query: Do violent video games contribute to youth violence?

positive: violent video games well no B/c some kids know how to control them self like no id would start killing people b/c of one game and like for example Gta V no kid would start robbing cars and they could have family time b/c for example I play with y cousin black ops 2 and we still have time together

positive: violent video games some kids around my neighborhood one day i was out side and this kid and brother were talk about gta and they were going that they were going to beat up this with a pocket knife and and they jump the kid and i had to help the kid how was getting beat up i look at him and he had a stab wound

positive: violent video games i think playing violent video games can cause brain damage and they do nat spend time there family.they also can start fight in school

positive: Are Video Games really bad for people? 2 This debate is between Zebracakes and I, about whether video games are bad for people or not. The previous debate, I took the position of Con: For this one, I will take the position of Pro. Round 1: stating our Opinions. Round 2: Proving our side of the debate. I believe that video games can be be a very bad influence on people. For example, we have games like "Hate". Games also burn time that can be used for other, better purposes like exercise or schooling.

positive: Are Video Games the main cause for Violent Juvenile Crimes 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. [2] Video games often reward players for simulating violence, and thus enhance the learning of violent behaviors. Studies suggest that when violence is rewarded in video games, players exhibit increased aggressive behavior compared to players of video games where violence is punished. [23] Violent video games desensitize players to real-life violence. It is common for victims in video games to disappear off screen when they are killed or for players to have multiple lives. In a 2005 study, violent video game exposure has been linked to reduced P300 amplitudes in the brain, which is associated with desensitization to violence and increases in aggressive behavior. [24] A 2000 FBI report includes playing violent video games in a list of behaviors associated with school shootings. [25] Violent video games teach youth that violence is an acceptable conflict-solving strategy and an appropriate way to achieve one's goals. [26] A 2009 study found that youth who play violent video games have lower belief in the use of nonviolent strategies and are less forgiving than players of nonviolent video games. Violent video games cause players to associate pleasure and happiness with the ability to cause pain in others. [3] Young children are more likely to confuse fantasy violence with real world violence, and without a framework for ethical decision making, they may mimic the actions they see in violent video games. [4] Violent video games require active participation, repetition, and identification with the violent character. With new game controllers allowing more physical interaction, the immersive and interactive characteristics of video games can increase the likelihood of youth violence. [5] 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. [28] Playing violent video games causes the development of aggressive behavioral scripts [29]. A behavioral script is developed from the repetition of actions and affects the subconscious mind. An example of a common behavioral script is a driving script that tells drivers to get in a vehicle, put on a seat belt, and turn on the ignition. Similarly, violent video games can lead to scripts that tell youth to respond aggressively in certain situations. Violence in video games may lead to real world violence when scripts are automatically triggered in daily life, such as being nudged in a school hallway. A 1998 study found that 21% of games sampled involved violence against women [23]. Exposure to sexual violence in video games is linked to increases in violence towards women and false attitudes about rape such as that women incite men to rape or that women secretly desire rape. [30] Several studies in both the United States and Japan have shown that, controlling for prior aggression, children who played more violent video games during the beginning of the school year showed more aggression than their peers later in the school year. [31] 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. [32] When youth view violence in video games, they are more likely to fear becoming a victim of acts of violence. According to a 2000 joint statement by six leading national medical associations including the American Medical Association and American Psychological Association, this escalated fear results in youth not trusting others and taking violent self-protective measures. [33] Violent video games can train youth to be killers. The US Marine Corps licensed Doom II in 1996 to create Marine Doom in order to train soldiers. In 2002, the US Army released first-person shooter America's Army to recruit soldiers and prepare recruits for the battlefield.

positive: Violent videogames/movies/books/music do not lead to violent behavior. Numerous studies have been done and it has been found that after playing violent video games, listening to violent music and watching violent movies the children involved have become more violent. The books may be the tools they used to find ideas on how to release their violent instincts. (I personally feel books do not do so) Also, you argued that violent people are attracted to violent forms of entertainment. There was a study on this and it was found that the most violent were worst affected by the violent entertainment. This means that the violent become even more violent. So you are right that the violent people are attracted to the violent forms of entertainment but this means they still become more violent.

positive: Video Games Cause Violence 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.

positive: Open Challenge - 4 Topics <Psychology> Let’s say your 6 year old kid said he would beat you up if you did not pull over and buy him ice cream, the parents would not stop, why? Because, even with the child’s aggression, the parent know that there will be no backup to his claims. Now if you replaced the 6 year old child with a pro wrestler, then you may be more inclined to pull your car over. If you cannot realistically threaten others, than acting aggressive will not help. Playing Grand Theft Auto all day may lead to you wanting to crash more digital cars, or beat up more fantasy people(In the near future), the advisability of your agression will not change. We can connect this to a non-human example, which is always helpful when looking into psychology because if an idea only works on humans, than it is more likely that the idea does not have interpretation. Let us take a moose, or 3 straight hours you show the moose a video of moose fighting. Afterwards your moose will not rush out to find a rival to duel, why? The reason, is that the moose chances of victory do not increase, so why should it’s actions change? Obviously the topic at hand is much more complex, but it gives us a foothold on why violent video games should not have a lasting impact on the aggression of humans. Humans do not play games because the game is violent, instead they play the game for the challenge. Following that idea, it is more logical to assume that changing the difficulty of the game would have a much greater effect that changing the level of violence. <Difficulty> Andrew K. Przybylski of Rochester University released a report on the supposed link between violent video games and aggression. His report consisted of a series of 7 studies, I will explain them here(1). In study one Przybylsk let 99 players play two different games. One game was non-violent, and had relatively easy controls. The other game was violent, and had significantly more complex controls. Przybylsk and his team then asked each participant to rank 3 things, level of violence of the game, difficulty the participant had with the controls, and the aggression afterwards. As expected, difficulty with controls had a much stronger correlation with aggression than violence. In study two, two versions of the game Half-Life two were created. One was violent the other was not, both games had the same atmosphere and difficulty. When testing the participants, frustration with the difficulty of the level was a much better indicator of aggression that the violence of the game. Study three is similar to study two, but the difficulty of the controls of the game was changed. The game in question is tetris, a non-violent game, those participants with more difficult controls were more likely to have aggressive compulsions. Study four changed a few variable over study three, but reached the same conclusion. Competence was inversely proportional to aggression In study five 112 participants were given one of two complex games, one that was violent, the other was non-violent. Half the participants were given 10 minutes of practice time. As expected considering the results of the previous studies, those participants without practice time showed more violent tendencies, the violence of the game showed no correlation. Study six asked participants to dunk their arm in ice cold water, then play tetris. The game was set at various difficulties. The patients were then asked the current participant how long the next participant should put their arm into the water. The harder the game’s difficulty, the longer the current patient suggested the next subject put their hand in the water. In study 7 the researchers interviewed gamers on the games they play, and their aggressive tendencies. The difficulty of the game was a held a stronger correlation to aggression that the rating of the game. In conclusion, it is evident that, instead of the violence of the video game, the difficulty of the game is a much better indicator of the aggression of the player. Losing the game tends to provoke rage, it does not matter the violence of the game. <Empathy> In a study lead by Dr. Gregor Szycik(2), the researchers lead a study on the long term effects of video games on humans. This is important, as a vast majorities of other studies on this topic focused on short term effects. A group of gamers who played first person shooter for a minimum of two hours a day were compared to a group of people with no experience of violent video games. Each gamer refrained from playing the game for 3 hours, though most waited longer. The participants were asked a series of physiological questions, and were then showed pictures that were meant to provoke an emotional response. MRI scans were conducted on the brain during this time. The questionnaire reported no difference in aggression and empathy in gamers to non-gamers, and that finding was backed up by brain scans <Time> A study lead by Oxford University(3) found that the time playing video games lead to lower academic scores for children, but that change was incredibly minor. The study found that students who played video games generally had lower grades, the important thing, is that they found no correlation between the rating of the game. This is important, as it suggests that addiction to game would have a negative social effect while violence would have a negligible social effect. If you look at a more extreme case, you can look at Adam Lanza. He is, of course, the infamous Sandy Hook shooter, and was obviously mentally unstable. Many people were ready for the FBI to release document about how violent video games had effected Adam’s mental state, but they got a disappointing surprise. The game that effected Adam the most, was not violent, it was “Dance Dance Revolution”, a single player arcade game. Adam put an excessive amount of time into the game, suggesting that his disconnect from society was the real reason for his deteriorating mental state. This disconnect is important, as the Oxford study found that multiplayer games may increase a child’s ability to be social. <Third Variable> Previous studies on violence in video games have been criticized for not recording the atmosphere of the game. Controls, difficulty, and competition have all been shown to affect aggression, yet many studies neglect this. The importance of the studies I have linked is that many include a third variable, whether it be time or difficulty. This is extremely important, as the studies have found a much strong correlation with that third variable. Many first person shooters are mechanically hard and competitive, and that may be the real reason that some study have found a correlation between videogames and violence. In many of these studies, this correlation has been minimal enough that in no way would it constitute a negative social outcome. <Conclusion> In conclusion, it is evident that violent video games do not have an affect on society that can be deemed to be negative. The ever expanding library of rage quit videos on youtube also prove my point. The common denominator of the aggression in all of these videos is not violence of the video games, it is losing. It is clearly evident that addiction to game has a greater negative effect of society over violent video games. Correlation does not equal causation, and it is evident that any correlation that may be found would be the result of not examining every factor of the games being studied. Being competitive, or being a bit impatient cannot possibly be considered a negative social outcome. The average COD gamer is not going out punching people, or being overly aggressive because of the game.In fact, the most popular violent video games are multiplayer, so social interaction may be increasing. Many may consider online conversation “not real”, and it is obvious that too much time online can have a negative effect, but video games can build important social bonds for many people, myself included. In no way is society as a whole being affected by this, crime rates have continued to drop(4), as video game sales have continued to rise. I may be pushing it to say that the drop in juvenile crime may be the result of videogames, in fact I highly doubt it. But it is only logical to assume that the relatively cheap distractions may have played a role in that decrease. If violent video games did have a negative impact on society, than the 70 million copies of GTA V that were sold in stores should have resulted in an increase in crime. But never, in all my time of playing violent video games, have I ever had the urge to blow up a car; many people can share that sentiment. <Sources> 1.http://selfdeterminationtheory.org... 2.https://blog.frontiersin.org... 3.http://www.ox.ac.uk... 4.https://upload.wikimedia.org...

positive: Video Games I know that most video game players are good people who wouldn't actually hurt anyone else and I know that video games just games. Also all my cousins and most of my friends play video games and they're all good people. Video games and tv shows or movies that have lots of violence desensitize people to violence. When they see pictures of actual dead people on the news they're less likely to be grossed out or saddened by it. That doesn't mean people who play video games don't have emotions or are psychopaths or that they never get saddened by images of actual dead people but they are less likely to. Also we shouldn't premodern violence. Violence is only good for self defense. BTW I also play slender man. It's pretty scary and it's really fun but it's not that bloody or violent.

positive: Video Games cause violence 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...)

positive: Parents are responsible for raising their kids correctly. For one, the parents do not have to buy the game. and when they do sometime they don't look at the ratings of them games.they could accidentally end up buying a 5 year old a really violent game.children are like sponges they absorb what they see, causing them to put it into actions.

positive: Can video games be healthy 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

positive: Resolved: Violent video games cause increased aggressive behavior 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...)

positive: Violent Video Games Although I agree that many video games are far too violent and can promote killing and stealing, there are other factors. One such is parental involvement. If you don't have a dad/mom around, their non-presence alone can push kids towards suicidal and even violent thoughts. An article I have read, called "Do Video Games Make Teens Violent" from NewsMic, says that spending too much time in violent video games can take away from time in positive environments. In conclusion, video games alone do not cause violence, but must have several other factors to cause any real harm.

positive: should vilent video games be banned 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...

positive: is video games bad for kids The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, American Psychological Association, American Medical Association, American Academy of Family Physicians, and American Psychiatric Association, wrote in a July 26, 2000 "Joint Statement on the Impact of Entertainment Violence on Children" available at www.aap.org: "Children who see a lot of violence are more likely to view violence as an effective way of settling conflicts. Children exposed to violence are more likely to assume that acts of violence are acceptable behavior Viewing violence can lead to emotional desensitization towards violence in real life. It can decrease the likelihood that one will take action on behalf of a victim when violence occurs. Entertainment violence feeds a perception that the world is a violent and mean place. Viewing violence increases fear of becoming a victim of violence, with a resultant increase in self-protective behaviors and a mistrust of others. Viewing violence may lead to real life violence. Children exposed to violent programming at a young age have a higher tendency for violent and aggressive behavior later in life than children who are not so exposed. Although less research has been done on the impact of violent interactive entertainment (video games and other interactive media) on young people, preliminary studies indicate that the negative impact may be significantly more severe than that wrought by television, movies, or music." July 26, 2000- American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry American Academy of Family Physicians American Academy of Pediatrics American Medical Association American Psychiatric Association (APA) American Psychological Association Craig Anderson, PhD, Director of the Center for the Study of Violence, wrote in a 2009 article "FAQs on Violent Video Games and Other Media Violence," available on psychology.iastate.edu: "The results, overall, have been fairly consistent across types of studies (experimental, cross-sectional, and longitudinal) and across visual media type (television, films, video games). There is a significant relation between exposure to media violence and aggressive behavior. Exposing children and adolescents (or 'youth') to violent visual media increases the likelihood that they will engage in physical aggression against another person. By 'physical aggression' we mean behavior that is intended to harm another person physically, such as hitting with a fist or some object. A single brief exposure to violent media can increase aggression in the immediate situation. Repeated exposure leads to general increases in aggressiveness over time. This relation between media violence and aggressive behavior is causal." 2009- Craig Anderson, PhD David Greenfield, PhD, founder of The Center for Internet and Technology Addiction and Assistant Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Connecticut School of Medicine, said in a Sep. 20, 2013 panel discussion titled "Growing Up GTA" available at huffingtonpost.com: "My opinion on video game violence, which has a very powerful reward system wired into it, is that continued exposure desensitizes people to the experience of violence. But the other big issue, along with the reward structure, is that it teaches them a skill set that they might not otherwise develop, especially the first person shooter games. I have a real problem with giving people, in the name of entertainment, a technology that desensitizes violence, and then teaches you how to commit violence more accurately " and then elevating people's levels of dopamine" [T]hose studies have been absolutely supported. When you put people on a PET scanner or an functional MRI, their brain lights up like a Christmas tree when they're doing these games, especially when they hit the reward points that are designed by the gamers to" keep people gaming because that's how these games make their money. Nothing is engaged in at the levels that I see gaming at, as a form of entertainment or dopamine elevation, unless it's a narcotic like cocaine for instance. How could you be exposed to something this toxic and have it not affect you?" Sep. 20, 2013- David N. Greenfield, PhD Leland Yee, PhD, State Senator (D-CA) wrote in a June 22, 2009 amicus brief filed with the US Supreme Court for Video Software Dealers Association v. Schwarzenegger: "The interactive nature of video games is vastly different than passively listening to music, watching a movie, or reading a book. With interactive video games, the child becomes a part of the action which serves as a potent agent to facilitate violence and over time learns the destructive behavior. This immersion results in a more powerful experience and potentially dangerous learned behavior in children and youth... Just as the technology of video games improves at astonishing rates, so to does the body of research consistently demonstrate the harmful effects these violent interactive games have on minors. Over three thousand peer-reviewed studies, produced over a period of 30 years documenting the effects of screen violence (including violent video games), have now been published... 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." June 22, 2009- Leland Yee, PhD Brad Bushman, PhD, Professor of Communication and Psychology at The Ohio State University, stated the following in a Feb. 18, 2013 article titled "Why Do People Deny Violent Media Effects?" available at psychologytoday.com "People want to believe that if millions of people play violent video games and they don"t all become killers, then those games must be harmless. Unfortunately, that"s not true. We haven"t 'proven' video games directly cause violence because it can"t be proven. There is no way to ethically run experiments that see if some threshold of playing a violent game like Call of Duty may push a person into violence. But that doesn"t mean we are left without evidence. We know that video game violence is certainly correlated with violence " just like smoking is correlated with lung cancer. However, this does not mean that the research does not show causal effects; in fact it does, over and over again. We recently conducted a comprehensive review of 136 articles reporting 381 effects involving over 130,000 participants from around the world. These studies show that violent video games increase aggressive thoughts, angry feelings, physiological arousal (e.g., heart rate, blood pressure), and aggressive behavior. Violent games also decrease helping behavior and feelings of empathy for others. The effects occurred for males and females of all ages, regardless of what country they lived in. So the question then becomes why people and journalists repeatedly shrug off this compelling body of work." Feb. 18, 2013- Brad J. Bushman, PhD Pamela Eakes, Founder of Mothers Against Violence in America (MAVIA), wrote in an article titled "Do You Know What Video Games Your Children Are Playing?" on www.pbs.org (accessed Oct. 6, 2014): "Parents do know that children learn by observing, imitating what they observe, and acting on the world around them. According to child psychologist Michael Rich, children develop what psychologists call 'behavioral scripts.' They interpret their experiences and respond to others using those scripts. One can easily see how repeated exposure to violent behavioral scripts can lead to increased feelings of hostility, expectation that others will behave aggressively, desensitization to the pain of others, and an increased likelihood of interacting and responding to others with violence. Violent video games are an ideal environment in which to learn violence. Violent video games: Place the player in the role of th

positive: violent video games do NOT breed violence I have researched this topic thoroughly and I wish to definitively state that violent video games do not breed violence starting with the fact the violent video games likely draw a violent crowd not create one.

positive: Violence in video games does not significantly contribute to real world violence. There is possibly some things I didn't bother to clarify enough in my arguments. Particularly how desensitization caused by violent video games leads to an increase in violence outside of a military setting. I'll get to that and we should be crystal clear after that. Another thing I'll be hitting on is a logical fallacy my opponent has been using, which is basically her entire argument. AFFIRMING A DISJUNCT My opponents logical fallacy is called affirming a disjunct. Affirming a disjunct would look like this: Either A or B since A it's not B. Or if I wanted to write a more easy to understand example, here it is: Me or Debatability are debating. Since Debatability is debating it must mean I'm not. Anyway I'm not the best at writing examples, so if you're confused read the link that I'm using as a citation to prove my opponent's logical fallacy. . http://www.fallacyfiles.org... Here is how my opponent has used this logical fallacy. "A common argument against violence in video games is that violence in video games cause aggression. This is actually not the case. Carol Pichefsky notes that aggression is not caused by violent video games; rather, it is caused by a competitive environment " This doesn't prove that violent video games don't significantly contribute to real world violence. It merely shows that competition contributes significantly to real world violence. Both desensitization and competition can contribute significantly to real world violence. This isn't one of those either or situations. Competition is a huge reason for violence. If this weren't the case than evolution would have never occurred. VIOLENCE RATES The chart my opponent provided isn't really well cited. I can't pull up what those numbers even mean is it a chart showing international or national video games sales and crime? It doesn't even matter. Violent video games can contribute significantly to real world violence, while the crime rate decreases. The chart really just boils down to correlation stats as opposed to causation stats. VIDEO GAME'S EFFECTS "Studies suggest that video games give individuals an outlets to release aggression; there was a study done on inmates. An observer notes "If you give them video games, they"ll be less likely to start fights. So once a week we"d hook up a bunch of TVs in a classroom so all of the murderers and rapists could play Halo. There"s nothing more interesting than seeing guys who have killed multiple people deathmatching each other"" The article referenced no such studies of inmates. The quote my opponent grabbed was on cited from an author of a cracked. com article. It's just a funny story a former prison guard was recounting. The article did cite a few articles that showed some positive effects of violent video games, but none showed a decrease in aggression or violence as a result of playing them. NOT BORN TO KILL "Killing simulations that promote competition can have the same effect. So, it may not necessarily be the violence in the simulations that made the kill rates go up; it could be the competitive factor. " You miss the point these are training exercises and according to the research you've provided aggression is only increased for a short period after the competitive endeavor. The competition on the shooting range is always going to be there regardless of whether the target is shaped like a human or like a dart board with the red circle in the middle. According to my opponents own research showing that aggression only increases for a short period of time after competition, we must assume something else is going on there. I say and the research suggests it's desensitization. It's easier to shoot a real person when you've simulated the event 100s of times and have gotten rid of that natural repulsion of doing so. DESENSITIZE ME My opponent brings up a study that. Contradicts mine and suggests that very little if any desensitization occurs. Let's examine this study closer. "The study involved 122 male and female undergraduate students who fell into two categories: 45 participants who had some video game experience within the last six months and 77 students who reported no video game exposure. " . http://www.newswise.com... The students were asked this question on a survey. (Probably more, but relevant to this debate) 1. Have you played a video game within the last 6 months? So how many of these students only played 1 game the previous 6 months? How many had had less than 3 total hours of videogaming those 6 months? How many of the non videogames players were exposed to a ton of other forms of violent media, such as slasher flicks? These types of studies need to have participants chosen more carefully. The study I showed uses people that play videogames a lot vs people that play rarely or if at all. It's a far better indicator of the effects of violent videogames. The study I've shown indicates that a lot of exposure to violent videogames makes it more likely that somebody will pull the trigger. "2. This study involves a large amount of competition. This is what really makes this study invalid. The competition is what could really be promoting the regular gamers to push the button. When constantly being exposed to competition via video games, one is more likely to show aggression, as I have proven in my constructive. So, rather than the aggression being caused by video game violence / desensitization, it is caused by the regular competition provided by video games. " The study I've shown though small indicates that exposure to a lot of videogames caused participants to be less concerned about the well being of their opponents. My opponents studies have shown that aggression is only temporarily increased due to exposure of competitive videogames. The study I linked to shows an increased willingness to pull the trigger. So something other than the temporary increase of aggression must be considered. That something is desensitization, as indicated by the decreased response to violent imagery. DR. BRUCE " So, desensitization (if indeed caused by video games) results in reduced responsiveness to actual violence, not violent crimes themselves. For this point to stand, my opponent must prove that (a) video games actually desensitize individuals and (b) desensitization significantly contributes to violence. " What desensitization does isn't necessarily cause people who aren't predisposed to violence to become violent. It actually contributes significantly to a culture of violence. Psychopaths are about 1% of the population and have a lack of concern for other individuals. They also make up over 30% of the prison population. . http://news.uchicago.edu... The 1% number is on the conservative end as well. Some psychologists have them at 4% of the population. These people will slice your throat and not feel an ounce of guilt about it the next day. Most of them probably won't do that, but they still account for a disproportionate amount if the violent crime taking place in the United States. Common sense tells you that with an increase in apathy about violence going on right in front of your face that more people inclined to commit violent acts will feel free to do so. We have what's called the bystander effect that occurs all the time and we keep seeing. New cases of it on television all the time. . http://m.psychologytoday.com... Bystander effect is actually where witnesses to a violent crime, do nothing to stop it or alert authorities to the situation. Sure some of this is caused by fear, but a large amount is caused by apathy. People just aren't bothered watching a man knock a woman's teeth out and take her purse. Psychopaths now feel safe committing violent acts in front of others due to the bystander effect. Another violent trend taking place across the United States is called "The Knockout Game". This is where a group of kids go around punching people as hard as they can in hopes of knocking them out. The targets are usually little old ladies or other defenseless people. . http://newyork.cbslocal.com... All it takes is one psychopath leading a bunch of desensitized teens just wanting to fit in, and committing the act of violence in front of a mixed crowd of desensitized and scared people. Half scared to step in the other half just isn't bothered by it. Desensitization creates a culture of violence. It makes people inclined to violence more likely to be violent and contributes by making violence less repulsive and by extension more acceptable. "The violence in video games isn't what actually causes violence. What really causes violence is various factors such as delinquent peers, depression, abusive family, and (as I have stressed on in my rebuttal) competition. Video games can give already aggressive individuals a way to release their aggression. Surprisingly, video games don't actually cause desensitization; moreover, desensitization hasn't been proven to cause violence. " Those things mentioned are certainly factors, but just as important a those things is the culture of violence caused by desensitization. I've already proven that violent simulations (aka videogames) contribute to more violence on the part of the government and. If we look at the numbers to see how many deaths the government participates in, we can see that is a huge number. I've also shown that the desensitization caused by violent video games contributes significantly in direct and indirect ways.

positive: Violence in video games does not significantly contribute to real world violence. 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...

positive: Do violent computer games make young children violent citizens hmmm this debate would be quite intriguing ;)As far as I know, not every kids (:o 9-35) like video games, not every video gamers like violent games, and not every violent gamers become psycho-path killers. In fact hardly any of them become psycho-path killers. http://videogames.procon.org... In chart no.6, we can tell 15.5% of gamers had bought M rated video games in 2008, so you are saying that 15.5% of 68.8% of American households (chart no.1) are psychopath-killers. Anyways, gl hf and I look forward for a good debate!! =)

positive: Violent video games really cause bad behavior in children. 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!

positive: should children play mature rated video games I think that children should not play mature video games because many, children can get influenced by the stuff in the game especially at a young age. Now that games are becoming more and more violent this issue becomes even more dangerous with the sudden interest of children in mature rated games. I have been told on many axons that the games was mature rated but i understand the things that go on in the games i play. However there are many other children that don't understand what happens in these games. The worst part about this situation is that games graphics are now being improved and if it a gory game, that gets upped too. So, main point is that game sellers should stop children under the age of 12 to buy mature rated games.

positive: Violent video games should NOT be banned I think video games should be banned because there are much more better things to do that are more healthy for you. Not only do they take little physical movement but they also use electricity. Kids should be involved with a sport or school. But a pro to video games is the wii. Some games on it are actually good exercise for you. Try the " WiiFit" It all depends if video games are getting in the way of better things that you can do. Violent video games are not just violent on the screen-the violence can often be seen in the players actions afterwards. Popular war-based games such as Call of Duty and World of Warcraft can make the player lose respect for military and past wars. They also lose respect for the sanctity of life by underestimating the seriousness in killing or injuring another being.

positive: Ban the sale of violent video games http://www.neisd.net... These are the rules that go with an LD topic such as this p,ease provide by them and no plagiarizing. Please also share sources. I will do so likewise. Let's begin! -Here is what some of the people out there have to say: "Violent video games are teaching are kids to be violent. It is a known fact that we learn by repetition. By allowing children to play violent video games it starts to desensitize them at an early age to the effects of violence. These games were originally designed for military training to help soldiers overcome their hesitancy in shooting the enemy." -"Video Game Violence and Why It Should End Video games these days are now just shooting and killing. Children play these games for entertainment and I know that they are fun, because I play them too. But this is a serious thing. Children do not need to play violent games because games can influence children to do so. People say,"Oh, my son promised to never act like that," or,"Tyler loves these games and he keeps asking for a BB gun". The BB gun may be just for fun, but soon he'll get a real gun. Violent video games like MWF3 or Call of Duty or Assassins Creed are insults to military men. They're at war, fighting for our country, and you've got your butt on a couch, laughing at people who are getting shot on a video game. This is a serious offense to soldiers. And what if you played these games and someone you love is in the military. Would they feel offended. Go on. Ask yourself. They are insulting, bad for children, and brutal." -"Those Who voted 'No' are delusional fools. It's plainly obvious, video games make people of all ages agitated and aggressive. -I've seen it in my nephews and niece and there are countless studies available at your finger tips. The vast majority of respondents to this article are delusional people with absolutely no sense of what's going on. Now that is a cold hard fact and highly unfortunate that there are so many video game addicts." -"Yes violent video games should be banned!! Police have linked several violent cases to violent video games. For example a 8 year old boy oblivious to the real life fact that if you shot someone in real life they would die and not come back, took out a gun and shot is grandmother. His grandmother did die and did not come back. He is now facing life in prison after juvenile hall of course for something he didn't realize was bad in the first place. Video games pump things into children's heads so bad these days they have no way of knowing the difference between real life and video game life." -Now let's talk some philosophy. -Posted by Mike LaBossiere on June 27, 2011 Leave a comment (21)Go to comments I have been using my budget-cut based summer break from teaching to do various home improvements. The point of mentioning this is that I have been alternating between baking in the Florida sun and being exposed to "second hand paint fumes" (as opposed to directly huffing the stuff) as such, my writing might be a bit off. I have checked for any obvious weirdness (well, weirdness beyond the usual sort), but I apologize in advance for any heat/paint induced lapses in logic. I blame the flying frogs that seem to be infesting my house now. In any case, down to business. -The supreme court recently ruled that California"s law banning the sale of video games to minors that "depict serious injury to human beings in a manner that is especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel." The ruling was, of course, based on the first amendment. -Being both a gamer and an ethicist, I have thought (and written) a fair amount about the banning video games. On the one hand, a very reasonable case can be made for placing age based restrictions on video games. While studies of the impact of virtual violence on children are hardly conclusive, it seems reasonable to accept that exposure to virtual violence can have an impact on how the child thinks. As Aristotle has argued, people become habituated by what they do. Children are, of course, even more likely to be influenced. They are more receptive than adults and tend to lack the cognitive resources that adults are supposed to possess. As such, it seems reasonable to keep young children away from violence-even the virtual sort. -On the other hand, there are reasonable grounds for rejecting such bans. First, there are reasons for doubting that such games have a significant impact on children. The psychological studies are open to question and, of course, humans seem to be naturally prone to violence ( the stock "we like violent games because we are violent, we are not violent because of the games" argument). When I was a kid, long before violent video games, we spent a lot of time playing war. While the effects were not very special (cap guns), we certainly did act out killing each other. When violent video games came along, they simply allowed me to do what I had done as a kid (play at killing) only with ever better graphics and effects). As such, banning violent video games to protect children from the influence of violence seems like something that simply will not work, thus making such a law unnecessary. -Second, there is the matter of freedom of expression and consumption. While minors do have a reduced right of freedom of consumption (they cannot but alcohol, tobacco, guns or porn), imposing on their freedom only seems justified when it protects them from a significant harm in cases in which they lack the judgment to (in theory at least) make an informed choice. Even if violent video games have a harmful impact, it can be contended that the harm is not on par with that of adult vices such as alcohol or tobacco but rather on par with junk food. So, just as it is sensible to think that children should not eat junk food, yet also think there should not be laws banning children from buying candy bards, it seems sensible to think that although young kids should not buy violent video games, there should not be laws against doing so. -Third, there is the matter of what is fit for the state to control and what is fit for parents to control. There are, obviously enough, matters that should be handled by the state and those that should remain a matter of parental choice. Alcohol, guns and tobacco are so dangerous that it seems reasonable that the state has a interest in keeping children away from these things by force of law. There is also a category of things were the state should aid parents in making choices, such as diet and exercise, but where the state should not intervene except in extreme cases. As noted above, I am inclined to put violent video games in the category of junk food. As such, parents should be informed about what the games contain (which is already done by the rating system) and the choice of whether or not their children play the games or not should be up to them. Naturally, children who lack parents or whose parents are dangerously incompetent will fall under the domain of the state, but these would be relatively rare cases." http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com... -BY ERIK BRUDVIGViolent media has existed as long as human history and the debate over how or when to control it is as hotly contested as ever. With the trend towards greater realism and graphic content that began in the 90's, videogames have found themselves the focal point du jour. But how much of an impact have these violent videogames had? We'll take a look at the psychological, political, and economic issues surrounding violent videogames and try to make sense of it all. No matter which side of the fence you sit on this argument, it is important to know the facts. -Selling an Image Anybody who has been playing games for the past five years must surely have noticed the recent and accelerating trend towards "thugsploitation" games. The success of Grand Theft Auto III assured us all that we'd be seeing a steady stream of imitators hoping for their own piece of the pie. Over the top violence, sexual themes, and drug references have become commonplace in videogames and certainly take more than their fair share of the mainstream press's time. But how far has this "even negative press is good press" philosophy taken these games? Eighty-five percent of all games sold in 2005 were rated "E" for Everyone, "T" for Teen, or "E10+" for Everyone 10+. (Entertainment Software Association) Additionally, only one (Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas) of the top 10 grossing games for 2005 was rated "M" for Mature. That's not to say that these top selling games are suitable for all ages. Seven of the top ten games of 2005 have some form of violence listed as a descriptor by the ESRB, but it certainly speaks volumes about what the impact of the steady stream of Mature games is on the consumer side. Nintendo, a company always concerned with the content of games appearing on its systems, may be on to something more than just being "kiddy." Despite the relatively small market share these Mature games have garnered, it hasn't stopped our lawmakers from latching on to them and turning them into a political focal point. -Public Policy With all of the uproar surrounding the Columbine shootings and other similar tragedies, as well as the Hot Coffee controversy, lawmakers have been quick to propose legislation that would limit the access of violent material to minors. Violent game laws have been proposed or considered in Kansas, Utah, Michigan, Maryland, Indiana, Washington, Illinois, California, Germany, and recently, the U.S. Senate. So far, none of these proposals have become a reality at your local videogame store. -read more @ http://www.ign.com...

negative: violent video games Well why if they feel like some one is harming them or for example if some one says look kid i know ware u live then they would tell there mom and call cops

negative: Video Games increase child violence 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.

negative: do video games cause viloence do video games really cause violence?

negative: media violence is having a negative effect on todays youth it aint the media fault it des dumb parents fault for not controlling there children

negative: Golf is a sport Now, what is a sport? and what is golf? Golf, is a "game in which a player using special clubs attempts to sink a ball with as few strokes as possible into each of the 9 or 18. " [1]Sport, is a "physical activity engaged in for pleasure: a particular activity (as an athletic game). " [2]Looking at the definition of sport, provided by Merrian-Webster, Golf fits the definition of the word "sport. " Lastly, Sports require coordinated muscle use, and the golf swing uses at least 17 muscle groups in the coordinated movement of the hands, wrists, arms, abdomen, and legs. [3]Thank you and good luck [1] Merrian-Webster[2] Meriian-Webster[3] British Medical Journal

negative: The downloading and possession of child pornography should not be a criminal offence As it has been pointed out to me that you cannot edit your post, and it is unlikely that you will be removed from this debate by moderators, I guess I should continue, and hope that you debate with me based on the merits of my argument.Even though the points you make do not refute mine, I will respond to what you have said. To start, I can only deduce that by "no child should be put through something of that circumstance", that you are referring to sexual abuse, or the re-victimisation caused as a consequence of the distribution child abuse images. For the reasons mentioned previously, I do not believe that the act of copying or being in possession of indecent images contributes to this suffering, so I do not believe your statement is relevant for the purpose of this debate.I find it peculiar that you make a point of referring to parental consent, as if to suggest that there could be a defence. A child, no matter their age, should have complete autonomy over their own body. You go on to suggest that children are not capable of comprehending the notion of sex. This is an incredibly broad statement, and, even though it is not directly relevant to this debate, I will still attempt to address it. A child, in the context of this debate, is a person under the age of eighteen. As the average age of consent around the world, being the age at which governments deem a person capable of understanding the concept of sex, is just sixteen, I believe I can deduce that you mean to suggest that 'young children' cannot comprehend the notion of sex. Understanding the age of consent, or the age at which the state deems a person should not be photographed in a sexual context, does not go far in helping us to understand the capacity of children to comprehend sex. The ages that are set for prohibitions of sex and pornography are considered within not only the context of a child's capacity to process sex, but also in consideration of religious and cultural sensibilities. I will try to briefly explain what the study of child development has taught us about children's capacity to process sex. The body of scientific literature which has considered the specific issue of when a child develops the capacity to understand the emotional and physiological aspects of sexuality and arousal, identifies this as a pubertal process which typically starts at about the age of six, which becomes stable by the age of ten. A 2000 paper called 'The Magical Age of 10' in the peer reviewed journal 'Archives of Sexual Behaviour' describes the significance of a developmental process known as adrenal puberty.To quote the introduction of the paper: A major stream of research now posits two sequential but distinct forms of“pubertal” processes: adrenal puberty and gonadal puberty. Adrenal puberty is theprocess that occurs in middle childhood, between 6 and 10 years of age. It is hypothesized to be a critical source of developmental subjectivity, including feelingsof attraction and sexual awareness, becoming stable and memorable around theage of 10. By contrast, gonadal puberty begins later, normatively around the agesof 11 and 12 for girls and boys, respectively, and continues into the late teens. It iscoincident with adolescent maturation and morphological developmental changes,which are commonly referred to as “secondary sex traits,” as well as fertility. Theevidence reviewed later, though anecdotal and incomplete, nevertheless suggeststhat the creation of sexual subjectivity begins well before the onset of adolescence.It is intrinsically driven by hormonal forces but, nevertheless, is informed by cultural meanings and social roles. Furthermore, it is sufficiently marked by the age of 10 or so that even in cultures where age variation in developmental transitions is common, a variety of cultures in ancient and modern times have sensed the age of 10 to be of critical importance in defining this age as the sexual juncture between “childhood” and “adulthood.” Thus, the strong inference is that in society “sexual attraction” emerges as a significant developmental subjectivity during adrenarche, but before “gonadarche” and “adolescence.” The full paper can be found here: http://www.scribd.com...So, in response to your assertion that children cannot comprehend the thought of sex, I would suggest that your belief is influenced primarily on cultural mores rather than any statement of fact. This point is, however, far departed from the issues under debate. The research mentioned above might be better placed in a debate about age of consent reform, but, is not relevant here.Lastly, you express that you do not understand why a grown man would be sexually interested in a young child. While this is a valid expression, it does not add any point for debate.At the end of my earlier post I refer to the damaging consequences of not decriminalising these acts. A 2010 paper called 'Pornography and Sex Crimes in the Czech Republic', also from the 'Archives of Sexual Behaviour' journal, highlights a trend, which has been previous seen in studies conducted in Denmark and Japan, that the decriminalisation of child pornography in these cultures, resulted in a markably significant reduction in sex crimes against children. The abstract of the paper can be found here: http://link.springer.com...The authors of the paper hypothesise that potential sexual offenders use child pornography as a substitute for sex crimes against children. Given the victimless nature of making and possession of indecent images, and the fact that potential sex offenders seem to resort to images if given a choice, I would suggest that any reasonable person who is concerned with the welfare of future potential victims of sexual abuse, would advocate for reform of the law. Unfortunately, to replicate the level of reduction in sexual offences against children seen in Denmark, Japan and the Czech Republic, it might be necessary to also decriminalise distribution, as, this might be necessary for the level of access to child pornography needed for it to available as a viable substitute. This, of course, would bring the very real harm caused by re-victimisation in conflict with the potential for mitigating further harm to potential future victims. I, for one, do not think this is a judgement that the state has the right to make. I think that the criminalisation of distribution is perfectly reasonable and that ignoring the harm of re-victimisation in favour of mitigating future harm, would be sending the wrong message out to victims.This is why I feel so strongly about decriminalising making and possession, as harm is not caused, and, it would likely yield the desired consequences in reducing instances of sexual abuse against children.Alternatively, the authors of the study has recommended, at the very least, the decriminalisation of prohibited images of children, as prohibited by Section 1 of the Section 62 Coroners and Justice Act 2009. I would agree with this recommendation and would consider anybody who, knowing the facts in this debate, still denounced this reform, to be guilty of putting the welfare of children at risk, to appease their own feelings of disgust against sexual offenders. Further to the harm in not decriminalising making and possession, it is also worth considering that in American there have been notable cases of children being convicted for child porn crimes after experimenting with same age peers. The prohibition imposed on young children from being able to explore their sexuality with age appropriate peers is likely to result in negative consequences for the development of a child's sense of self and their more general self esteem. This would be particularly true for children who develop minority sexual interests, such as for members of their own sex.I hope that you can engage in this debate on the points I have made. I look forward to reading your response.

negative: violent video games i some what agree but some kid talk to random people. and they don't know if the y can hunt them down

negative: Video games cause violence Do video games cause violence in our society today? I will be against and anyone who wants to can be for the argument. (Please note that I am new to this site, so if I do something wrong during set up, please let me know) Round one will be for acceptance.May the best arguments win!

negative: Should Video Games be less Violent I believe that I don't need to present an argument because my opponent didn't provide one. I extend.

negative: Should Video Games be less Violent Con forfeited. Therefore, vote for Pro. Thank you Con for such a memorable debate. I learned a lot.

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

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

negative: Video games Improve Skills The skills learnt within video games are skills that could be learnt elsewhere without the negative problems that have been associated with video games. All of the benefits listed are thusly moot in this context because things such as team sports are able to develop many of the skills team shooters do, whilst also improving fitness and other areas of well-being. More tactical sports can have a great impact on somebody’s intellectual well-being as well as their physical well-being. Additionally, videogames in general might be able to improve some skills, but we are discussing violent videogames in particular. There are other, much less violent, videogames that allow people to further increase their skills.

negative: Golf is the hardest sport Golf challenges not only requires physical fitness but you need to have the strongest mental game to succeed in golf therefor having the hardest sport

negative: Video Games Cause Real-World Violence Video games do not cause real-world violence. While some people who cause violence do play violent video games, correlation does not equal causation. I do not believe that video games cause violence and invite people to try to convince me otherwise.

negative: Violence in video games. Violence in videogames is not a factor in mass shootings because it has been proven and there are studies over it.

negative: Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices Part One is the problem.A new face of childhood terror is sweeping across the metaphorical playground. Bullying has taken on an entirely new approach. No longer is the face of bullying a few thuggish kids on the playground demanding your lunch money, but a more insidious form of bullying from which there is no safe refuge, no escape from the torture. Webster[1]: Cyberbullying refers to bullying through ... technologies ... such as ... text messages, emails, phone calls, internet chat rooms, instant messaging – and ... social networking ... Cyberbullying is a fast growing trend that ... is more harmful than typical schoolyard bullying. Nearly all of us can be contacted 24/7 via the internet or our ... phones. Victims can be reached anytime and anyplace. For many children, home is no longer a refuge from the bullies. “Children can escape threats and abuse in the classroom, only to find text messages and emails from the same tormentors when they arrive home.” And, this is a problem that's impossible to escape from and impossible to find help for. Victims are afraid to ask for help from their parents or school officials because of the backlash or inability for school officials to help. Agatston et al.[2]:' Students indicated that the majority of the incidents occurred outside of the school day, with the exception of cyber bullying via text messaging. Students indicated that they were unlikely to report cyber bullying to the adults at school, as it ... occurs via ... phone use, and it is against the school policy to have ... phones on during school hours. ... Students also indicated that they did not think the adults at school could help them if they were experiencing cyber bullying. ... students also indicated that they were reluctant to report cyber bullying to parents because they feared the loss of online privileges Keith and Martin[3] furthers: Part of the problem in combating cyber-bullying ... is that parents and kids relate to technology very differently. ... adults approach computers as practical tools, while for kids the Internet is a lifeline to their peer group. "Cyber-bullying is practically subterranean because it lives in the world of young people," ... Kids ... fear ... not only that the parents' response may make the bullying worse, but that the adults will take the technology away." And, solving cyberbullying is difficult to do. Anonymity is the bully's primary and most effective weapon, from which there is no escape. Keith and Martin 2: It can be much more difficult to identify bullies in cyberspace. ... screen names ... hide a person’s true identity. It is easier to bully someone you don’t have to face. With no boundaries or tangible consequences, children are using technology to vent ... frustrations in ways that can become very destructive. ... home was a place where a kid could go to escape ... With advances in technology, home is no longer a haven. ... today’s bullies use technology to spread rumors and threats, making life miserable ... throughout the day and night. ... They cannot escape their bully because he can now follow them home. This is the new reality. Part Two is the Impacts:Cyberbullying is a serious mental health issue. It creates psychological problems and compounds already existing psychological issues. DeHue et al.[4]: ... being cyberbullied can ultimately result in serious physical, social, and psychological problems, such as serious depressive symptoms and stress. ... It has also been reported that youngsters with depressive symptoms experience more emotional stress as a consequence of being cyberbullied than do youngsters with less or no depressive symptoms. And, these psychological problems have multiple impacts on adolescents. Weisz et al.[5]: Depression in ... adolescents ... is a significant, persistent, and recurrent public health problem that undermines social and school functioning, generates severe family stress, and prompts significant use of mental health services ... Youth depression is also linked to increased risk of other psychiatric disorders ... as well as drug use and suicide ... which is the third most common cause of death among adolescents ... by the age of 18 years, some 20% of youths will have met criteria for a diagnosis of major depressive disorder at least once ... Prospective longitudinal research has shown substantial continuity of youth depression into adulthood, with impaired functioning in work, social, and family life, and markedly elevated risk of adult suicide attempts and completed suicide ... And, in the status quo, adolescents aren't getting the help they need to recover. Day and Flynn[6]: The paucity of mental health services means that many children, adolescents, and their families do not receive the psycho-therapeutic treatment that they need. The consequences fo this may be mental illness in adulthood and genearational psychological disturbance and abuse. If ignored, these social and psychological problems do not simply go away. Indeed, they are likely to increase the demands on adult mental health services ... children who have symptoms of depression and anxiety are referred less frequently to mental health serviecs ... yet we know that children and adolescents with symptoms of depression are three times more likely to make a suicide attempt or be hospitalized ... Part Three is the Solvency:The plan text is this: The USFG will grant adolescents the medical autonomy to seek treatment for mental health issues without parental concent if necessary. Autonomy is the key to treatment. Without it, adolescents won't go get treatment. Driggs[7]: Confidentiality is also an issue in the treatment of mental health problems. Some states have recognized the fact that many minors might not seek help with problems such as alcoholism, drug abuse, depression, and other psychiatric care if parental consent were required. These exceptions to the general rule are considered by some to be an outgrowth of the emergency treatment for minors and the states' role in the protection of minors ... studies indicate ... factors such as family stressors and parental psychopathology may play a part in the mental health care decision. These exceptions are nto absed on the level of maturity of the minor, but rather are based on on the issues of the possible transmission of venereal disease, in increase in teenage pregnancy, and confidentiality. And, treatment effectively solves the problem. Mallot and Beidel[8]: Most studies and meta-analyses examining treatment outcome reveal consistent support for exposure-based congnitive behavioral therapies (CBTs). In fact, the outcome data are so consistently positive that CBT is recognized as the treatment of choice for adolescents with anxiety disorders ... the core element of CBT are seen as equally applicable to separation anxiety disorder, social phobia, and GAD as these disorders share many features and appear to be distinct from other anxiety disorders. Sources:[1] - http://www.cyberbullying.info...[2] - http://arvin.kernhigh.org...[3] - http://bienestaryproteccioninfantil.es...[4] - http://www.researchgate.net...'_experiences_and_parental_perception/links/00b49514a0e932ab87000000.pdf[5] - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[6] - Day, Lesley, BA, MSc (Econ), MSc (Psychotherapy), head of services @ Cassel Hospital, adult psychotherapist, prof @ Brunel University, and Flynn, Denis, Consultant psychotherapist, trained philosopher and social worker, eds. Internal and External Worlds of Children and Adolescents : Collaborative Therapeutic Care. 2003. ProQuest.[7] - Ann Eileen Driggs, R.N., J.D., “The Mature Minor Doctrine: Do Adolescents Have the Right to Die?” Health Matrix, Vol. 11:687[8] - Michael A., pf of psychology @ UCF, and Beidel, Deborah C., pf of psychology @ UCF. “Anxiety Disorders in Adolescents.” in Comprehensive Evidence Based Interventions for Children and Adolescents. 2014. Wiley.

negative: Violent Video Games Um yea...Thanks for the time and I hope y'all enjoy. will debate this later if anyone wants.

negative: music that glorifies violence against women should be banned. To ban music that encourages violence against women would be done with the intention of protecting women; if it is necessary to paint them as the victims of violence that they are, that is a small price to pay. Furthermore, bans on child pornography would

negative: Better to rape a baby than be raped by one. I have given arguments for why rape has a negative effect on the victim and a negative effect on the offender.Why it is negative for the victim: Injury Depending on the age and size of the child, and the degree of force used, child sexual abuse may cause internal lacerations and bleeding. In severe cases, damage to internal organs may occur, which, in some cases, may cause death. Herman-Giddens et al. found six certain and six probable cases of death due to child sexual abuse in North Carolina between 1985 and 1994. The victims ranged in age from 2 months to 10 years. Causes of death included trauma to the genitalia or rectum and sexual mutilation. Infections Child sexual abuse may cause infections and sexually transmitted diseases. Depending on the age of the child, due to a lack of sufficient vaginal fluid, chances of infections are higher. Vaginitis has also been reported. Neurological damage Research has shown that traumatic stress, including stress caused by sexual abuse, causes notable changes in brain functioning and development. Various studies have suggested that severe child sexual abuse may have a deleterious effect on brain development. Ito et al. (1998) found "reversed hemispheric asymmetry and greater left hemisphere coherence in abused subjects;"Teicher et al. (1993) found that an increased likelihood of "ictal temporal lobe epilepsy-like symptoms" in abused subjects; Anderson et al. (2002) recorded abnormal transverse relaxation time in the cerebellar vermis of adults sexually abused in childhood; Teicher et al. (1993) found that child sexual abuse was associated with a reduced corpus callosum area; various studies have found an association of reduced volume of the left hippocampus with child sexual abuse; and Ito et al. (1993) found increased electrophysiological abnormalities in sexually abused children. Some studies indicate that sexual or physical abuse in children can lead to the overexcitation of an undeveloped limbic system. Teicher et al. (1993) used the "Limbic System Checklist-33" to measure ictal temporal lobe epilepsy-like symptoms in 253 adults. Reports of child sexual abuse were associated with a 49% increase to LSCL-33 scores, 11% higher than the associated increase of self-reported physical abuse. Reports of both physical and sexual abuse were associated with a 113% increase. Male and female victims were similarly affected. Navalta et al. (2006) found that the self-reported math Scholastic Aptitude Test scores of their sample of women with a history of repeated child sexual abuse were significantly lower than the self-reported math SAT scores of their non-abused sample. Because the abused subjects verbal SAT scores were high, they hypothesized that the low math SAT scores could "stem from a defect in hemispheric integration." They also found a strong association between short term memory impairments for all categories tested (verbal, visual, and global) and the duration of the abuse.Psychological harm Child sexual abuse can result in both short-term and long-term harm, including psychopathology in later life. Psychological, emotional, physical, and social effects include depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, eating disorders, poor self-esteem, dissociative and anxiety disorders; general psychological distress and disorders such as somatization, neurosis,chronic pain, sexualized behavior, school/learning problems; and behavior problems including substance abuse, self-destructive behaviour, animal cruelty, crime in adulthood and suicide. A specific characteristic pattern of symptoms has not been identified and there are several hypotheses about the causality of these associations. http://upload.wikimedia.org......; alt="" width="400" height="160" /> http://bits.wikimedia.org......; alt="" width="15" height="11" /> A study funded by the USA National Institute of Drug Abuse found that "Among more than 1,400 adult females, childhood sexual abuse was associated with increased likelihood of drug dependence, alcohol dependence, and psychiatric disorders. The associations are expressed as odds ratios: for example, women who experienced nongenital sexual abuse in childhood were 2.83 times more likely to suffer drug dependence as adults than were women who were not abused." Long term negative effects on development leading to repeated or additional victimization in adulthood are also associated with child sexual abuse. Studies have established a causal relationship between childhood sexual abuse and certain specific areas of adult psychopathology, including suicidality, antisocial behavior, PTSD, anxiety and alcoholism. Adults with a history of abuse as a child, especially sexual abuse, are more likely than people with no history of abuse to become frequent users of emergency and medical care services. A study comparing middle-aged women who were abused as children with non-abused counterparts found significantly higher health care costs for the former. Sexually abused children suffer from more psychological symptoms than children who have not been abused; studies have found symptoms in 51% to 79% of sexually abused children. The risk of harm is greater if the abuser is a relative, if the abuse involves intercourse or attempted intercourse, or if threats or force are used. The level of harm may also be affected by various factors such as penetration, duration and frequency of abuse, and use of force. The social stigma of child sexual abuse may compound the psychological harm to children, and adverse outcomes are less likely for abused children who have supportive family environments. Dissociation and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) Child abuse, including sexual abuse, especially chronic abuse starting at early ages, has been found to be related to the development of high levels of dissociative symptoms, which includes amnesia for abuse memories. The level of dissociation has been found to be related to reported overwhelming sexual and physical abuse. When severe sexual abuse (penetration, several perpetrators, lasting more than one year) had occurred, dissociative symptoms were even more prominent. Child sexual abuse independently predicts the number of symptoms for PTSD a person displays, after controlling for possible confounding variables, according to Widom (1999), who wrote "sexual abuse, perhaps more than other forms of childhood trauma, leads to dissociative problems ... these PTSD findings represent only part of the picture of the long-term psychiatric sequelae associated with early childhood victimization ... antisocial personality disorder, alcohol abuse, and other forms of psychopathology. Children may develop symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder resulting from child sexual abuse, even without actual or threatened injury or violence.Why it is negative for the offender:Child rape is viewed as taboo in society and offenders are looked as detrimental, they are often demoted and put down, having a negative effect on them. Child rape is also illegal in most of the world's countries, most punishments for such offenses can be:ImprisonmentFinesDeathWhy imprisonment has a negative effect on the offenders:In prisons people spend 23 hours a day in confinement where they eat mediocre food spend time in dirty conditions, numerous cases of inmate-on-inmate rape have been reported, and the bathrooms and showers are filthy and only offer cold water.Imprisonment has a detrimental and negative effect on the victims.....We can conclude that an adult raping a baby has a much more negative effect on both the victim and offender than a baby raping an adult.

negative: Better to rape a baby than be raped by one. better- more advantageous or effective, usually in a positive way.Why raping a baby is less effective than getting raped by one.Positive Effects of Child Rape- Nothing.Negative Effects of Child Rape-Injury Depending on the age and size of the child, and the degree of force used, child sexual abuse may cause internal lacerations and bleeding. In severe cases, damage to internal organs may occur, which, in some cases, may cause death. Herman-Giddens et al. found six certain and six probable cases of death due to child sexual abuse in North Carolina between 1985 and 1994. The victims ranged in age from 2 months to 10 years. Causes of death included trauma to the genitalia or rectum and sexual mutilation. Infections Child sexual abuse may cause infections and sexually transmitted diseases. Depending on the age of the child, due to a lack of sufficient vaginal fluid, chances of infections are higher. Vaginitis has also been reported. Neurological damage Research has shown that traumatic stress, including stress caused by sexual abuse, causes notable changes in brain functioning and development. Various studies have suggested that severe child sexual abuse may have a deleterious effect on brain development. Ito et al. (1998) found "reversed hemispheric asymmetry and greater left hemisphere coherence in abused subjects;"Teicher et al. (1993) found that an increased likelihood of "ictal temporal lobe epilepsy-like symptoms" in abused subjects; Anderson et al. (2002) recorded abnormal transverse relaxation time in the cerebellar vermis of adults sexually abused in childhood; Teicher et al. (1993) found that child sexual abuse was associated with a reduced corpus callosum area; various studies have found an association of reduced volume of the left hippocampus with child sexual abuse; and Ito et al. (1993) found increased electrophysiological abnormalities in sexually abused children. Some studies indicate that sexual or physical abuse in children can lead to the overexcitation of an undeveloped limbic system. Teicher et al. (1993) used the "Limbic System Checklist-33" to measure ictal temporal lobe epilepsy-like symptoms in 253 adults. Reports of child sexual abuse were associated with a 49% increase to LSCL-33 scores, 11% higher than the associated increase of self-reported physical abuse. Reports of both physical and sexual abuse were associated with a 113% increase. Male and female victims were similarly affected. Navalta et al. (2006) found that the self-reported math Scholastic Aptitude Test scores of their sample of women with a history of repeated child sexual abuse were significantly lower than the self-reported math SAT scores of their non-abused sample. Because the abused subjects verbal SAT scores were high, they hypothesized that the low math SAT scores could "stem from a defect in hemispheric integration." They also found a strong association between short term memory impairments for all categories tested (verbal, visual, and global) and the duration of the abuse.Psychological harm Child sexual abuse can result in both short-term and long-term harm, including psychopathology in later life. Psychological, emotional, physical, and social effects include depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, eating disorders, poor self-esteem, dissociative and anxiety disorders; general psychological distress and disorders such as somatization, neurosis,chronic pain, sexualized behavior, school/learning problems; and behavior problems including substance abuse, self-destructive behaviour, animal cruelty, crime in adulthood and suicide. A specific characteristic pattern of symptoms has not been identified and there are several hypotheses about the causality of these associations. A study funded by the USA National Institute of Drug Abuse found that "Among more than 1,400 adult females, childhood sexual abuse was associated with increased likelihood of drug dependence, alcohol dependence, and psychiatric disorders. The associations are expressed as odds ratios: for example, women who experienced nongenital sexual abuse in childhood were 2.83 times more likely to suffer drug dependence as adults than were women who were not abused." Long term negative effects on development leading to repeated or additional victimization in adulthood are also associated with child sexual abuse. Studies have established a causal relationship between childhood sexual abuse and certain specific areas of adult psychopathology, including suicidality, antisocial behavior, PTSD, anxiety and alcoholism. Adults with a history of abuse as a child, especially sexual abuse, are more likely than people with no history of abuse to become frequent users of emergency and medical care services. A study comparing middle-aged women who were abused as children with non-abused counterparts found significantly higher health care costs for the former. Sexually abused children suffer from more psychological symptoms than children who have not been abused; studies have found symptoms in 51% to 79% of sexually abused children. The risk of harm is greater if the abuser is a relative, if the abuse involves intercourse or attempted intercourse, or if threats or force are used. The level of harm may also be affected by various factors such as penetration, duration and frequency of abuse, and use of force. The social stigma of child sexual abuse may compound the psychological harm to children, and adverse outcomes are less likely for abused children who have supportive family environments. Dissociation and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) Child abuse, including sexual abuse, especially chronic abuse starting at early ages, has been found to be related to the development of high levels of dissociative symptoms, which includes amnesia for abuse memories. The level of dissociation has been found to be related to reported overwhelming sexual and physical abuse. When severe sexual abuse (penetration, several perpetrators, lasting more than one year) had occurred, dissociative symptoms were even more prominent. Child sexual abuse independently predicts the number of symptoms for PTSD a person displays, after controlling for possible confounding variables, according to Widom (1999), who wrote "sexual abuse, perhaps more than other forms of childhood trauma, leads to dissociative problems ... these PTSD findings represent only part of the picture of the long-term psychiatric sequelae associated with early childhood victimization ... antisocial personality disorder, alcohol abuse, and other forms of psychopathology. Children may develop symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder resulting from child sexual abuse, even without actual or threatened injury or violence.Positive Effects of Getting Raped By a Child-Nothing.Negative Effects of Getting Raped By a Child- It can be detrimental to the victim's psyche. I.E, Embarrasment.Sources- http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.merriam-webster.com...

negative: Mankind is to dependent on blaming other factors than other members of mankind The thing is they're still blaming the video games more than they're blaming the parents. It is the parents job to make sure that any sort of weapon the child could bring to school is out of the child's reach. Yet society blaming the parents for buying the video games is not enough, the parents need to take at least most of the responsibility in this situation. Yes you bring up a very good points when it comes to child curiosity, and as a parent then they should understand this and make sure that they don't let this curiosity allow for the child to do something that shouldn't.

negative: Video games are not a significant cause of violence in children I first have to state that I will probably bee counted off for the copy and paste thing. If you feel I should be counted off please do so voters, although this is your own action. Also for the last round (The fifth) you do not have to have an official closing, you may continue making new arguments in your respective round. although I am giving con the upper hand. On with the debate. Yes I have agreed with you on many things. In fact most of your argument is completely true and I know this from experience. I have said BoP is shared, and it is. If you feel I have not brought up enough logic on my positive claim than I will start using statistics. Monday 10 November 2014 A recent long-term study by the USA shows the violent games are not the cause for violence in society If you read this study its states that in the first of the two historical evaluations researchers studied the links between violent films and societal violence by looking at the top grossing titles between 1920 and 2005. What they deduced was that film violence went in a rough U pattern during this time period whereas societal violence decreased in the later half of the 20th century. The second study used data from ESRB to estimate the violent content of video games from the time of 1996-2011. It showed that as the popularity of violent video games went up, youth violence went down. you can read more of thisin the sited resources below. To continue on into a more depressing topic, children who commit homicide have different brain structures. This article talks all about it. Apparently researchers found that children who commit murder have lower levels of grey matter in their medial and lateral temporal lobes and the hippocampus and posterior insula, according to news release. If you are wondering what grey matter is its the stuff that helps you process information in the brain. This means the less grey matter you have the more likely you will become confused between violent video games and reality. In another article posted Wed/July23/2014 showed that harsh corporal punishment can knock grey matter levels down in children. If a person receives this, they are more likely to commit violent acts in the future. This has nothing to do with the debate at hand, but what we can deduce is that when children between ages 10-17 play a violent video game they aren't losing anything beneficial to them and therefor are not violent in the future. Again I will restate a few more points There has never been a link between violent video games and violent acts in kids and teens. The sales rate for video games has quadrupled from 1995-2008 along with a 71.9% drop in juvenile arrest rates and a 49-50% drop in juvenile crimes. Any small correlation between violent youth and violent video games may be explained: Violent games do not cause youth to be violent, instead already violent youth are attracted to violent video games. cites http://www.independent.co.uk... http://www.natureworldnews.com... http://www.news-medical.net... http://www.cnn.com... http://videogames.procon.org...

negative: Media Violence is having a negative effect on today's youth Media violence doesnt affect todays youth. The media just basically recreates it, it doesnt actually happen. If someone sees a violent action take place on tv or on a video game they probably won't copy it, they will just watch it instead. As most kids grow up they learn to control thier anger and aggression even if they do watch violent tv and play violent video games. Kids can be influenced by other violent things in the world instead of media such as other people in real life. Or they could even be influence by their parents in some situations.

negative: Video games are not a significant cause of violence in children My last argument was an emotional argument, anything you could not understand then will probably be explained here. Sorry for that Ok I will be counter arguing this round and possibly making a few new arguments. Yes the goal in most video games is kill the enemy, destroy this, eradicate that. achieve this by ridding of this. But this debate revolves around why video games influence kids or don't influence kids to do physical harm in real life. 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. Ya sure kids stay indoors. That is great. So what does that prove? You know books are inside the house. Yes TV isnt really a big thing but this caters mostly to all ages between 8 and 16 but I never stated that so that is irrelevant excuse me. Continuing on most of my argument: Kids are influenced by the outside. I think most american kids go to school. And i stated there that kids influence other kids to do bad things. Also I stated that kids walk into history class and are greeted by a bloody display of human history. I am not saying we should not teach it or censor it that would be dumb, but its another form of instigating grueling violent thoughts in kids. So my argument still stands. Now on with more stuff: yes you are right video games are a popular media in this day and age. BUT does that make them the cause of most of the horrible acts relating to violence in kids? No not all. 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. have you ever seen or heard of a miss raised child in a bad home? I have many times. Most of the violent acts and thought come from the lifestyle they were born into. Not what their hobbies are. Just some statistics found at this site(The following was copy and pasted): http://videogames.procon.org... Sales of video games have more than quadrupled from 1995-2008, while the arrest rate for juvenile murders fell 71.9% and the arrest rate for all juvenile violent crimes declined 49.3% in this same period. 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. 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. 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. Playing violent video games allows adolescent boys to express aggression and establish status in the peer group without causing physical harm. I copy and pasted all of those paragraphs. That should not count me off because I linked the site up top. You can also check it out here:http://videogames.procon.org... Thank you for reading my argument and happy fourth of july!!!

negative: Video games are not a significant factor in mass shootings. Ave!ColumbineEven if Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold wrote about bullying other people, it says nothing about whether they themselves were bullied or not. People can bully other people and be bullied themselves. TD_Cole gives us no reason to think that this isn't possible. His argumentation is severely flawed.Do video games lead to violence in youth?In this round, TD_Cole brings up reasearch from Iowa State Universit to try and show that video games lead to violence and violent acts in youth. This idea is overtly false.The Boston News published an article by Jim Morrison called ‘’Local law enforcement officials see drop in juvenile crime’’. This article discusses the decline in juvenile crime in Massachusetts, and how the decline correlates with the FBI’s nationwide crime reports. Last year, over two hundred million video games were sold. If video games cause youth violence, then why is youth violence declining, as the number of video games bought increases? [1]Jon Katz lucidly articulates this view in the book ‘’Crime and Criminals’’. He writes, ‘’If Bok’s right, why do FBI statistics show violence among the youth plummeting to its lowest level since Prohibition, while violence imagery in media has indeed been increasing, along with cable programming and usage, movie attendance, and the advent of the net?’’. (2001) [2]70% of U.S. households play video games (Crum 2013). If video games truly lead to violent acts, then we should be expecting some type of apocalypse with such a high number. Instead, youth violence is declining as more people start to play video games every year. Where is the increase in violence among youth? Nowhere, because video games are not a cause. [3]The research discussed in the NY Daily News is also interesting when it comes to youth violence. Consider the fact that millions of teenagers hang out with their friends and play popular games like Halo and Call of Duty. If playing video games with your friends leads to increase cooperativeness and decreased aggression, then video games are actually making youth less likely to be violent. Gun TrainingTD gives us a very weak argument. Video games teach people to use guns because they increase hand-eye coordination? Putting aside the fact that the link between improved H/I coordinaton and video games is not solid, it's a non-sequitur to suggest that this would also teach somebody how to fire a weapon.He also suggets that video games put ideas into people's heads that cause them to perpetrate mass shootings. He doesn't give any evidence for this. Using Hitchen's razor, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. [4]AxiomExtended.References[1] Morrison, Jim. "Local Law Enforcement Officials See Drop in Juvenile Crime." N.p., n.d. Web.[2] Katz, Jon. Crime and Criminals. San Diego: Greenhouse, 2000. Print[3] Crum, Chris. "WebProNews - Breaking News in Tech, Search, Social, & Business." WebProNews - Breaking News in Tech, Search, Social, & Business. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Feb. 2013. http://www.webpronews.com....[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...Vale!

negative: Violence in video games does not significantly contribute to real world violence. What began the controversy:It is obvious that violence has been a major issue in society today. Events such as the school shooting in Newtown and the bombing of the Boston Marathon have made people begin to wonder what exactly pushed the guilty individuals to commit such atrocities. Many people have concluded that one of the major factors that promotes violence today are video games. Jay Rockefeller is one of the activists against video game violence. Minnesota Post explains that Rockfeller introduced a legislation instructing the National Association of Sciences to investigate the effects of violent video games on children, saying, “People believe that violent video games are no more dangerous to young minds than classic literature or Saturday morning cartoons. Parents, paediatricians, and psychologists know better.” (1) The effects of video games on the minds of young children has been studied for years, and the data quite contradicts Rockfeller’s conclusion.What really causes violence in teens:Serious CrimesAdam Lanza, the gunman from the Sandy Hook shooting, played violent video games regularly. This caused many to believe that this is why he committed his violent crime. However, this was not the case. Eric Huey explains, “It turns out that delinquent peers, depression, and an abusive family environment account for actual violence incidents…” (2) Obviously, mental disorders would be another thing that promotes such violence. Here we can see that video games did not compel him (or most other school shooters) to commit the crime.AggressionA common argument against violence in video games is that violence in video games cause aggression. This is actually not the case. Carol Pichefsky notes that aggression is not caused by violent video games; rather, it is caused by a competitive environment (3). So, a game of MarioKart would be just as likely to result in aggression as a game of Call of Duty. This is not exclusive to video games either, competitive sports and competitive debate (especially on this website) are just as likely to result in aggression. So, it is certainly not the violence in video games that causes such feelings. The last thing I would like to note is that aggression and violence are two different things. Aggression is an intention. Violence in an action (4). My opponent showing that video games cause aggression is simply not enough.Violence rates:Here is the most important point of this debate. Logically, if violence in video games significantly contribute to real world violence, violent crime rates would rise as video game sales rise. This, however, is untrue: Now, I don't claim that this decrease is due to video game sales (a lot of other factors could have affected the decline). However, this decrease makes mockery of the idea that video games have legitimately contributed to the rise of violence in society today (5). Video game's effect:Releasing AggressionStudies suggest that video games give individuals an outlets to release aggression; there was a study done on inmates. An observer notes "If you give them video games, they’ll be less likely to start fights. So once a week we’d hook up a bunch of TVs in a classroom so all of the murderers and rapists could play Halo. There’s nothing more interesting than seeing guys who have killed multiple people deathmatching each other (6)." The inmates clearly were able to release their aggression in a way that doesn't hurt other people. This can be applied to other people as well. Logically, if violence in video games makes inmates less violent, they won't have an opposite affect when it comes to kids.Enjoyment of ViolenceThis is an important part of the debate. Many people don't become violent because of violence in video games. Rather, they play violent video games because they enjoy violence. In order for con to win this point, he must prove that the violence in video games causes the violence. A simple correlation between violent people and people that play violent video games is not enough.(1) http://www.minnpost.com...(2) http://www.sfgate.com...(3) http://www.forbes.com... (4) http://www.goodtherapy.org... (5) Chasing the Dream, “The Economist”(6) http://freakonomics.com...

negative: Resolved: Thirteen Year Olds Should Play Video Games Based On Their Age On The Ratings Hello and thank you for debating this with me. This has been a while since I have done this so I may be a bit rusty. Good luck!Case 1: Not Bad For Your KidMany case studies have been released to show video games have no effect on kids. In this study, (1) it shows that out of over thousands kids taken for the experiment, none, and may I repeat, NONE HAVE HAD ANY NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON A KID'S BEHAVIOR. A quote from the article. "KEY FINDINGS Exposure to video games had no effect on behavior, attention or emotional issues. Watching 3 or more hours of television at age 5 did lead to a small increase in behavioral problems in youngsters between 5 and 7. Neither television nor video games lead to attentional or emotional problems. There was no difference between boys and girls in the survey results." End quote There is another article based on the same experiment if you aren't satisfied.Case 2: MaturityAt age thirteen, these teens know the difference between fiction and reality. If a parent finds rated M video games acceptable for her child, then who am I to argue with her. The stereotypical,"violent video games result in violence" saying has been disproved by science. (3) It has been proven that even kids with depression and attention deficit disorder did not become overly aggressive or bullies. Here is a quote from the article." Ferguson, associate professor of psychology and criminal justice at Texas A&M International University,and Olson studied 377 American children, on average 13 years of age, from various ethnic groups who had clinically elevated attention deficit or depressive symptoms. The children were part of an existing large federally funded project that examines the effect of video game violence on youths. The study is important in light of ongoing public debate as to whether or not violent video games fuel behavioral aggression and societal violence among youths, especially among those with pre-existing mental health problems. Societal violence includes behavior such as bullying, physical fighting, criminal assaults and even homicide. And the news media often draws a link from the playing of violent video games to the perpetrators of school shootings in the United States. Ferguson and Olson’s findings do not support the popular belief that violent video games increase aggression in youth who have a predisposition to mental health problems." End quote Overall, rated M video games have shown no correlation to a decline in mental health to thirteen year olds. this means there are no good reasons to restrict your kids from playing rated M games. Therefore, you must vote con! Thank you!1. http://www.gamesandlearning.org...2. http://www.forbes.com...3. http://psychcentral.com...

negative: Violence in video games does not significantly contribute to real world violence. I've been meaning to explore some things that coincide with my arguments and this is a great opportunity to do so. TRAINED TO KILL I'll explain this more as I go along, but the fact is kids are being trained to kill. Everyday they are on their video games simulating acts of murder over and over. Call of Duty, Grand Theft Auto all these games work to desensitize kids to violence and murder. It infects their brain and they lose their conscience. I hope by the end of this debate, I've convinced a lot of people to expose themselves and children to these violent forms of media significantly less. NOT BORN TO KILL Humans despite being a violent species are disgusted with violence. They can't bring themselves to kill people. Experts say that in World War 2 when solders would get within killing range of an enemy combatant only 1 in 5 would take the necessary shot. According to Army historian Brig. Gen. S. L. A. Marshall this has nothing to do with cowardice. Soldiers would still do feats of heroics, but just have a repulsion towards murder. Recovered muskets from the civil war showed that 90% were fully loaded. This means most of those simply weren't fired. Soldiers were pretending to shoot at the enemy. In the 1960s law enforcement was shown to have a similar problem. Cops just weren't shooting at suspects even when civilian lives were in danger. Psychologists stepped in to help the government create more efficient killers. How did they do it? Well look at a quote from the article this whole section is sourced from. "Target practice on hollowed cabbages filled with ketchup to mimic the way a bullet rips open a human head. Marching to chants of "kill, kill, kill. " Video game simulations that reward points for every successful "shot. " These are among hundreds of techniques that experts say can recondition the human brain. " That's right. The government uses video games to desensitize soldiers to acts violence, so killing becomes more palatable. This stuff actually worked. By the time Vietnam rolled around the kill rate was at 90% and is likely even higher now. The kill rate jumping from 20% to 90% in military operations aided by violent video games meant to desensitize people clearly fulfills my portion of the BOP, but let's take it a step further. . http://m.sfgate.com... DESENSITIZE ME It's not so much Video games being directly responsible for real world violence so much as violent video games being a major contributing factor. The more kids play violent video games the more they become desensitized to violence and the less empathy they have for victims of violence. . http://static2.wikia.nocookie.net... It's simple. The more you see violent images, the less it bothers you to see violent images. This desensitization makes it easier to either commit violent actions or to stand by and do nothing when violent acts are being committed. So it contributes in 2 major ways. I'm not the only one that sees this connection between violent video games and real world violence. "In fact the surgeon general, the National Institute of Mental Health and multiple professional organizations " including the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association " all consider media violence exposure a risk factor for actual violence. " . http://mobile.nytimes.com... I'm not saying that an individual that plays violent video games is going to be violent, but it certainly increases their chance of becoming violent, which in turn has a huge real world effect when taking into account how many people are exposed to this desensitization. In one recent study over 30 people were exposed to different images before playing a game where they could harm their opponent by blasts of sound. The people exposed to the most violent images, were far more likely to punish their opponent more than the ones not exposed to them. . http://videogames.procon.org... DR. BRUCE Dr. Bruce Perry an expert brain development in children provides a useful list of things that contribute to kids becoming violent scholastic. com z His first cause directly blames desensitization to violence as a result of violent media (aka video games). Number 2 is becoming detached from people which could also be a result of playing violent games too much. His number 5 reason is because we are becoming more practiced at killing and specifically mentions violent video games as helping with the practice. . http://teacher.scholastic.com... If you think that video games aren't good at teaching anything check out this article. . http://www.wired.com... A man actually saves a life from the practice he got on a military recruiting game called America's Army. FACT OR FICTION According to psychologists, up to 25% of the population can't tell the difference between reality and fantasy. . http://healthland.time.com... Maybe on an intellectual level they can, but these violent games are desensitizing them worse than anybody else. These people are at particular risk of going too far after being pushed. Violent video are a major contributor to real world violence. CONCLUSION I'll post my rebuttals next rebound and anxiously await my opponent's arguments.

negative: Video Games Cannot Be Blamed For 'Corrupting' Children. I will be playing the role of devil's advocate for this debate. Pro states in his debate that the corruption of youth is not at the fault of the video games or the industry that produces these games, but it is in fact at the fault of the parents of these children. Though this could pass as a legitimate argument Pro's reasoning are as one would say "broken"To directly quote Pro:"I was in a Game store last week, and saw children as young as 14 discussing what games to get. One of them bought Bioshock 2, another bought GTA Vice City, and the third bought Prototype 2, all with their parents permission. I own or have played all 3 of these games, and they are definitely not suitable for children of that age, hence the age rating."Pro later states:"games that are rated 18+ are all aimed at people in that age group. Anybody who is younger than that that is playing such games is only doing so because their parents, or their friends parents don't care about the age rating." (just a small nitpick but ESRB's mature rating is 17+ not 18+[1])Pro's argument is simply as goes "Because the parents allow their kids to play these 17+ games which according the the official ESRB website contains topics like "May contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content and/or strong language."[1] the parent are responsible for their children's corruption. Following this logic Pro has fully admitted that video games are responsible for the corruption of youth, yet he insists that its the parents fault for allowing their children to play these games. With or without parental consent, playing these games do in fact corrupt their kids. It is completely irresponsible to blame the parent in this situation, the games that contain this content in the first place is the source of corruption in youth.Now for my main argument/sIt has been proved in multiple studies that video games have influenced or directly caused violence in not even youths but people in general, I will be using recent studies from 2013, in which video games are shown as a link to increases of aggression[2] Brad Bushman, a professor at Ohio State University who specializes in communication and psychology directly states:"People who played a violent video game for three consecutive days showed increases in aggressive behavior and hostile expectations each day they played"The study was conducted by Bushman and fellow researchers form France and Germany, they gathered a group of 70 French students and told them they would be participating in a three-day study of the effects of brightness of video games on visual perception (although this was not the case)The students were randomly assigned to play a violent or non violent video game for 20 minutes for the three day period, afterwards they were put in multiple excersizes to test their level of agression. The results showed those who played the violent games expected the others around them to act agressive towards them and were shown to act agressive towards others according to Bushman.The study also showed those who played the non violent games showed no changes in their level of agression or hostile expectations, the study also showed that the those who played violent video games decrease pro-social behavior, such as helping or cooperating with others, and decrease feelings of empathy and compassion for others.It is quite obvious rather we like it or not that violent video games do have an effect on some, and can be a link to violence. I await Pro's arguments/Sources: [1] http://www.esrb.org... [2] http://seattletimes.com...;

negative: Violent video games and school shootings are related 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.

negative: Violent video games, banning of I have given you many examples on what the police are calling copycat crime and that the police are taking very seriously!. because this is an issue on the rise The government is supposed to do what is best for his/her country,weigh up the consequences and benefits and make a decision on what is best and if it saves lives to ban violent video games then so be it that is what we should do! So you think that people being able to waste there lives sitting in front of a screen for hours on end killing people is more important than even just one of the lives out of the many lives lost due to copycat crime from violent video games???? You put the word children in capital letters when you were talking about what I thought well why? what does it matter if the people killing are 17yrs old or 28yrs old the bottom line is that people are getting murdered not the age of the people killing them!!!. And you said would I put a ban on cars because they can be used in violence well no I would not because cars have a useful purpose but what useful purpose do violent video games have?! answer me that. And you said we should ban all movies with violence well no because there is a difference between when you watch someone shoot someone else in a movie that is not you pulling the trigger but in a game you are the one killing. Violence maybe human nature but it is certainly not something that should be glorified and encouraged on violent video games!. When children are growing up we teach them right from wrong by rewarding them for good behavior and punishing them for bad but in a violent video game the players are rewarded for killing someone by being moved up on a level or awarded a new gun or armor. Why this goes against basic moral standards. A survey of 1,102 adolescents found that 97 percent had played video games in the past day. Although most parents checked the censor"s rating before allowing their child to purchase it, 50 percent of boys and 14 percent of girls favored games with an "M" (mature) or "AO" (adult-only) rating, which implies a high degree of violence This is cause for concern. Research has long shown a cause-effect relationship between video game violence and aggression among children and youth who play it. And morally should people really take pleasure in killing and assaulting and torturing people???.