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

Thank you Wylted for your arguments. I'll go ahead and attack each of my opponent's claims.Trained to KillHere, my opponent basically explains the arguments that he will run during the debate. He brings up two points:1. Kids are desensitized by playing video games.2. This desensitization contributes to violence.By the end of this debate, I aim to prove both of these things untrue. Not Born to KillFor this point, my opponent explains that humans do not like killing. He gives an example of the kill rates before and after the beginning of training soldiers with killing simulations he claims that are similar to some of the video games played today. Here is why this argument doesn't hold up. Firstly, we have to realize that these killing simulations are not as similar to the popular video games children play as my opponent makes them out to be. Shooting targets while listening to "kill kill kill" over and over in one's head is more likely to result in acts of violence than popular video games such as Call of Duty and Grand Theft Auto. Gilsdorf explains, "They offer a hunt/shoot/kill scenario as a way to solve problems (1)." So we see that today's violent video games provide a scenario that involves thinking and problem solving rather than just repetitive killing. Another thing to look at is the various factors involved in this killing simulation besides violence. Ultimately, a system that rewards points will lead to some degree of competition. This is part of what may have caused the added motivation from the soldiers to kill. It may seem a bit extreme to suggest that competition leads to violence (or in the case of the military, murder). Psychology Today explains, "Competition among men leads to a high level of violence (murder, assault, and battery) among them (2)." Essentially, men are motivated to be more violent due to various sources of competition (such as women or sports). 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.Desensitize MeMy opponent begins by explaining that video games desensitize individuals. However, from a psychological standpoint, this is not necessarily the case. A study was conducted by Reyerson University. Two large groups (active gamers and non-gamers) were shown various images with good, bad, and neutral connotations. Many of these images could be considered violent. It was hypothesized that the gamers would be less sensitive to the bad pictures, especially the violent ones. However, it turned out that both groups had similar reactions. Bowen notes at the end of the experiment, "The findings indicate that long-term emotional memory is not affected by chronic exposure violent video games (3)." My opponent's next point brings up various figures of authority who support the idea that video games significantly contribute to real world violence. This is a common logical fallacy known as appeal to authority. Just because someone important believes something, doesn't mean that the belief is correct. This point ultimately falls because no evidence is provided as to *why* these people support con's stance.Looking at my opponent's last point, we can see a study is cited that is rather similar to mine above. There are a couple problems with this study:1. The sample size is very small. 30 people (probably 15 gamers and 15 non gamers) is not enough to measure whether or not video games desensitize (or cause violence).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.Dr. BruceMy opponent addresses some claims made by Dr. Bruce Perry; I'll go ahead and cover each the claims that are relevant to this debate.1. Desensitization causes violence (desensitization comes from video games). I'll begin by cross applying my point that explains how video games do not result in desensitization. What I'm going to focus on is the claim that desensitization causes violence. Let's take a look at exactly what desensitization is. It can be defined as, "the potential for reduced responsiveness to actual violence caused by exposure to violence in the media." 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.2. Video games help kids become efficient killers.Now, I would agree to an extent that video games are a way of teaching kids how to handle various combat situations. However, this does not mean that such a game will give kids the desire to use an actual gun. I'd like to bring up my point about releasing aggression from my constructive: "Logically, if violence in video games makes inmates less violent, they won't have an opposite affect when it comes to kids." If children are interested it weapons and violence, it is much better to allow them to play video games than to let them store up such aggressive feelings up to the point where they can gain access to a real weapon. My first source continues, "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 (1)."My opponent ends this point by explaining that video games are effective in teaching by showing an example of a man who saved lives using a technique he learned in a video game. The problem with this point is that it actually has nothing to do with video games teaching violent practices. The given video game in this example has promoted something useful, as opposed to violence. Fact or FictionThis last point does nothing to further my opponent's case. My opponent explains that a large amount of people cannot tell the difference between reality and fantasy saying that, "These people are at particular risk of going too far after being pushed (by video games)." I have proved through my rebuttal that video games don't actually give this extra push; rather, they can discourage it in some cases (through aggression release).To sum everything up...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.For these reasons, I am pro.(1) http://cognoscenti.wbur.org... (2) http://www.psychologytoday.com... (3) http://www.newswise.com...(4) Freedman, J.L. (2003). Media Violence and its effect on aggression: assessing the scientific evidence. Canada: University of Toronto Press Incorporated.