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

" "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. Your eleven sources have proved this for me, by virtue of the fact that they prove that some of the violent people have watched violent media. Therefore it could either prove that media causes violence in people or that violent people seek violent media. Thank you for doing the work for me. " My opponent has largely ignored the majority of my argument. I believe that the above was directly addressing your argument. You made no real claims you simply placed a series of sources with nothing pulling them together. " Media violence is becoming more and more sickening by the day--an effect achieved through the literally demented Proof? you have no backing of this claim. "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. Just because your sourced something it doesn't make it correct. People have painted from the dawn of time, I'm not going to do any serious research but there is plenty of evidence of cave painting here [1]. Painting has existed for a very long time, these 'paintings' you speak were derived from the primitive cave paintings. Therefore they were derived from something. By suggesting art is simply a relocation on people's hallucinations suggests that people must have had the ideas before. " 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". My opponent did not source, or even mention what the Senate Committee said so therefore it holds no relevance. My personal experience is irrelevant. This paragraph is too vague and does not refute my argument. You don't have to comprehend the world to commit violence. " "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." Media is based of off real life, it doesn't have to be an accurate depiction. My opponent did not prove that media was derived from an un-worldly source, so therefore the claim did not defeat any of my three arguments. " 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." A fair point however it was meant to prove that people are violent without media, so therefore taking away violent media won't stop the violence. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...