The discussion about violent video games tends to engender extreme positions, each of which are deserving of deep skepticism. Ferguson's (2015, this issue) claim that humans can do something repeatedly with no effect on them should be examined carefully, especially as it violates most established psychological and learning theories. In this commentary, we examine three aspects of Ferguson's claim. First, it is a typical rhetorical trick to sow doubt, but it is valuable to examine the doubting claims. Second, it is good rhetoric to direct attention in only one direction, but it is valuable to examine that direction within its broader outlook. Third, it is good rhetoric to imply bias on the part of one position, but it is valuable to examine the potential biases on all sides. Good science definitely requires skeptics. The problem with the violent video game debate is perhaps that we have not been skeptical enough.