Violent media causes people to be violent and should therefore be banned or censored.

----Some thoughts---- My opponent has largely ignored the majority of my argument. I must then assume that he accepts those unaddressed arguments in their entirety; he concedes the debate. However, I will be courteous and extend my unaddressed arguments to this round. ----Response---- "Media is based of off people's experiences and is based of off the real world. There is no media which is based completely off fantasy, because this is not possible. " This in not true at all. In the PBS documentary "How Art Made the World", for instance, it was discovered that the idea of "paintings" was, for a large period of time, nonexistent--there were no paintings anywhere! Then, in an explosion of creativity, human kind created paintings in masses. How was that possible? How was the concept of a "painting" first conceived? The documentary explains: It was a way of copying hallucinations down semi-permanently. But what does this have to do with this debate? It proves that complete originality is possible; that through altered states of consciousness, new ideas may emerge. Media violence is becoming more and more sickening by the day--an effect achieved through the literally demented. Media violence, as I've proven, forces kids to be more violent. It therefore must be banned, or at least censored. "I do not need to comprehend all the horrific events of the world to imitate what I see in the media" According to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, that is not what most all the statistics say. And furthermore, your personal experience holds no value. First, you could be lying (your personal situation is completely unverifiable). And second, one personal story does not provide the bigger picture. "People may not be aware that more violence exists in the real world. But the topic of the debate was not if media was an accurate depiction of real life. " Yes, but in proving that the media is not solely derived from the real world, I've defeated one of your three arguments. "The major flaw with your argument is that people seek things they are interested in, a violent person will seek out violence in the media. " That's an interesting deduction. In fact, it goes in direct contradiction with my ELEVEN SOURCES! I don't feel, nor does the audience feel like trusting your unproven claims. You bear burden of proof; you prove it. The first paragraph of your "Argument" is an explanation for the above unproven quote, so I won't address it until you provide some evidence. "Now let's look at a less economically developed country such as Columbia or areas of the Congo or just generally deprived area of the world. These places must have little or no access to violent media simply because of lack of funds, do these places have less violent crime? has the crime rate of the world significantly increased upon the release of a new Grand Theft Auto. " Woah, woah, woah. Completely chewed logic! I agree: Violent media is not the sole reason for violence--poverty, religion, famine, and political struggles do indeed tend to also cause violence. However, that does not negate the fact that violent media causes violence. I'm sure the audience sees the ridiculousness in this argument. Thank you for your time.