Violent video games should be banned

As per the rules of the debate, I will use this round for presenting my opening arguments and nothing more. I. The Universal Declaration of Human RightsAs humans, we have the inherent freedom and right to pursue that which leads to the good life. As we all know, the "good life" in itself is purely subjective, thus what might be the good life for one person, might not be the good life for another. However, within this inherent freedom to pursue such things, if something is brought into question, we must weigh the positive and negative impact that the object or thing in question brings with it. If we see that, on balance, something proves to be a net good, then there is no reason for such a thing or object to be banned from use. In this case, I do not believe that violent video games are truly a net negative which require the complete removal of it from our lives in the form of a ban. I was going to utilize the U. S. Constitution, but judged from Pro's first round that this debate will include the world as a whole (at-least countries under western influence), rather than the values of just one nation. Thus I will instead utilize The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is a declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1948 at the Palais de Chaillot, Paris. The Declaration arose directly from the experience of the Second World War and represents the first global expression of rights to which all human beings are inherently entitled. [1]The reason I am utilizing this declaration is because within it there are several articles which serve to guarantee the freedoms of each and every living person in our world today. For this debate specifically, there are several articles which serve to strengthen my main points. For instance:Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. This opening article reflects the fact that we, as humans, have the responsibility to act accordingly to one another, and are free in our rights to pursue such things as the good life. This also reflects the fact that as free humans, it is us who are responsible for the harms brought on our fellow humans, not the object in question, but rather the human being using or influenced by the object. This reminds me of the saying, "it's not guns who kill people, but rather the people who use the guns," and it's true, guns don't pull their own triggers, it's the humans using the guns who pull the triggers. I feel like the same can be applied for video games, clearly there are cases where video games influence people, however, we must remember that it is the humans themselves who carry out such actions, not the games themselves. Article 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. This article is key, because it touches on exactly what my opponent seeks to ban: the freedom to seek, receive and impart information through any media. Obviously violent video games are a form of media, and given that we have a universal right to receive information through such media, it stands to be argued that my opponent seeks to take away a fundamental right we have set forth for one another. Unless there is a net harm being caused, I see no valid reason for such a right to be stripped from us. Article 24. Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay. This is another key article because it reflects our right to periods of rest and leisure. As a working guy myself, I hold this article in the highest regard, because when I'm not working, and on my leisure time, I'm playing video games such as GTA 5. It provides entertainment and is a means for me to unload the usual stresses of everyday life. If I had that inherent right taken from me in the form of a ban, it'd be a clear violation of my rights to rest and leisure. Article 27. (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits. This should go without say, but violent video games are indeed a part of the cultural life of our community, video games in themselves are the results of scientific advancements in the form of computer software engineering. I clearly have the right to freely participate in such things, as shown in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. **It should now be clear to both the audience and my opposition that I have the inherent rights and protections given under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to partake in and play video games, whether they are violent or not. ** A ban on violent video games is nothing less than a complete dismissal of the inherent rights we have as human beings. [2]II. There are controls on the accessibility of violent video gamesWhenever purchasing a new video game, there is always a rating on the game box or distributors websites. The Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) ratings provide guidance about video games and apps so that consumers, especially parents, can make informed choices about the ones they deem suitable for their family. [3] In video game stores, if an "M" rated game is being purchased, the cashier has a legal obligation to ID the purchaser to ensure that they are of the correct age for purchase, otherwise, they will not be able to buy the game for personal usage. This is in line with current legal operations in regards to video games. It's already a given that violent video games are only suitable for select audiences/players. Our current society has deemed it acceptable for people of the age 18+ to be exposed to such things as violent video games. We are given the responsibility to handle the information within such media responsibly and accordingly with respect to current laws against violence amongst one another. If a minor is irresponsibly exposed to such things, then that is a failure on the part of their legal guardian, not the game itself. The same could be said for anything in life that has age-restrictions placed on it. It's not the games fault that the information within it was mis-used, but rather the agent who allowed for such misuse in the first place. Thus, when we hear about cases where someone who partook in acts of violence played a certain video game, we cannot reasonably blame the game itself, as it was the person who chose to carry out those actions who is rightfully at fault. As I mentioned earlier, I play GTA 5 all the time, but I'm not going around carrying out massive shooting-sprees or car-jacking people. The responsibility falls on the individual, and we have current restrictions which serve to protect individuals who are not yet at the appropriate age to reasonably handle the information presented within violent video games. I see no reason to ban such things when ultimately it is up to the distributors and purchasers to act within reason when partaking in such things. A ban would only serve to harm those who are responsible enough to handle such things. III. Punishing the many, for the sins of the fewWhenever there are cases of violent outbreaks and it's found that the agent of such actions played violent video games, it's all too easy to say "oh, let's ban the things that the violent person did. " However, this completely ignores the big picture. Let's take GTA5 for instance, as of 31 December 2014, the game has shipped 45 million copies to retailers. So, we can assume that around 45 million people have played the game since its release. Now, how many cases of violence has been associated with the game? I'll go way out there and say that there have been 1,000 cases. In reality there hasn't been nearly that much, more like 20-100, but let's assume that's the number. If so, then only 0.000022% of GTA5 players have turned violent in real life. There is no justifiable reason to punish the other 99.9978% of players who don't turn violent by banning the game. This can be applied to any violent game as long as we truly consider the numbers. This entire time I've been arguing that unless these games are shown to be a net negative, there is no justifiable reason to ban them. With these numbers now given, it's clear that the game is not only not a net negative, but furthermore that only a tiny, minuscule fraction of the players actually carry out such violence in real life. Why on earth should we punish the many, for the sins of the few? In this case the few being only 0.000022% of the population. IV. Avoiding the root causeThis is personal, and pisses me off. Everytime there is a school shooting we try to ban guns, and blame the guns, instead of looking at the individuals mental history and finding the true cause of such violent tendencies. How would banning a game have stopped a mentally-disturbed individual? Would there not just be something else that would set them off? The same goes for video games. Blaming a video game for a shooting or other violent outbreak is absurd, because clearly there are other factors at play. By automatically putting video games in the cross-hairs, we are robbing ourselves of the chance to look deeper into the matter and finding a true means to helping and avoiding such things in the future on the individual level. Isn't it about time we stop looking at the easiest solutions and start fighting the true causes at their roots? I believe it is, and the first step in doing so is avoiding an unjustified ban which violates our inherent rights and misses the true cause. Sources[1] . http://www.un.org...[2] . http://www.un.org...[3] . http://www.esrb.org...