such exposure can increase physical aggression. OBJECTIVE: We tested whether high exposure to violent video games increases physical aggression over time in both high- (United States) and low- (Japan) violence cultures. We hypothesized that the amount of exposure to violent video games early in a school year would predict changes in physical aggressiveness assessed later in the school year, even after statistically controlling for gender and previous physical aggressiveness. DESIGN: In 3 independent samples, participants' video game habits and physically aggressive behavior tendencies were assessed at 2 points in time, separated by 3 to 6 months. PARTICIPANTS: One sample consisted of 181 Japanese junior high students ranging in age from 12 to 15 years. A second Japanese sample consisted of 1050 students ranging in age from 13 to 18 years. The third sample consisted of 364 United States 3rd-, 4th-, and 5th-graders ranging in age from 9 to 12 years. RESULTS. Habitual violent video game play early in the school year predicted later aggression, even after controlling for gender and previous aggressiveness in each sample. Those who played a lot of violent video games became relatively more physically aggressive. Multisample structure equation modeling revealed that this longitudinal effect was of a similar magnitude in the United States and Japan for similar-aged youth and was smaller (but still significant) in the sample that included older youth. CONCLUSIONS: These longitudinal results confirm earlier experimental and cross-sectional studies that had suggested that playing violent video games is a significant risk factor for later physically aggressive behavior and that this violent video game effect on youth generalizes across very different cultures. As a whole, the research strongly suggests reducing the exposure of youth to this risk factor. After this study established to create a direct connection between the increase of aggression and video games, we can just imagine how this dark aggression that aims at destruction and not on construction- with the easy acquisition of guns- will make school children behave at their schools. Knowing that a child spends most of his time at the school with periods of recess, this will be more than enough time for a child to participate in school shootings.

Title: Are Video Games the main cause for Violent Juvenile Crimes Content: While I have been using statistical information to back up my point, you have preceded to create petty arguments in which you have offered poor-to-very-little to the debate on whether video games are the main cause for violent juvenile crimes. There is enough evidence via the Internet, newspapers and various other sources to show that there is a correlation between the two; in 2012 a 13-year old boy jumped off a building's 24th floor and committed suicide after playing 'World of Warcraft' for 36 hours straight, a teenager went on a rampage and killed three men, two of them police officers, after playing Grand Theft Auto and a 17-year old boy killed his mother and wounded his father after they took Halo 3 away from his possession. There will also several cases of youth leaving their home, in 2013 a 15-year old ran away from his parents after his Xbox console was taken away - his dead body was found almost a month after. You may choose to argue that these unfortunate, tragic results are not directly linked to young people playing games, however Increasing reports of bullying can be partially attributed to the popularity of violent video games. The 2008 study Grand Theft Childhood reported that 60% of middle school boys who played at least one Mature-rated game hit or beat up someone, compared to 39% of boys that did not play Mature-rated games. As I stated in my opening, I fail to see how you could win this debate when you"ve offered nothing to the conversation as opposed to my use of statistical and factual information. A vote for me is a vote for freedom.

Title: Violent video games really cause bad behavior in children. Content: lol I agree, but I will do my best to give you a good debate.1. A person over the age of 17 is considered an adult in the realm of entertainment. Ergo, no argument.2. You stated that "You probably have the mental capacity to not go crazy and kill people." This argument helps to support my claim of "violent video games do not contribute to violence" Most people do have the mental reasoning capabilities to know right from wrong.3. Your third claim supports mine as well. You claim that people blame their violent actions on video games. Because you used the term "blame" it is safe to assume that you meant that the actions were not actually caused by the video game itself.ConclusionRemind me, are you for or against the idea that violence is caused by video games? It seems a bit unclear lolAnyway, have fun with your response!

Title: ban the sale of violent video games/censor violent video games. Content: Children See Violent Video Games

Title: Violent Video Games have a Bad Influence on Teenagers Content: Rules: 1. This debate is about video games having a bad influence on teenagers, as most violent video games are restricted 15 or 18. 2. Using examples of specific games is acceptable. Please accept :)

Title: Video games do not cause violence` Content: Hello once more, Before getting on to rebutting the points stated previously, I would like to add my arguments to the mix. In this instance, I am often addressing more violent video games, as they are included in the topic and pose the greatest threat and significance to my debate. First, let's look at some actual, hard evidence. There has been a task force report released by the American Psychological Association on August the 13th, 2015, stating that there is a "definite link to increases aggression in children who play violent video games." This statement clearly speaks volumes for itself. Not much else has been concluded, but there is a lot more research to be done and knowledge to be gained. Source: http://www.apa.org... Another argument to the negative affects of video games is that they cause desensitization to individuals. Multiple studies have proved that those who regularly play violent video games experience a reduction in emotion-related physiological reactivity to real violence. They come to accept violence rather than be overly repulsed or reactive to it. Surely, this highlights the negative and violent affects of certain video games. Even if you choose not to accept violent video games are the sole cause of violent behavior, it is clear that it is a large factor. Along with the increased aggression produced in people who play video games, players often watch their character perform violent acts with little or no punishment for them. If anything, violent video games could easily be considered something that nurtures violent and possibly harmful impulses. It has actually been shown by the FBI that many perpetrators of mass shootings played violent video games often. Is it a mere coincidence, or could violent video games have induced those horrible acts of violence? Would all of those offender's behaviors been affected by symptoms shown in some of the arguments above? Another point is that violent video games are more harmful than television shows, comics and other things of the like as they depict you; or a virtual version of you, performing those violent acts. It makes it all too easy to picture oneself doing violent things is if one has already done them in an alternate reality, with no punishment (referring to earlier argument mentioned). Yet one more argument to point out is that video games often promote violence as a suitable resolution to various conflicts. Rather than simulating talking problems out in a civilized manner, the cause and effect flow on from an altercation is usually violence or warfare of some sort. What is this teaching the players, if not violence? I will further these points in the later rounds, as well as rebut the opposing arguments. To my opponent, good luck in your rebuttals and the rest of the debate. Thank you.

Title: Video Games increase child violence Content: I'm personally against that statement, and i can prove it wrong. Pro: Says that video games increase child violence Con(me): Says that video games do not increase violent behavior to children You may go first.

Title: Youth violence has been declining, violent video games fine. Content: F.B.I. data shows that youth violence continues to decline. It is now at its lowest rate in years. Violent video games, therefore, can hardly be seen as a major problem since they´ve been around for years.[4]

Title: Violent Video Games Lead to Real Violence (First Debate) Content: Well, it is definitely the case that violent video games lead to violence in real life due to the fact that it encourages new ideas to try illegal things which are seen as "cool" by teenagers. For example, the violent 18+ video game, which is played by those much younger too, show that speeding cars and not following rules is fun and thrilling. This leads to people trying this in real life...

Title: Video games encourage violent behavior Content: It looks like my opponent is a glutton for punishment. In today's round, I will disprove the notion that "Video games encourage violent behavior." First, the job of the instigator is to prove that video games encourage violent behavior. My opponent only list one event to suggest this. Keep in mind that during this event, they two boys played a VIOLENT VIDEO GAME. Now, onto his argument. He suggest that the Columbine massacre was caused due to both Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold both being fans of the video game listed as Doom. My opponent is either guilty of ignorance and dishonesty, as this valid assessment points to their psychological problems being caused by other factors: http://www.slate.com... . In fact, the following quote sums up their reasons for committing the school shooting: "These are the rantings of someone with a messianic-grade superiority complex, out to punish the entire human race for its appalling inferiority" (by the way, the specific rantings are listed in the article). I would like to add that studies performed have actually suggested that video games have an even LESSER effect on the aggression of an individuals than television does: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com... Finally, given that the video game industry is very beneficial to the entertainment industry, logic suggest there are quite a plethora of individuals who buy and play video games. If that is the case, shouldn't there be far MORE incidences of violent behavior as we've seen with the Columbine catastrophe? At any rate, my opponent has not provided you with valid evidence that would suggest that video games (not just ones that fall under the violent category) encourage violent behavior. Since the burden of proof belongs to him, the contender automatically wins this debate. Thank you.

Title: Video Games do not Cause Violence Content: In this debate I will defend that video games do not cause violence. First round is for acceptance. Please only accept if you plan on finishing the debate.

Title: Do violent computer games make young children violent citizens Content: Teenagers who play violent video games over a number of years become more aggressive towards other people as a result, according to a new long-term study. Researchers said the study was the first to show a clear link between a sustained period of playing violent games and subsequent increases in hostile behaviour. Girls who play violent computer games during their school years were found to be affected just as much as boys. is clear that there is a long-term association between violent video games and aggression. This is an important and concerning finding, particularly in light of the hours that youth spend playing these games.'

Title: Video Games Are Good for You Content: I'd first like to outline that my opponent's sources are structured unclearly, as he hasn't cited any particular point. This is bad practice.Negative CaseP1: Video games promote violence.This isn't a well researched topic, but there are a significant number of studies that strongly allude to detrimental effects directly from playing video games, particularly violent games. The 2008 study Grand Theft Childhood reported that 60% of middle school boys who played at least one Mature-rated game hit or beat up someone, compared to 39% of boys that did not play Mature-rated games. [1] Moreover, a 2009 study found that it takes up to four minutes for the level of aggressive thoughts and feelings in children to return to normal after playing violent video games. It takes five to ten minutes for heart rate and aggressive behavior to return to baseline. Video games that show the most blood generate more aggressive thoughts. When blood is present in video games, there is a measurable increase in arousal and hostility. [2] And finally, Exposure to violent video games is linked to lower empathy in players. In a 2004 study of 150 fourth and fifth graders by Professor Jeanne Funk, violent video games were the only type of media associated with lower empathy. Empathy, the ability to understand and enter into another's feelings, plays an important role in the process of moral evaluation and is believed to inhibit aggressive behavior. [3]These worrying studies show a clear correlation hinting at a causal link between violent games and violence, and it's not difficult to figure out why.[1] Lawrence Kutner and Cheryl K. Olsen, Grand Theft Childhood: The Surprising Truth about Violent Video Games and What Parents Can Do, Apr. 2008[2] Christopher Barlett, Richard Harris, and Callie Bruey, "The Effect of the Amount of Blood in a Violent Video Game on Aggression, Hostility, and Arousal," Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Oct. 2007[3] Jeanne Funk, Heidi Bechtoldt Baldacci, Tracie Pasold, and Jennifer Baumgardner, "Violence Exposure in Real-life, Video Games, Television, Movies, and the Internet: Is There Desensitization?," Journal of Adolescence, 2004P2: Staying seated is bad for your health.To play video games, especially for long periods, as most gamers do, one usually remains seated. This can be a driver of serious health issues. A review completed earlier this year concluded that "Prolonged sedentary time was independently associated with deleterious health outcomes regardless of physical activity." [1] This is a result reciprocated by a number of notable studies. Another line of study found a strong link between television viewing and mortality rates, concluding: "Television viewing time was associated with increased risk of all-cause and CVD mortality. In addition to the promotion of exercise, chronic disease prevention strategies could focus on reducing sitting time, particularly prolonged television viewing. " [2] Finally a 2011 study found that "Recreational sitting, as reflected by television/screen viewing time, is related to raised mortality and CVD risk regardless of physical activity participation. Inflammatory and metabolic risk factors partly explain this relationship." [3][1] http://annals.org...[2] http://circ.ahajournals.org...[3] http://www.sciencedirect.com...ConclusionI've brought up two significant detrimental consequences of playing video games and supported them with reliable data and studies.

Title: Video Games increase child violence Content: Now my argument: Example 1: A diagnostic study of more than 1,000 teenagers took place in Poland between 2011 and 2012, aimed at measuring the impact of computer games on young people. Researchers said the results showed that there was a strong link between young people who played games on a regular basis with an inability to control emotions, increased isolation from friends and higher incidences of aggression Source: (. http://www.irishtimes.com...) Example 2: In a study led by Gentile, Lynch, Lander & Walsh in 2004, the authors also stated that teens who play violent video games for extended periods of time: tend to be more aggressive, are more prone to confrontation with their teachers and increased incidences of fights with their peers. Source (. http://drdouglas.org...) Example 3: There is empherical data showing that video games increase violence among children in the book "Violent Video Game Effects On Children And Adolescents" Source: Polman, J. , Orobio de Castro, B. & Van Aken, M. (2008). Experimental study of the differential effects of playing versus watching violent video games on children's aggressive behavior. Aggressive Behavior, 34(3), 256-264. I feel that these examples show solid fact that there is a definite link to video games increasing violence among children. I look forward to your response.

Title: Video games are not a significant cause of violence in children Content: I will be debating why video games are hardly a reason to blame violent acts cause by kids. Con will do the opposite. Keep in mind i count as a minor under the law because i am 13 years of age. You may continue the debate

Title: Ban on sale of violent video games to minors Content: Thank you for your quick response. "There have been no scientific studies which have been able to prove a link between violent video games and teen violence. Therefore,with the lack of any credible evidence, the government should not prohibit the sale of violent video games to minors." Here is your evidence: http://www.soc.iastate.edu... ----> Please read this carefully. Argument: My opponent failed to provide his case thus going against the rules of the debate. In conclusion, My opponent looses on account of failure to follow the rules. Unless my opponent presents his case in the next round, then he looses. Hope to hear from you soon.

Title: Violent Video Games Content: Hello and thank you for taking time to read this debate.For the purpose of clarification I will not state my intent to argue for the remainder of this debate. The Con will argue that the sale of violent video games to minors in the U.S. does not have a substantial effect on their actions and that there are other causes or reasons why young people commit violent acts.Here is my evidence.#1 - No connection between violence and games. Other causes like home life and and mental stability are the core.A PBS Report citing the findings of MIT Professor Henry Jenkins [1] "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. The moral panic over violent video games is doubly harmful. It has led adult authorities to be more suspicious and hostile to many kids who already feel cut off from the system. It also misdirects energy away from eliminating the actual causes of youth violence and allows problems to continue to fester." As we can see per the evidence there have been numerous studies AND in fact the surgeon general telling us that the exposure to violence based on video games is a factor that leads to violence. Compare this to my opponents evidence which is unobtainable so we cannot even test the validity of the entire study. As this is my opponents argument it is the only argument I need to win to win this debate but I will go ahead and provide more evidence bellow.#2 - Violent video games are in fact core to the development of children and their decision making skills.A PBS Report citing the findings of MIT Professor Henry Jenkins [1] "On April 19, 2002, U.S. District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh Sr. ruled that video games do not convey ideas and thus enjoy no constitutional protection. As evidence, Saint Louis County presented the judge with videotaped excerpts from four games, all within a narrow range of genres, and all the subject of previous controversy. Overturning a similar decision in Indianapolis, Federal Court of Appeals Judge Richard Posner noted: "Violence has always been and remains a central interest of humankind and a recurrent, even obsessive theme of culture both high and low. It engages the interest of children from an early age, as anyone familiar with the classic fairy tales collected by Grimm, Andersen, and Perrault are aware." Posner adds, "To shield children right up to the age of 18 from exposure to violent descriptions and images would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it." Many early games were little more than shooting galleries where players were encouraged to blast everything that moved. Many current games are designed to be ethical testing grounds. They allow players to navigate an expansive and open-ended world, make their own choices and witness their consequences. "This quote is long but meaningful as it holds multiple reasons as to why children have to be exposed to violent video games. As explained, the article cites a district judge who explains why we have to protect the rights of children in exposing them to violence and thus the consequences of actions. They become as Posner writes "The ethical testing grounds." and so should be accessible to children. To back up this claim the article cites Posner who justifies this exposure with reference to the violent nursery rythmes and fairytales we already tell our children. Thus if you find even the slightest moral, ethical or logical justification for exposing children to violence you vote con.#3 - Video games aren't desensitizing.A PBS Report citing the findings of MIT Professor Henry Jenkins [1] "Classic studies of play behavior among primates suggest that apes make basic distinctions between play fighting and actual combat. In some circumstances, they seem to take pleasure wrestling and tousling with each other. In others, they might rip each other apart in mortal combat. Game designer and play theorist Eric Zimmerman describes the ways we understand play as distinctive from reality as entering the "magic circle." The same action — say, sweeping a floor — may take on different meanings in play (as in playing house) than in reality (housework). Play allows kids to express feelings and impulses that have to be carefully held in check in their real-world interactions. Media reformers argue that playing violent video games can cause a lack of empathy for real-world victims. Yet, a child who responds to a video game the same way he or she responds to a real-world tragedy could be showing symptoms of being severely emotionally disturbed. "Despite what the pro tells you, video games aren't desensitizing. As the evidence above explains, video games aren't meant to stimulate real emotional responses and thus aren't meant to show that a kid is disturbed simply because he laughs at death in a simulation. In fact they act as a release to feelings that are normally oppressed in 'reality' culture today. This answers the pro's only claim to violence and is thus a reason to vote con.#4 - Studies that conclude that violence in video games lead to more violence in kids are biased.Staff of Science 2.0 Report on the findings of Professor Patrick Kierkegaard of the University of Essex. [2]"However, Kierkegaard explains, there is no obvious link between real-world violence statistics and the advent of video games. Despite several high profile incidents in US academic institutions, "Violent crime, particularly among the young, has decreased dramatically since the early 1990s," says Kierkegaard, "while video games have steadily increased in popularity and use. For example, in 2005, there were 1,360,088 violent crimes reported in the USA compared with 1,423,677 the year before. "With millions of sales of violent games, the world should be seeing an epidemic of violence," he says, "Instead, violence has declined." Research is inconclusive, emphasises Kierkegaard."The evidence goes a long way to win the con's because it states that really any study provided by the pro has no real world statistics to backup the nature of the findings and thus can only be limited to the theory which is invalid until there is evidence to support it.#5 - If your claim is true then why has the rise of video game sales been accompanied by a drop in violent crimes by children?Quote from Lawrence Kutner, PhD, and Cheryl K. Olson, ScD, co-founders of the Harvard Medical School Center for Mental Health [3]"It’s clear that the ‘big fears’ bandied about in the press - that violent video games make children significantly more violent in the real world; that children engage in the illegal, immoral, sexist and violent acts they see in some of these games - are not supported by the current research, at least in such a simplistic form. That should make sense to anyone who thinks about it. After all, millions of children and adults play these games, yet the world has not been reduced to chaos and anarchy."This statement and evidence is pretty damning to the case of my opponent because it poses a logical question that simply can't be answered by studies that are supposedly in support of the pro. This is because, as stated by the very qualified authors of my evidence, there has been no increase in violence even though violent video games are hot sellers. Thus there can be no conclusion for the pro because there is simply no real world proof.Thank you for your time and I look forward to my opponent's response!My Evidence (No abstract mining here)[1] - http://www.pbs.org...[2] - http://www.science20.com...[3] "Grand Theft Childhood: The Surprising Truth about Violent Video Games" by Lawrence Kutner, PhD, and Cheryl K. Olson, ScD, 2008.

Title: The content of Video Games Content: We are now at our final round of debate. I'd like to summarize by saying while I agree there is no direct evidence of the cause-and-effect relationship between violent video games and teen violence, we can NOT afford to think that having violent video games readily available for people of all ages does not pose certain degree of concern. The concern is it occupies the mind of immature and mentally unstable teenagers with aggressive thoughts and might trigger violent behavior, causing great harm to other people and demoralize the rest of society. Just because there is no direct evidence does not mean it is not the case as I postulated. We are actually quite used to believing things without direct evidence - most religious beliefs fall into this category. Another similar example: when one plays Sudoku, sometimes there is no obvious hint what number one should put down in a cell, but by indirect deduction, we reach the conclusion that there are no other possibilities but to put down a certain number. I believe that violent video gaming contributed to the Columbine incidence because no other possible causes made profound sense to me. The two teenagers engaged in playing Doom constantly. This couldn't have been a good thing. Yes, there might have been other contributing factors. But who is to say that the violence they practice in their virtual world did not become the "last straw on the back of the camel" and played into their final act? One day when you have kids of your own, you might have second thoughts of allowing them unrestricted access to violent video games. Don't you agree?

Title: Do games teach kids violence. Content: My position is rather easy to prove – I need only make the case that video games teach children how to be violent, not that they actually induce violent behavior. Luckily the psychiatric community has done several experiments that speak for themselves. Lab experiments confirm what any gamer knows in his gut: playing games like “Call of Duty,” “Killzone 3” or “Battlefield 3” stirs the blood. In one recent study, Christopher Barlett, a psychologist at Iowa State University, led a research team that had 47 undergraduates play “Mortal Kombat: Deadly Alliance” for 15 minutes. Afterward, the team took various measures of arousal, both physical and psychological. It also tested whether the students would behave more aggressively, by having them dole out hot sauce to a fellow student who, they were told, did not like spicy food but had to swallow the sauce. Sure enough, compared with a group who had played a nonviolent video game, those who had been engaged in “Mortal Kombat” were more aggressive across the board. They gave their fellow students significantly bigger portions of the hot sauce. Source: http://www.nytimes.com...Children are highly impressionable and mimic role models."Video games are excellent teaching tools because they reward players for engaging in certain types of behavior," study author Dr. Bruce Bartholow, associate professor of psychology at the University of Missouri, said in a written statement. "Unfortunately, in many popular video games, the behavior is violence." Source: http://www.cbsnews.com...Decades of social science research reveals the strong influence of televised violence on the aggressive behavior of children and youth. There appears to be evidence that exposure to violent media increases feelings of hostility, thoughts about aggression, suspicions about the motives of others, and demonstrates violence as a method to deal with potential conflict situations; and perpetrators go unpunished in 73% of all violent scenes, and therefore teach that violence is an effective means of resolving conflict. Comprehensive analysis of violent interactive video game research suggests such exposure a.) increases aggressive behavior, b.) increases aggressive thoughts, c.) increases angry feelings, d.) decreases helpful behavior, and, e.) increases physiological arousal. Studies further suggest that videogames influence the learning processes in many ways more than in passively observing TV: a.) requiring identification of the participant with a violent character while playing video games, b.) actively participating increases learning, c.) rehearsing entire behavioral sequences rather than only a part of the sequence, facilitates learning, and d.) repetition increases learning. Source: http://videogames.procon.org...

Title: Ban on sale of violent video games to minors Content: Some youth have tried to emulate violence in games.

Title: Do games teach kids violence. Content: Violent juvenile crime in the United States has been declining as violent video game popularity has increased. The arrest rate for juvenile murders has fallen 71.9% between 1995 and 2008. The arrest rate for all juvenile violent crimes has declined 49.3%. In this same period, video game sales have more than quadrupled. [7] [8] A causal link between violent video games and violent behavior has not been proven. [34] Many studies suffer from design flaws and use unreliable measures of violence and aggression such as noise blast tests. Thoughts about aggression have been confused with aggressive behavior, and there is a lack of studies that follow children over long periods of time. A 2004 US Secret Service review of previous school-based attacks found that one-eighth of attackers exhibited an interest in violent video games, less than the rate of interest attackers showed in violent movies, books, and violence in their own writings. The report did not find a relationship between playing violent video games and school shootings. [35] The small correlations that have been found between video games and violence may be explained by violent youth being drawn to violent video games. Violent games do not cause youth to be violent. Instead, youth that are predisposed to be violent seek out violent entertainment such as video games. Playing violent video games reduces violence in adolescent boys by serving as a substitute for rough and tumble play. [36] Playing violent video games allows adolescent boys to express aggression and establish status in the peer group without causing physical harm. http://videogames.procon.org...

Title: Violent Video Games Lead to Real Violence (First Debate) Content: I feel that violence in video games does not create the player to become a more violent person, nor does it lead to more crime in the world by its players. A study that Villanova and Rutgers University had published "found that when shooting game sales are at their highest, crime numbers tend to drop" (1). There was also a study done in 2010 that found that used 103 young adults to solve a frustration task in groups, with some playing video games and some not. They found "that the games had no impact on aggressive behavior whatsoever, and that the group which played no game at all was the most aggressive after the task, whereas the group that played the violent games were the least hostile and depressed" (2). Studies like this exemplify that well known saying, ""Correlation does not imply causation". (1) http://www.polygon.com... (2) http://www.forbes.com... (This is my first debate on this website so I might not do well/not know how to respond properly)

Title: Violence in video games does not significantly contribute to real world violence. Content: I'll do a couple short rebuttals and then move on to some voting issues.MY CASELogical Fallacy- Affirming a DisjunctMy opponent accuses me of using this logical fallacy throughout my case. The problem with this point is that in order for me to be using this fallacy, I would have to have no evidence which shows how video games do *not* cause violence. I have shown this in a couple places. First, lets look at my statistics point. There I illustrated that as video game sales have gone up, violence rates have gone down. This essentially makes mockery of the idea that violence in video games significantly contributes to violence. However, if you, as a reader, do not buy this point, I'll clarify for you a bit more in my next point. Second, look at my point which explains the aggression release coming from video games. This suggests that violence in video games can actually lower violence rates, which is supported by my statistics. Through these two points, I hope you will all see that I have not used this logical fallacy. Really, studies on video games alone have so many variables that could be causing violence. It is inaccurate to blame the violence variable for any aggression / legitimate crime that comes from gamers.Violence RatesMy opponent explains that even if violence goes down as video games sales go up, the violence in these games could still be significantly contributing to real world violence. I would agree with this. These statistics are mainly there to support my release of aggression point. This point also illustrates how unlikely it would be for violence in video games to actually be contributing to real world violence in a significant way. I don't think my chart covers the military kill rate (I will talk about this soon). Later on in the voting issues, I'll elaborate more on the idea of significance.Video Game's EffectsBasically, my opponent attacks my source, as opposed to my argument. I would agree that my source could be considered inaccurate; I'll go ahead and bring up a couple more points to further elaborate on the idea of violent video games being used to release aggression. My first source notes that 42% of boys play video games because it helps them release anger, and 65% of boys say these games help them relax (1). My Gilsdorf source elaborates, "If some of these men are hopelessly mentally ill, then we need to do all we can to prevent their access to real guns. But sane or depressed, many men feel powerless. Many feel angry. Many feel disengaged. They just want a stake in the action. Video games might be the best outlet they’ve got."OPPONENT'S CASENot Born to KillThe first thing to look at here is the difference between video games and these "killing sessions." My opponent essentially drops this argument. We have to realize that the video games kids are playing today are quite different from the simulations used in the army. Really, my opponent has only proved that military murder simulations increase violence in the military. This is not the topic we are currently debating. Even if these simulations could actually be compared to common video games today, these activities didn't make officers more willing to shoot because of desensitization (as a result of violence). The reason firing rates went up is because of the implementation of a method known as "point shooting." Point shooting was effective (even without a video simulation) because it was similar to real combat situations (3). Essentially, my opponent has yet to prove that these simulations are (a) similar to real video games and (b) the violence factor of this simulation actually causes violence.Desensitize MeMy opponent points out some flaws in my desensitization study. Here is why my study really is more accurate.1. My opponent's study has multiple variables since it involves the actual playing of a video game. Essentially, the competition factor is very present in this study. There is no way of knowing whether the violence, the desensitization, or the competition caused the willingness to push the button.2. The study basically admits that it shows a correlation, not a causation. Look at this quote directly from the study:"These relationships do not establish causality, as desensitized children with lower empathy may simply be more drawn to violent games, or a third factor, such as suboptimal parenting practices, may be responsible for this relationship. Potential mediating relationships should also be considered. For example, children who seek highly arousing experiences may be especially drawn to playing violent video games."and this quote: "Children’s estimated exposure to video game violence was not associated with aggression vignette responses."We can't look to a study with multiple variables that shows, at best, a correlation rather than a causation. My study further weakens this point by disproving the correlation between desensitization and violence in video games.My opponent also notes that while aggression is short lived, desensitization lasts a longer time. The thing is, since this study involves individuals actually playing some sort of a game. Obviously, spurts of aggression due to competition (or even violence) can be expected. Just remember, aggression is not the same thing as violence. Dr. BruceMy opponent brings up a new argument known as the "bystander" effect. He basically explains that this is caused by desensitization, and will ultimately contribute to real world violence. I'd like to make a couple points:1. The bystander effect is not a new thing. It has existed way before the time of violent video games. "In the famous 1964 “Kitty Genovese” incident, a young woman named Kitty Genovese was stabbed to death outside her home in Queens, New York. Many of Kitty’s neighbors heard her desperate screams for help, yet no one called the police until too late (4)." 2. Let's get to the real question, "What causes the effect?" The bystander effect is certainly not caused by desensitization. It is rather caused by a term known as "diffusion of responsibility." To clarify my source continues, "One reason that the bystander effect occurs is the social influence process known as “diffusion of responsibility”. Through numerous studies, psychologists have found that bystanders are less likely to intervene in emergency situations as the size of the group increases."We can safely conclude that violence in video games does not contribute to such a psychological phenomenon.CONCLUSIONLet me bring up a few points to summarize...1. My opponent has made no empirical claims. This is perhaps one of the most important points. He cannot prove video games significantly contribute to violence if he fails to provide any numbers which show "significance." Elaborating on what I said earlier on, all my opponent has shown is an increased kill rate in the military due to kill simulations. In reality, these simulations are not what promote the elevation of the kill rate, rather it is the new training methods (whether they involve videos or not).2. Video games don't cause desensitization. I have pointed out the various flaws in my opponents study. Essentially, there is no causation has been shown between desensitization and violence in video games.3. Other factors cause (at best) aggression. There are too many other variables in video games to pinpoint violence in video games as something that significantly contributes to real world violence.4. Video games can help release aggression. Hence, the lower violence rates. If you, as a reader, do not buy this argument, look to the fact that my opponent's case has not shown any significant contributions from violence in video games outside the military.5. Already violent people (or at least those who crave violent / arousing experiences) may play violent video games, hence the added violence from gamers. My opponent's desensitization study even suggests this... "Children who seek highly arousing experiences may be especially drawn to playing violent video games."For these reasons, vote pro!! Thanks to anyone who reads this :) (1) Cheryl Olson, Lawrence Kutner, Dorothy Warner, Jason Almerigi, Lee Baer, Armand Nicholi, and Eugene Beresin, "Factors Correlated with Violent Video Game Use by Adolescent Boys and Girls," Journal of Adolescent Health, July 2007(2) http://cognoscenti.wbur.org...(3) http://cdn.paladin-press.com...(4) http://heroicimagination.org...

Title: Violent Video Games Cause Violent Behavior Content: Violent Video Games cause violence in children: http://edition.cnn.com... http://time.com... http://www.pamf.org... http://www.psychologytoday.com... They just do. I think you meant "Violent Video Games Cause Violent Behavior [In Teens]" because they don't, but in children they do, it's not a debate; children will emulate Power Rangers and all sorts of things they see on television as well (http://www.thecrimson.com..., http://www.ofcom.org.uk...) and they are especially susceptible to media. Good luck.

Title: Violent Video Games Content: This debate topic is one in which me and my opponent will discuss violent video games, and it's affects on the users. I will argue that violent video games do in fact encourage the user to become violent, or to do violent things. While my opponent will refute this and give his/her reasons for refutation.

Title: do video games cause viloence Content: I think video games don't cause violence because kids have accepted the fact that it isn't real. They know the consequences of doing the things they see In video games and accept it. In a case ,involving a school shooter who played Dance Dance Revolution, it showed no connection between the game and killer. The case was given to a lieutenant who came up with the conclusion that games have no effect on kids.

Title: Violent Video Games Cause Social Interaction Problems Content: The facts are against the premise again. Research does not support the idea that young people who play violent video games have decreased social ability. This is refuted most notably in studies by Anderson and Ford (1986), Winkel et al. (1987), Scott (1995), Ballard and Lineberger (1999), and Jonathan Freedman (2002). More recently, Block and Crain (2007) claim that in a critical paper by Anderson (and his co-author, Bushman), data was improperly calculated and produced fallacious results. Additional meta-analyses (reviews of research that attempt to statistically combine data from multiple studies for more powerful results) by other researchers, such as by Ferguson and Kilburn (2009) and Sherry (2007) have failed to find any causal link between video game violence and aggression, as have recent reviews by the Australian Government (2010) and the US Supreme Court (June, 2011). The question of whether violent games that only allow violence as a solution to problems could negatively affect young people in subtle ways deserves further study. However, there are many aspects of video games, such as puzzle solving, that are intrinsic parts of even the basest first person shooters. Many first-person shooters themselves require tactical deployment and thinking—all of which are able to stimulate thought in people, albeit in a different manner than negotiation might do.[1] Further, newer military games are more sophisticated, often requiring the player to take one side of a conflict and then the other in different levels of the game, or forcing the player to face moral dilemmas that affect the game’s storyline or outcome. [1] Freedman, Jonathan L. Media violence and its effect on aggression: assessing the scientific evidence. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2002. ISBN 0802084257

Title: The content of Video Games Content: I know that we're not here to discuss the crime rate but the 30 year low just helps prove that video games are not a major factor in making teens violent. Another pointer is that video games do not necessarily invoke aggressive thoughts. There are many other factors that would be much more effective such as bullying, abuse, illegal activities, etc. If a teen does happen to have aggressive thoughts, we wouldn't know whether the cause of that would be video games. I will go back to my first example, in the past, teens have lived much more dangerous and violent lives than we do now. Even today, some countries are constantly torn apart by the terrors of war. Do you think the teens there like violence? And do you think if they played violent video games, they would like it?

Title: violent video games should be banned Content: You have referenced a study from 2007 which showed that violent video games don't have negative affects but since that study violent video games have become bloodier and more realistic. I read an article and the author quoted "Video games may not be the root of school shootings, fights or any other violent acts from teens or children but they are contributing to the mindset that these actions are okay". There are many video games rated mature that underaged children play which causes aggression.

Title: Video games make you violent Content: PROOF 1.Con concedes that video games make me violent: "verbal violence, that is you".Con concedes that "you" in the topic refers to me, Pro.Thus: I have proven that "Video games make [me] violent".PROOF 2. Con disputes how much violence is caused by video games.But Con concedes that my violence examples were caused by video games.Thus: I have proven that video games cause nonzero violence.Don't let Con make new responses to conceded points.Con concedes all critical points.Game over!

Title: Violent video games make children violent Content: Glad to hear that you're new here too. Considering how new I am, sorry for any errors in my argument. When looking at whether video games make children violent, first we must establish what people mean when they say 'violent'. The Merriam Webster Dictionary gives it as: 1: marked by extreme force or sudden intense activity 2 a : notably furious or vehement b : extreme, intense, 3: prone to commit acts of violence Here I am editing out some definitions that do not relate to the topic at hand. I am particularly looking at the third definition, as many have attributed video games to school shooting, saying that violent video games actually influence them enough to do something of the sort. That, in my perception, would be making someone prone to committing acts of violence. Is this possible? While studies show that people may feel more aggression while playing a violent game and shortly after, there has never been proof that there are long term psychological effects. In fact, studies show that video games can actually make you smarter. That action gamers, which I take to be games in the first-person-shoot genre(Not limited to such, just an example.) which would be a violent game.From 1995 to 2008, violent video game popularity has skyrocketed, while the number of violent crimes have lowered by almost 50%. If video games are truly a source of violence for children, then why aren't there MORE shootings? Why don't we have more armed robberies? Considering how many people play games like Call of Duty daily, you would think the number would be much higher. As The Washington Post's Max Fisher wrote: "In fact, countries where video game consumption is highest tend to be some of the safest countries in the world, likely a product of the fact that developed or rich countries, where consumers can afford expensive games, have on average much less violent crime". That concludes my argument, I can't wait to see yours. http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.thewire.com... http://videogames.procon.org...

Title: Violence is clearly an issue, not just in the United States but EVERYWHERE! Content: My opponent fails to make any proven points on how videogames can cause real world agression and also failed to argue any of my points. I still stand by the points made in the previous arguement and believe that violent videogames do not correlate to violent acts in real life and risitricting them would not make any country any safer.

Title: Are Video Games the main cause for Violent Juvenile Crimes Content: Do you even look at what you are posting? Were in that argument does it mention anything relevant to the question once again. Please just leave this argument as all you have been doing is commenting with copy and pastes and not showing your own facts. I don't believe you have actually commented one word which is not a copy and paste. Playing violent video games reduces violence in adolescent boys by serving as a substitute for rough and tumble play. Playing violent video games allows adolescent boys to express aggression and establish status in the peer group without causing physical harm.

Title: Video game violence does not contribute significantly to school shootings. Content: The title of this argument is "Video game violence does not contribute significantly to school shootings." The kids who are predisposed susceptibility to the emotional deterioration ultimately are the ones who shoot up the schools, ergo video game violence in theory does significantly contribute to school shootings. Therein your evidences are invalidated and I win the argument.

Title: Is gaming harmful to our minds Content: Im sorry that you forfeited the round. Hopefully you can give a rebuttal next round.Aserstion One-Statistics- Thats alot of kids who play! Anyway to prove my point a majority of teenagers play video games. How can this be harmfull? Well the shooters at Colubine were gamers. There is proof that violent video games can instigate more agression in to people.http://www.psychology.iastate.edu... (Page 4 of 6)Assertion Two-Personal Experience & Tue Storys-On the morning of 1990 April 20th the two shooters of Colubine High School shot to death 12 students, a teacher, and themselves. They were "gamers" Also""A British man who bought one of the first copies of "Grand Theft Auto V"was stabbed, hit with a brick and robbed of the brutally violent new video game on Tuesday, police said."A crime motivated by the game? Was a video game really worth stabing and injuring an innocent man for?http://gadgets.ndtv.com...Is there a bit of a correlation of the storys and statistics? Personally I feel slightly more agrresive after playing vidoe games. Of course I never would kill or hurt someone over a game but others have. Certainly games can be fun but if played to frequently and excesivley then it can be harmful.Assertion Three-Studys-According to Iowa State University aggression can be caused over video games. (See first link) Also the cons seem to outweigh the pros according to this article http://www.raisesmartkid.com...Even the New York Times looked in to this-http://www.nytimes.com...Theory-VideoGames that are violent correlate with agressivness and violence in people. Video games can be harmfull to people and others if played to often. Parents should monitor and control what there kids can play and people shuld see the potentiol harm in some games.

Title: Video Games Cause Violence Content: Video Games DO cause violence. The violent nature of our generations of current games brainwash peoples minds into thinking it's, "Just a game." Or, "It's not bad." Little do they know it makes them into killers.

Title: Can video games be healthy Content: I shall present my next evidences: 1. 90% of pediatricians and 67% of parents agreed or strongly agreed that violent video games can increase aggressive behavior among children. [75] 2. Violence is Fun Violent video games make hurting and killing people entertaining. This notion that violence is fun can cause gamers to imitate the game just for fun. 3. 60% of middle school boys and 40% of middle school girls who played at least one Mature-rated (M-rated) game hit or beat up someone, compared with 39% of boys and 14% of girls who did not play M-rated games. [63] 4. Makes Violence Acceptable The games impart that violence is an effective strategy for solving conflicts and for attaining one"s goals. A 2009 research found that those who play violent video games believe in violent strategies more than those who play non violent video games. 5. Simulating violence such as shooting guns and hand-to-hand combat in video games can cause real-life violent behavior. Video games often require players to simulate violent actions, such as stabbing, shooting, or dismembering someone with an ax, sword, chainsaw, or other weapons. Game controllers are so sophisticated and the games are so realistic that simulating the violent acts enhances the learning of those violent behaviors. [23] A 2015 peer-reviewed study found "compelling evidence that the use of realistic controllers can have a significant effect on the level of cognitive aggression." [118] Two teenagers in Tennessee who shot at passing cars and killed one driver told police they got the idea from playing Grand Theft Auto III. [49] Bruce Bartholow, professor of psychology at the University of Missouri, spoke about the effects of simulating violence: "More than any other media, these [violent] video games encourage active participation in violence. From a psychological perspective, video games are excellent teaching tools because they reward players for engaging in certain types of behavior. Unfortunately, in many popular video games, the behavior is violence." [53] A Sep. 2014 peer-reviewed study found that first-person shooter games trained players to have better accuracy in shooting a gun outside the game, and made them more likely to aim for the head. [85] 6. Many perpetrators of mass shootings played violent video games. The teenage shooters in the 1999 Columbine High School massacre of 13 students played violent combat games. [43] Many mass shootings have been carried out by avid video game players: James Holmes in the Aurora, Colorado movie theater shooting (2012); Jared Lee Loughner in the Arizona shooting that injured Rep. Gabby Giffords and killed six others (2011); and Anders Breivik, who killed 77 people in Norway (2011) and admitted to using the game Modern Warfare 2 for training. [53] An FBI school shooter threat assessment stated that a student who makes threats of violence should be considered more credible if he or she also spends "inordinate amounts of time playing video games with violent themes." [25] 7. The American Psychological Association (APA) lists violent video games as a risk factor for aggressive behavior. In its Aug. 2015 resolution on violent video games, the APA wrote: "WHEREAS many factors are known to be risk factors for increased aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition and aggressive affect, and reduced prosocial behavior, empathy and moral engagement, and violent video game use is one such risk factor." [119] Dr. Craig Anderson, PhD, Director of the Center for the Study of Violence at Iowa State University, wrote: "Playing a violent video game isn't going to take a healthy kid who has few other risk factors and turn him into a school shooter, but it is a risk factor that does drive the odds for aggression up significantly." [120] 8. There is broad consensus among medical associations, pediatricians, parents, and researchers that violent video games increase aggressive behavior. [74] A 2014 study published in Psychology of Popular Media Culture found that 90% of pediatricians and 67% of parents agreed or strongly agreed that violent video games can increase aggressive behavior among children. [75]. More than 98% of pediatricians in the United States say that too much exposure to violent media heightens childhood aggression. [62] In addition, 66% of researchers agreed or strongly agreed. Since only 17% of researchers disagreed or strongly disagreed, and 17% were undecided, the study concluded "That means that among researchers who have an opinion, eight out of 10 agree that violent games increase aggression." [75] A joint statement by six leading national medical associations, including the American Medical Association and American Psychological Association, stated: "Well over 1,000 studies - including reports from the Surgeon General's office, the National Institute of Mental Health, and numerous studies conducted by leading figures within our medical and public health organizations - our own members - point overwhelmingly to a causal connection between media violence and aggressive behavior in some children." [33] And so now I await the PRO's argument.

Title: Violence is clearly an issue, not just in the United States but EVERYWHERE! Content: Violent Video games should be banned because it leads to violence and violent behavior in teens, tweens, and even children under the age of 10.

Title: Are Violent video games like CoD bad for younger children?(<12) Content: Thank you to Con for posting this debate. I hope we can have a civilised argument and good luck to you. First off, I don't think that Violent video games are bad for younger kids. In reality it all depends on the child. Its the parents decision if the child is mature enough or not. Of course if the child isn't mature enough the game may cause him fear, but if you think about it the odds of that happening are slim. Its a video game not real life.

Title: Video games do not cause violence` Content: Hello there, as you can tell by the title, I am going to be debating on whether or not video games cause violence. I think that video games do not cause any violence what so ever and can even benefit you in some ways. There are no specific rules for this debate except for the fact that round one is acceptance.

Title: Video game violence does not contribute significantly to school shootings. Content: I would think that you would understand by now that it is the voters who ultimately decide who wins the argument, not you. Anywho, my response: "The title of this argument is "Video game violence does not contribute significantly to school shootings." The kids who are predisposed susceptibility to the emotional deterioration ultimately are the ones who shoot up the schools, ergo video game violence in theory does significantly contribute to school shootings. Therein your evidences are invalidated and I win the argument." Con has not addressed my initial evidence, nor has the slightest hint of evidence to back up his claim. If violent video games were the cause for these school shootings, then tell me: what happened to all of the other factors that caused the earlier shootings? Our school systems today have undoubtably learned to combat them significantly, but not completely. Another thing that I must present is the likeliness of violent video games influencing students to commit these crimes. Video games, as well as the violent ones, are imbued into our society. They provide entertainment and satisfaction for millions of teens in the United States. Although it has been shown that they can cause aggression in certain cases, for the most part, they do not play a significant role. "School shootings are not a simple issue with a single solution. This violence is rooted in psychological imbalances within the students themselves, poor parenting and a decay in significance of traditional institutions along with the guilt forces they rely on for effectiveness - to name a just a few."[1] With nearly all statistics on school shootings, these factors that contribute to the crimes appear in virtually every case. The part that video game violence plays is very insignificant indeed. Conclusion: Most, if not all school shootings are rooted in psychological imbalances within the students themselves, poor parenting and a decay in significance of traditional institutions along with the guilt forces they rely on for effectiveness[1], not violent video games. The real cause lies significantly more with the student and his/her social environment, rather than the entertainment activities(violent video games) he/she partakes in. Sources: http://www.holology.com...

Title: the government should ban violent video games to kids and adolescent Content: I accept pro's challenge and argue that the government should not ban violent video games to kids and adolescents. Video games = any of various games played using a microcomputer with a keyboard and often joysticks to manipulate changes or respond to the action or questions on the screen.

Title: Video games are not a significant cause of violence in children Content: To conclude my argument for the debate, we have two arguments being presented. The first by my opponent, who claims there are other things than video games causing violence; and myself that state that video games do technically cause violence. My opponent did not define the topic of the word "violence", making it not mean only one thing but multiple, while I used the definition of violence as an emotion. Violence does occur whenever a person plays a video game for about 40 minutes, even though they may just get angry and not do any criminal action. As well as earlier within the debate, my opponent even admitted on most of my points; meaning that he "dropped" the debate. With the given statement, on the fourth round, being: "Yes I have agreed with you on many things. In fact most of your argument is completely true and I know this from experience". So voters, who do you think deserves the win? My opponent, who dropped the debate within the middle, or I, who pushed on and added more arguments. Thank you for this debate my fellow opponent!

Title: Video Games do not Cause Violence Content: Do video games cause violence? In a simple answer, yes. In the past 15 years, the number of gamers has gone up drastically due to both increased gaming quality and the new notions of multiplayer games, such as MMO (Massively Multiplayer Online) games and simple 'LAN' games which allow you to play with a friend. Allow me to quote a news article. "On April 20, 1999, two seniors walked into their Colorado high school carrying assault rifles, and they opened fire. They shot dozens of people, killing 12 students and one teacher, and the nation was floored. School shootings had happened before, but this was a new scope of carnage, and in the ensuing search for answers it came out the shooters had spent a lot of time playing violent video games." I'm sure everyone is aware that the PG rating on First Person Shooter games, or pretty much any game that contains violence or sex is literally just ink. Do people really think that kids underage pay attention to those ratings? Get with the modern world. Though it may be unfortunate, it's common knowledge that children participate in over 18 activities including not limited to these video games. It was only last year that an 8 year old shot and killed his caretaker (87 years old) after playing a particularly violent video game. It's people like that little boy who are most vulnerable to influence from video games and from adults who encourage that sort of behavior that are often encountered online. The real reason these games cause violence is because they are given to people who are sometimes mentally unhinged, and also to small children who can easily pirate them from the web. The facts state that these games are mentally damaging to many people. But the biggest problem of all lies in the age rating, because it means nothing. In fact, I'd be willing to bet children want to play those games more, to feel like a proper adult. Winning in a game is a childish notion of victory and defeat is the same. Those notions, however, have killed people in the past. That is proof enough that the games cause violence.

Title: Fortnight is an example of gun violence Content: Now my opponent has started going off about...video games? This is clearly off-topic, because the name of the debate is clearly talking about the fortnight, which as we established, is a period of two weeks. Even if this debate were about video games causing violence, their evidence is suspect. They point out that 97% of teens aged 12-17 play video games, and yet how many of them engage in gun violence? A microscopic percentage, I'd imagine. They also say that the American Psychological Association takes a "firm stance" against children playing violent games. First of all, where's your source? Second, the APA isn't infallible. Until the 70s, they classified homosexuality as a "mental disorder", which is clearly based on archaic prejudices and has no evidence to support it. [1] This may be a case of the same.But none of that matters, because as I said, my opponent is off-topic and the win goes to me by default. I would advise my opponent that next time, they should be more careful about laying down rules and definitions in Round 1. And to watch their spelling.Sources:1. https://www.psychiatry.org...

Title: Video Games Lead To Violence Content: There was a study done with 200 kids, with kids the age of 10 or 11, showing that the longer they played video games, the more aggression was stored up in the kids. Children who played for longer than three hours each day had higher levels of aggression and lower levels of academic engagement. Considering the vast number of children and youth who use video games and that more than 85% of video games on the market contain some form of violence, the public has understandably been concerned about the effects that using violent video games may have on individuals, especially children and adolescents. Now admittedly that video games are not the main reason for mass homicide and school shootings because it all comes from the person's family, environment, and chemical imbalances that they might hold but like you said, "Video games can assist with the growth and development of our brain." While video games can be healthy for brain development they can do just the complete opposite in people, especially in children and adolescents, because their brains are still developing. Scientific research has demonstrated an association between violent video game use and both increases in aggressive behavior, aggressive affect, aggressive cognitions and decreases in prosocial behavior, empathy, and moral engagement. Playing violent video games causes more aggression, bullying, and fighting. 60% of middle school boys and 40% of middle school girls who played at least one Mature-rated (M-rated) game hit or beat up someone, compared with 39% of boys and 14% of girls who did not play M-rated games. A 2014 peer-reviewed study in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that habitual violent video game playing had a causal link with increased, long-term, aggressive behavior. Several peer-reviewed studies have shown that children who play M-rated games are more likely to bully and cyberbully their peers, get into physical fights, be hostile, argue with teachers, and show aggression towards their peers throughout the school year.

Title: Video games are not a significant cause of violence in children Content: To begin, in the last round I defined the word "violence", and its definition being: "Behavior involving an action intending to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something". Then, I asked my opponent if this is the goal in most video games, and my opponent replied. Quoted by my opponent, he said, in this round: "Yes the goal in most video games is kill the enemy, destroy this, eradicate that. achieve this by ridding of this". So if my opponent admits that the goal in video games are the following actions, listed under the definition of violence, isn't the player already violent within playing the game? He or she must be violent, for willing to play a game that involves killing or injuring others within the elements of the Gameplay. My opponent also says, after admitting the already violence in video games, and quotes: "But this debate revolves around why video games influence kids or don't influence kids to do physical harm in real life". My opponent did not clarify this in the first round or within the topic. The topic is: "Video games are not a significant cause of violence in children", where I am "Con", and stating that kids do get violent from video games, but will 99% of the time not cause any real threat within society. The definition of violence can also be defined as: "Strength of emotion or an unpleasant natural force"; not in the sense of a criminal, or unjustly action. My opponent did not clarify the definition of "violence", so it can mean multiple meanings. With that in mind, kids do get a little violent after playing video games commonly that involve any certain aggressive action. Evidence to support this argument is from the article titled: "Violent Video Games and Aggressive Behavior, where is says: "Tend to be more aggressive after playing video games for at least 30 to 40 minutes". Where I previously mentioned that 91% of kids play video games for an average time of 13.5 hours; above the requirement to get "aggressive". So following the topic, video games are, technically, a significant cause of violence. In the previous argument, I brought up the reason of why kids 91% of kids play video games everyday for 13.5 hours, and the reasoning was because of adults and parents ignoring on what their child does; because of adult type responsibilities. My opponent states, with the given quote, that: "I would never ask 'Why parents do not take these away from their children' because it has nothing to do with the argument. Although I agree its a problem that parents forget about the rating system. ". It actually does because its the biggest influence into having kids play video games with violence, with parents forgetting the rating system. Which my opponent refuses to rebuttal because of knowing the truth that this is a major influence within the debate, which actually does prove that kids play violent video games and influence violence upon them; because of the neglect of the rating system within the video game. My opponent then agrees with me that kids tend to stay more inside, than out. Previously, I mentioned because of this more kids will tend to play video games, then watch television. And also, previously, I brought up the statistic that at least 70% of kids stay inside, when given the decision, than outside. My opponent says that this does not matter, when it does because if kids rather stay inside than outside, then there has to be an influence somewhere to play a video game. Like stated previously, 82% of prefer to play video games than any other activity. So this is relevant if kids are willing to stay inside, than outside. For my opponents argument, he states that there is a more major influence on the outside world than inside. I will admit that there is, but I have a few statistics to disapprove my opponents argument. To begin, I like to bring up a term titled "Video Game Addiction", where it is defined as: "Video game overuse, pathological or compulsive and excessive use of computer games and/or video games". Video game addiction happens, and once it does; players do not want to stop playing the video game. Stated under the website "Addiction Recovery", it states that video game addiction occurs because of the player desiring power within their lives, which is easier done in a game, than real life. Children are more prone towards this type of addiction, because of having a more undeveloped brain, and are actually the biggest targets for this addiction. In 2014, 61% of children have at least missed more than five days of school in order to play video games; because of it being fun. So if kids are practically skipping school to play video games, why do you still think that it is more of the outside world? Even in the outside world, there are still more influences to play these violent video games, than being the "rejected" one. In a article, titled: "Global ad spending in video games to top $7.2B in 2016", it is easily stated that a ton of money is spent on advertising for a video game. Where it populates the country consistently, and in a statistic from "Statista", it states that at least 76% of people are influenced by video game advertisements. So if my opponent claims that there are more influences in the outside world, why is there still many influences to play these violent video games? My opponent even agrees that video games are a popular source of media, and therefore stands upon my argument in which kids are heavily influenced to play these violent video games. My opponent still disagrees that because of video games being popular, with the given statement from my opponent being: "I find it funny that you say because video games are the most popular they are therefore one of the main and only reasons for violent acts and thoughts in kids". Stated under the article, titled "The Role and Influence of Mass Media", the media heavily influences a lot of actions or ideas within society. Examples, that they provided, include the different trends of clothes in different time periods (Wearing 80's clothing at the time and now being very weird towards today's society), and the determination of whether to be afraid or happy in a certain event. So media does have a huge influence, and if my opponent agrees that video games are popular; then how are video games not causing violence within children? My opponent also brought up some statistics within the following link he provided, but that evidence can easily be counter argued with a "Copy & Paste Method". My opponent got his evidence from a "Pro" and "Con" website, where it gives the Pro's and Con's within the site. This is, factually, not a reliable source where it can be counter argued very easily; and should not be used; especially when my opponent just copied and pasted his argument, instead of stating his opinion with evidence to support it. And also breaks the moral of a debate! To conclude this round, let me state that I have brought many counter arguments towards my opponent. My opponent provided some counter arguments, but did not bring any evidence or common logic within the debate; even though stated by my opponents rules of: "Burden of proof is shared, so any thing claimed as a 'fact' must have a source. Anything claimed opinion has to have 'logic' back that up and this affects both con and pro. It is up to the voters to decide what exactly is fact and logic to themselves". While I counter argued most of my opponents arguments, and brought up some new arguments. The new arguments of major influences of the outside world, instead of ones comfort zone. Sources: www. pamf. org/parenting-teens/general/media-web/violentgames. html www. rootsofaction. com/video-games-for-kids-more-good-than-bad-for-development/ www. focusonthefamily. com/parenting/protecting-your-family/parents-guide-to-video-games/hooked-the-addictive www. dana. org/Cerebrum/2009/Video_Games_Affect_the_Brain%E2%80%94for_Better_and_Worse/ www. venturebeat. com/2011/09/12/global-ad-spending-in-video-games-to-top-7-2b-in-2016/ www. addictionrecov. org/Addictions/? AID=45 www. statista. com/topics/868/video-games/ www. cliffsnotes. com/sciences/sociology/contemporary-mass-media/the-role-and-influence-of-mass-media

Title: Do Video Games Create Violence (Genius Hour) Content: Video games do not cause children or any players to be violent, this is a myth. There are tons of studies that argue the case that video games are detrimental to our society but these studies only see and argue for one side of the spectrum.

Title: Video Games do not increase or perpetuate juvenile violence Content: First, according to uslegal.com, juvenile courts only cover persons under the age of 18, so we have to go off that age. The American Psychological Association states on June 7, 2010, that the only children who showed aggression after exposure to violent video games already displayed aggressive characteristics beforehand. This evidence indicates that video games do not increase violence, as stated in the resolution, as people who have violent characteristics in the first place are drawn to it. Therefore, per the resolution, we see that video games do not increase violence, nor perpetuate it. Regarding his 60 minutes evidence, this goes along with the above contention, that people with violent characteristics go the video games in the first place. The evidence says, "who had played Grand Theft Auto day and night for months." That quote alone shows the kind of mental state this person was in beforehand. Once again, this evidence is pointing to the Pro side, that video games do not increase or perpetuate violence. Regarding his desensitization of violence argument, Richard Rhodes of Rolling Stone found several flaws methodologically with over 200 studies regarding violent video games, and came to the conclusion that "The research no more supports the consensus on media violence than it supported the conclusions of the eugenics consensus eighty years ago that there are superior and inferior 'races,' with White Northern Europeans at the top." The studies that my opponent has been bringing up always mention some form of correlation between video games and violence, however, correlation does not necessary mean causation. According to british psychologist Guy Cumberbatch, "Finding that people who enjoy violent media may also be aggressive is tantamount to observing that those who play football also enjoy watching it on television. 'The correlational nature of this study means that causal statements are risky at best,' the authors admit. ...All in all, new evidence is exceptionally weak, and in its one-sided approach it has a depressingly familiar ring to it. ...Studies to date have been notably biased towards seeking evidence of harm. This 'blame game' may be fun for some researchers to play, and knee-jerk reactions such as the APA's press release may be media-friendly. But we deserve better." All in all, there is no link between correlation and causation. For the reasons I stated in opening, and the fact that there is no link between correlation and causation, I urge Pro vote.

Title: Video games do not cause children to commit crimes Content: Con has forfeited and never stated any evidence that video games make kids depressed or aggressive. He didn't also site sources. My arguments still stand and have not been rebutted and stay on the topic con this about video games not TV Games have quadrupled 1995-2008 and there has been a massive drop in arrest record reports. Just to show the studies of video games say that "children get into less physical fights" this shows how video games do not cause our violence. If you banned video games there will be still more murders and school attacks 2. The Supreme Court went up against the government about trying to banned video games as shown in the link below games. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com... Like I said just banning video games there would be more mass murders and it will put lots of gaming industries out of money just because people think video games persuade children to criminal behavior. 3. Again to state that cons argument was wrong 'killing the people and animals' just exactly what I said still kill for ivory and animal skins and you cannot change that there will be still more and more poachers and about the killing of others that"s something that will continue to happen like rape, gun crimes, kidnapping will still happen no matter what. Not every video game has shooting in it.

Title: should kids under age 12 play violent video games Content: Con forfeited, and I extend my argument. There is no reason why kids should not play violent video games, as there is no evidence to show that violent video games engenders violent behavior in kids (pro did not even make this claim - in fact, there was no mention of how "violent" video games contrasts with video games in general from the pro side). Therefore, pro failed to uphold the BOP and con wins by default.

Title: Games do not cause people to become violent. Content: Observation: Since the resolution is "games do not cause people to become violent" All I have to prove is that in some cases and some studies violence happens from video games I will just respond to his one and only argument.. which is literally just video games don't cause violence well I have proof it has. On April 20, 1999, two seniors walked into their Colorado high school carrying assault rifles, and they opened fire. They shot dozens of people, killing 12 students and one teacher, and the nation was floored. School shootings had happened before, but this was a new scope of carnage, and in the ensuing search for answers it came out the shooters had spent a lot of time playing violent video games [source: Ward]. http://electronics.howstuffworks.com... Since then, in the wake of each new, senseless massacre, the entertainment proclivities of the shooters are one of the first things reported by the press. The 20-year-old who killed 20 first-graders and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary in Connecticut in 2012 played violent video games. So did the 24-year-old who shot dozens of people in an Aurora, Colo., movie theater that same year [source: Jaccarino]. http://electronics.howstuffworks.com... So yeah these are some examples of cases from video games. Video games increase the chance of someone killing another person because they learn more about violence and tactics that could be used against another person. Movies fit here as well violent or sexual movies can result in someone doing violent or sexual actions earlier. I am not saying violent video games 100% of the time result in killings, if that was true America would be a war zone, I am just saying playing video games can cause some people to become violent and as I will provide in a second the violence doesn't have to be a shooting. Here are some studies/examples of video games causeing certain forms of violence. Increasing reports of bullying can be partially attributed to the popularity of violent video games. The 2008 study Grand Theft Childhood reported that 60% of middle school boys who played at least one Mature-rated game hit or beat up someone, compared to 39% of boys that did not play Mature-rated games Playing violent video games increases aggressive behavior and arousal. [27] A 2009 study found that it takes up to four minutes for the level of aggressive thoughts and feelings in children to return to normal after playing violent video games. It takes five to ten minutes for heart rate and aggressive behavior to return to baseline. Video games that show the most blood generate more aggressive thoughts. When blood is present in video games, there is a measurable increase in arousal and hostility. Conclusion: I agree that this violence can be avoided but what you have to understand is that it still causes killings to happen for some people. It's kind of like with smoking. Some people end up smoking if they hang around friends who smoke but others can resist peer pressure. I am not saying remove video games I am just trying to prove that for some people it increases violence and results in violent actions. I agree it can be avoided but all I have to prove on my side that video games can/have caused some to be violent. Also video games can cause some people to feel happiness by causing pain to theirs as well. Video games can result in more knowledge on violence and influences in certain areas just like movies. Movies and video games are almost the same thing just people play the video games. Both can influence the mind and actions.

Title: Do kids imitate what they see on screen, cinema, videogames, etc. and if so should we stop it Content: Greetings! The first part of this debate, “Do kids imitate what they see on screen, cinema, videogames, etc.” is largely an evidence battle. I, as Pro, will be asserting that yes, children do, in fact, become more violent for watching violent movies or television shows or playing violent video games. I feel more than well-supported by the scientific literature here. First, children who played violent video games were found to be more aggressive in the next months, regardless of nationality. [1] Although the studies in the referenced meta-analysis likely used adults, given the similarities in reactions to various social situations between children and adults, I’d suggest that evidence of video-game-induced violence in adults could also be used as evidence of video-game-induced violence in children. [2] I present two other studies which not only conclude that players of violent video games tend toward more violent behavior, but offer explanations of the mechanisms involved. [3][4] Second, there are also multiple studies indicating the same increase in aggression linked to other violent media. [5][6][7] Again, I feel as though the scientific literature supports my position here. Feel free to contest the evidence provided or provide counter-evidence for dispute. The second part of this debate, “Should we stop it,” is a moral decision. However, I believe this is easily answered by asking ourselves if we want to predispose large numbers of the future generations to more violent behavior. I think any rational person would agree that this is not something we want for the future. Under a utilitarian stance, as the benefit of violent video games (short term pleasure) does not even come close to cancelling out the potential negative outcomes (a higher propensity for war, violent crimes, overall rudeness, crudeness, and douchebaggery), I suggest that, if it can be established with reasonable certainty that violent video games, movies, and television shows cause more violent behavior in children, they should be withheld from them. [1] http://pediatrics.aappublications.org... [2] http://www.soc.iastate.edu... [3] http://web.missouri.edu... [4] http://lol.medieraadet.dk... [5] http://www.psychology.iastate.edu... [6] http://pediatrics.aappublications.org... [7] http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...

Title: video game violence Content: First and foremost, it's necessary to recognize that saying video games may increase the violent tendencies in some does not in any way mean to suggest that if you play violent video games you will invariably become a violent person. However, this does not mean that most will be unaffected, either. Even if only subtley, violent video games do in fact increase violent tendencies. Studies have shown that not only do violent video games produce an increased amount of emotional arousal, even when compared to similarly exciting but less violent video games, but that they also result in a decrease in brain activity in areas involving self control. One must also consider how younger children are much more easily influenced. Repetition is a key step in learning, and children are exposed again and again to violent actions with little or no consequences. Again, while not always, this does have potential to increase their own violent behavior--maybe not beating up any kid that looks at them, but possibly being more aggressive or reckless. And I do not disagree that a lot of this is dependent on young children playing games suited for an older audience, something that would not occur with more strict parental regulation. But seriously, let's be realistic--parents simply do not regulate things like video games to the extent they should.

Title: Video games are actually good for you Content: I will start this round with rebutting your counter arguments and then provide more information and facts of how video games (violent and not) supply numerous benefits. Rebuttals :My opponent began with how violent video games give children bad ideas and causes a bad influence, video games of violent nature are most definitely for those of us who can tell the difference between fiction and non-fiction and what is wrong and right. Also, the ESA (Entertainment Software Association) have ratings for games that should not be played by youth. I advise that parents and children abide by those ratings, and if they do not then those families can use with their own caution. I never stated that violent video games were good for children.The opponent brings up another concern of staring at a screen for to long will ruin users eyes. In Times magazine, Markham Heid writes of Doctor Joshua Dunaief who documents that most cases of 'Computer Vision Syndrome' are actually caused by either, dry eyes or your eyes becoming too fatigued to actually interpret correctly. "there are tiny muscles inside your eyeball that change the shape of your eye’s lens in order to bring whatever you’re seeing into focus," after time the muscles become tired and can no longer focus, computers are not to blame. Many do complain of our generation being 'dead' and socially inactive, however, maybe older generations just simply don't get it. As technology gets more and more advanced, the more we want to use it. Many children do spend their weekends playing video games, because they spend 8 hours every day for 5 days straight learning. We're spent and tired of being in schoo, video games can be a relaxer. Everyone has a hobby and video games is one. A hobby with benefits also. My opponent seems to be one of many who link shootings to violent video games, however, 91% of society play video games! Therefore the claim that violent video games cause violence is irrelevant. Sure there is alot of thought provoking choices you can make when playing these first shooter games but a potential crinimal can also get ideas from simply watching the news, like so many do every single morning.Claims :One of the numerous benefits of of playing video games, violent included, is the lesson of teamwork. Many games have an option to play against and with other gamers all over the world. This can teach players of how sometimes, when you can not succed on your own, you may be able to succed with another to aid you. Players will realize that when two, or more, come together, great things can happen.Washington Post's article, "A New Study Shows Benefits of Violent Video Games fo Kids' Learning," states that "A 2013 meta-analysis found that playing shooter video games improved a player’s capacity to think about objects in three dimensions just as well as academic courses to enhance these same skills, according to the study. This enhanced thinking was not found with playing other types of video games, such as puzzles or role-playing games." showing that even video games containing violence have their own gains. The artcle also documented that these games can help in childrens problem solving skills and a boost in creativity.

Title: Do you think that watching violence on TV and in films encourages youths to be aggressive and antis Content: This is an important topic, but sadly not enough research has been done, and those that have been conducted aren't as conclusive as some (such as Pro I'd imagine) would like. Unfortunately, Pro has only provided anecdotal evidence to support their claim that exposing children to violent imagery in television programs and video games induces more violent tendencies among the recipient. This is often the case, as video games and television are an easy scapegoat. It's convenient to be able to point a finger at one particular cause and be done with it. However, the idea that these factors induce violent behavior in children is a post hoc fallacy. The majority of children play video games [1], obviously some of them will be aggressive. The truth is, there are many, many factor in determining violent and/or aggressive behavior in youths [2]. They can include poor parenting/role modeling for your child, mental or physical health issues, your work or school environment, socioeconomic factors, and many others. However, the source I provided fails to mention television and video games as a factor. Therefore, it can't be said with certainty that Pro's resolution is true. "all [children] are learning is to be rebellious, dishonest, disrespectful, bullies, and most of all they show no compassion and love towards others. " Another interesting piece of information is that children these days are more well-behaved and respectful than their parents' generation [3]. The only reason I already know this is because I'm in the middle of a debate with another person that thinks children "these days" are spoiled. I look forward to hearing your rebuttal in Round 2. Best of luck. Sources: [1] . https://techcrunch.com... [2] . http://www.healthline.com... [3] . http://www.independent.co.uk...

Title: Violent Video Games Cause Violent Behavior Content: Good luck to him/her! :)Before I begin, I want to point out that the onus is on my opponent to prove that the resolution is true. This is because:a) The burden is on him to prove a positive statement (i. e. the resolution), as it's impossible to prove a negative claim. b) The resolution demands that he prove that violent video games cause violent behavior, and that I prove they do not. This means that so long as I'm refuting my opponent's arguments, then it's sufficient for me to win the debate, as I'm disproving my opponent's position, i. e. showing how violent video games do not cause violent behavior. OVERVIEW TO MY OPPONENT'S CASE:My opponent seems to be using the tactic of just citing sources without actually writing out an arugment. There's a few problems with doing this. First, this is just the appeal to authority fallacy. He's just showing the articles to me and saying that I'm wrong because it's all right there. By that line all I have to do is show my own sources and nothing in his last round stands anymore because the sources would cancel each other out. Without writing any actual arguments, he doesn't have anything to advance in the round, and thus no way to win. Second, this is a debate between me and the user blackbird. If I wanted to debate the authors of those articles, I'd contact them and do so. It's unfair to me to be expected to read through every article and respond to everything in them while all my opponent did was just list off a few results from Google. Judges, I ask that you don't let him get away with this kind of behavior. If he doesn't actually give you any arguments of his own, then vote him down. But, even though it's unfair for me to have to, I read through his sources. Let's examine each one in depth:THE CNN SOURCE:His first source is a source from CNN talking about the link between violent video games and aggression. This source is a wash for a few reasons:First, he's mistakingly saying that aggression and violent behavior are the same thing. That's not the case though. I can be an aggressive person without doing a single violent thing. Aggression doesn't necessitate violent acts and the onus is on him to prove that it does. Second, his own source admits that there could be an outside reason other than the violence that's causing the aggression. To quote his own article, ""It's not the violence per se that's the problem, it's the context and goals of the violence," said Olson, citing past research on TV violence and behavior. ". Since my opponent has to be proving that it's the violence that's causing the violent acts, as per the resolution, if I show that there's an outside reason other than violence that's causing these violent acts then you vote con. Third, his own source admits that his own source has too vague of definitions, and that there needs to be better definitions of what a violent video game constitutes and what aggressive behavior constitutes. To quote his own source, ". But she argues that the label "violent video games" is too vague. Researchers need to do a better job at defining what is considered a violent video game and what constitutes aggressive behavior, she added. " This means that a) his source doesn't fully defend the position he's taking and b) it further confirms my earlier point that aggression isn't the same thing as violent acts. THE TIME SOURCE: My opponent's next source is a source from the New York Times, talking about, again, how exposure to violent video games leads to aggression. This source is even worse. First, refer back to my above argument about how aggression and violent acts are not the same thing. Second, his own source contradicts his claim. To quote his source, "Anderson and his team, however, did not see any significant difference in empathy among the players who played more or fewer hours. That confirmed earlier lab-based studies that showed both undergraduates who played violent games and those that played non-violent ones were equally likely to help scientists pick up dropped pens. " And this is important because if there's no difference in empathy between those who play violent video games and those who do not, the claim that violent vidoe games lead to aggression looks even worse than it did before. Also, if violent video game players are showing the same levels of empathy as non-violent video game players are, then they're just as likely to also commit acts of violence as those who do not, since empathy is the opposite of aggression (helping someone as opposed to hurting them), which suggests an alternative cause to the violent acts than the violence in video games. Third, his own source blatantly argues against his position. To quote, "The evolving literature is why some researchers, including Christopher Ferguson, chair of the psychology department at Stetson University, insist there isn’t strong evidence that exposure to violent video games leads to more aggressive behavior. He notes, for example, that the rise in popularity of video gaming has not been matched by a similar rise in violent crime among adolescents who are most likely to play them. Studies that link violent video games to violent behavior, he says, often fail to account for other factors that can contribute to aggression, such as violence in the home, abuse, and mental illness. " This is catastrophic for my opponent because it shows that a) violent video games don't lead to more aggression, b) if it did then there would be a corrolation between video game and violent crime among adolescents, which his own source says doesn't exist, and c) that there are alternative explanations to the violent behavior (i. e. domestic violence, abuse, and mental disease) that causes the violent behavior. THE PAMF SOURCE:My opponent's third source is from the Palo Alto Medical Foundation, and makes the claim that violent video games leads to aggression. This source is trash as well. First, refer to the above as to how aggression and violent acts are not the same thing. Secondly, the source doesn't actually present any kind of evidence. It says a bunch of stuides have said things (" A 2004 study by Gentile, Lynch, Linder & Walsh found that teens who play violent video games for extended periods of time: . .. ), without giving us anything about the study (i. e. methodology, sample size, etc. ). This means it's impossible to verify the integrity of the study conducted, which means there's no reason we should trust the accuracy of the study for the purpose to this debate. Third, even his own source won't defend the accuracy of outside sources/websites. To quote, "[B]elow are links PAMF accessed when researching this topic. PAMF does not sponsor or endorse any of these sites, nor does PAMF guarantee the accuracy of the information contained on them. " If the source he's citing to make x claim won't even defend the information they used to make that claim, there's absolutely no reason we should trust his source. THE PSYCHOLOGY TODAY SOURCE:His fourth and final source is from Psychology today and is saying that---wait, where have I seen this before? Is it making the claim that violent video games lead to aggression? Oh no, it is. .. Well, might as well dive right in. First, refer above to why violent acts and aggression are not the same thing. Secondly, the empirical evidence cited by this article is not even linked, just the results were stated, meaning we have no way to confirm that the study was a valid study. Third, the evidence it uses isn't even significant. The results from the study said, and I quote, "These studies find that playing violent video games does, indeed, cause aggression. The effect is a correlation of about r = .20", which is statistically insignificant. It's more likely that an alternative cause, like one's previously mentioned, are causing the violent behavior other than the violence in video games themselves. HIS OTHER TWO SOURCES:My opponent cites two more sources, which, as he claims, show how children "will emulate Power Rangers and all sorts of things they see on television as well ". This is irrelevant to the debate. Our discussion is about violent video games. Anything outside of this should have no relevance to the debate at hand. IN CONCLUSION:I have gone through all of my opponent's claims and thuroughly refuted each and every source he cited. Moreover, he has not actually presented a single argument this debate, only letting google do his arguing for him. This means that a) you're defaulting to voting con because he doesn't have a single argument to advance through the round, which means he isn't proving that violent video games cause violent behavior, and b) even if you're counting his source-spam as an argument, I've gone through and shown how his sources are both flawed and contradictory to his position, providing me with evidence for my position, meaning I'm doing the better job upholding my resolutional burden. :)

Title: Violent video games, banning of Content: I think that violent video games should be banned because what good are they doing to society!!! Violent video games encourage a more violent society. The exposure to violence such as killing and assault. The extent to this brutality has become ridiculous and we are letting people play them for hours on end. What is this doing to our young people who are influenced by what they watch. For example there was an 14 year old boy committed murder with a hammer after repeatedly playing manhunt which displays the same kind of violent behavior

Title: No video game is purposely designed to anger Players Content: After reading your opinion on "Are video games causing violence in teens?"I decided that I would like to Debate this with you right away. http://www.debate.org...There are video games designed to anger players and the ones that are not specifically for that purpose can anger players if the goal is not completely obvious, or if the levels are above and beyond the person's skill level. I invite you to start with either more in depth explanation of your opinion or a reasonable restatement of what you truly meant. Please go as in depth as you feel in all three rounds and I will gladly argue with the disadvantage of only having two rounds to complete my argument.

Title: Video games encourage violent behavior Content: To what extent the content of the video game doesn't make children violent, The content gives "children" (all players really) a way to identify and emphasize with violence. The act of playing video games alone can cause a distorted concept of reality that inhibits the mind from thinking logically and induces stress leaving the players to resort to the most basic human instinct of control-- violence. These are the premises that I will use to start my argument. Please feel free to begin the next round with a detailed exploration of your disagreement with as much or as little evidence as you need.

Title: Violent video games desensitize individuals to real violence Content: I concur with you argument that humans can contextualize violence am not suggesting that there is a direct correlation between violence and video games. This debate is based solely on the proposition that violent video games desensitize individuals to real violence. First, for my counterargument, I would like to define what it means to desensitize. dictionary.com 1.to lessen the sensitiveness of, or to reduce responses to external conditions or stimulation. Now, alluding to my first arguments, after playing the violent video games, the subjects had less of a response to the violent episodes. Therefore, they were desensitized. It has been proven that people adapt after increased exposure to stimuli and become desensitized to it, so no matter what you can't argue that violent video games do no desensitize individuals to violence at all. The evidence supporting both your and my side is lacking, so there is no ways to say with a high degree of certitude that they do or do not have long term desensitization effects, however that is not what the proposition states. One reason I go on debate.org is to see the opposite sides of issues. Thank you for providing such great information! Now I have a different perspective. I hope I didn't waste your time. I'm probably going to lose, but we'll see what the voters decide. X) -Paramountdesktop