Violent Video Games Cause Violent Behavior

Aggression =/= ViolenceMy opponent's sole refutation to this point is that by claiming that aggression and violent behavior are not the same thing, I'm ignoring the context of the situation. He supports this by quoting one of his sources where kids rated their own behavior on how violent they were. There are numerous problems with this though,First, this is a highly silly argument. Just by saying one of his sources refers to "violent behavior" doesn't equate aggression and violence in any way. He still has yet to prove how aggression and violence are the same thing. My previous example of how I can be an aggressive person and still not do a single violent thing still holds. Second, this is a really, really, really, silly argument. Even if his study references some kids talking about their aggression as violent acts, it would be highly fallacious to then equate that into all references of aggression are of real-world violence. That's like saying because I'm a mass murderer and I'm wearing purple socks, then anyone wearing purple socks is a mass murderer. So just because one of his sources references some kids talking about their aggression in terms of physical violence, that doesn't mean all aggression is in terms of phsyical violence. And, this is devastating to my opponent's case because every single one of his sources talk about how video games are making kids more aggressive. But if that aggression isn't being actually being turned into actual physical violence, then it becomes impossible for him to actually affirm the resolution.Mis-Misquoting:Instead of responding to each accusation that I misquoted my opponent's sources, especially since each response would be the same essentially, I'll just condense it into one response: no I didn't. I copy/pasted the exact text the article had into the round. I'm not quoting entire paragraphs of text if I only plan to cite a few sentences because a) that's a waste of characters, b) you're already quoting the things that you say I need to be quoting, so there's no point, and c) it doesn't invalidate any of the accusations I've brought against you. For someone who's complaining about the direction this debate is headed, you're only furthering it in that direction when you had multiple different chances to respond in substance to the arguments I've leveled against you.Also, now that I'm re-reading through his defenses, I'm noticing something come up really often that I feel like needs to be addressed. And so it shall be:AND WHAT ABOUT THE KIDS!?!? THINK ABOUT THE KIDS!!Frankly, I don't know why my opponent thinks age range is all that relevant of a limiting factor. The resolution was never limited in any way to only children or only teenagers so the fact that he's trying to disqualify evidence based on it not talking about kids is really, really odd. And now for some math talk. For those of you who don't want to be bored by math goobley-gook, I'll bold where the tl;dr starts.STATS 101The problem with the one study my opponent cited is that it stated the relationship cited between playing violent video games and aggression is equal to r = .20. But what does that even mean? Well, as my math teacher always told me to do, figure out what the variable is.r represents the correlation coefficient, or how strong the relationship between two variables are (1). The number is measured between positive and negative one. The closer to negative one it is, the more negative the relationship is (i.e. more x correlates with less y) and the closer to positive one it is, the more positive the relationship is (i.e. more x correlates with more y). END OF EXTREMELY SHORT MATH SECTION Essentially, the stronger the correlation between aggression and violent video games was, the closer that number would be to one. The fact that it is very, very far away from one (as it's at .20) suggests that it has little to no impact.BUT EVEN IF the correlation coefficient does suggest a relationship between the two, there's still a bunch of problems that the studies don't resolve, which I will go into now.First, he can't just point to this and say that violent video games cause aggression and point to the correlation coefficient as evidence. This is textbook correlation-causation fallacy. Just because something correlates with another variable, does not mean one causes the other. The possibility of bias in the study or other variables influencing the results is still a viable possibility that would explain the correlation, thus making it fallacious to just point to it and say "violent video games cause aggression". There are multiple variables, that I brought up before and my opponent never responded to, that would influence the two, such as domestic violence, abuse, and mental illness among others. Second, even if he's somehow showing that violent video games do actually CAUSE aggression, not just correlate with it, then he still has to prove how being more aggressive makes people actually resort to physical, real-world violence, which is something that he has yet to ever try to prove. ========But let's take a step back here. Let's think about if I'm just a little deluded to my debating skills. What if my opponent is actually right that there is some kind of causal link between violent video games and aggression? And that aggression is the same thing as real-world violence? What if he's actually right?Even if, he'd still be wrong. Why? Let's think about it for a second.Well for one video games serve as a method to vent anger and stress, offering a non-violent outlet to any kind of aggression or tension-buildup. Gilsdorf explains it quite well when he states: "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." (2)Could playing violent video games actually help people relax? Make them less likely to commit other atrocities in real life, their anger fully expressed in the virtual world, making it unnecessary to surface in the real one? Empirics say yes. With 42% of the boys studied saying they play video games to release anger and 65% saying that playing games helps them relax (3), it's quite clear what effect violent video games have on people, if any. CONCLUSION- My opponent's only real defense was accusing me of misquoting his sources. With this addressed, the turns against his sources all stand as valid, giving me additional offense coming out of his very arguments. - All of my opponent's arguments revolve around the concept of showing how violent video games create more aggression in those who play them. The only problem with this is the only point that even comes close to doing so mathmatically admits to having little to no impact on behavior. And even if it did have some kind of correlation, a) he isn't proving causation at all, and his attempts to assert it are the correlation-causation fallacy, b) isn't showing how aggression and real-world violence are the same thing, c) ignores the argument coming out of his own sources that says if this is actually true, then there would be a crime trend to match it, and that crime rate trend does not exist (this is the Fergusen evidence coming out of his own Time source), d) he isn't showing why any of the alternative explanations for this rise in aggression aren't actually valid, meaning that they all stand as alternative explanatory variables (this is only further strengthened by the fact that the Fergusen evidence says that studies saying there's a relationship don't account for these alternative variables), e) he's not responding to the argument coming from his Time source saying that those who played violent video games were just as likely to show signs of empathy toward others as those who didn't play violent video games, which is a direct counter to his aggression point,and f) doesn't explain the evidence that actually shows how playing violent video games provides an outlet for things like anger and aggression, which would prevent real-world outbursts of violence. And this is especially crushing to my opponent since this analysis is back by empirics which confirm the point.And with that, I pass the floor back over to my opponent, and wish him luck with the rest of this debate! :)Sources:(1) - http://tinyurl.com...(2) - http://tinyurl.com...(3) - 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