Violent Video Games Cause Violent Behavior

S1: First, the language argument that "Aggression doesn't equate Violence" without a basis disregards context. Your "refutation"(?) exceeds the source. You have to provide that it isn't specific to that definition not that a word has more than one definition in general. Bunk. To back this up from within the source: [[ Japanese children rated their own behavior in terms of physical aggression, such as hitting, kicking or getting into fights with other kids; the U.S. children rated themselves too, but the researchers took into account reports from their peers and teachers as well. ]] There is no reason it doesn't refer to violence. --- S2: Second is a misquote: [[ But Dr. Cheryl K. Olson, co-director of the Center for Mental Health and the Media at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, isn't convinced. "It's not the violence per se that's the problem, it's the context and goals of the violence," said Olson, citing past research on TV violence and behavior. There are definitely games kids shouldn't be playing, she said, for example those where hunting down and killing people is the goal. But she argues that the label "violent video games" is too vague. Researchers need to do a better job at defining what is considered a violent video game and what constitutes aggressive behavior, she added. Further, she adds, playing games rated "M" for mature has become "normative behavior" for adolescents, especially boys. "It's just a routine part of what they do," she says. ]] First, it exceeds the claim that it effects children by entering into a different age bracket (adolescents) and second it's a generic counter-balance claim for any given newsource to prevent bias however she too states that certain games should not be used and then proposes that the proposition is loose, which is fine however it does not dismiss: [[ In every group, children who were exposed to more video game violence did become more aggressive over time than their peers who had less exposure. This was true even after the researchers took into account how aggressive the children were at the beginning of the study -- a strong predictor of future bad behavior. The findings are "pretty good evidence" that violent video games do indeed cause aggressive behavior, says Dr. L. Rowell Huesmann, director of the Research Center for Group Dynamics at the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research in Ann Arbor. There are two ways violent media can spur people to violent actions, said Huesmann, who has been studying violence in media and behavior for more than 30 years. First is imitation; children who watch violence in the media can internalize the message that the world is a hostile place, he explains, and that acting aggressively is an OK way to deal with it. Also, he says, kids can become desensitized to violence. "When you're exposed to violence day in and day out, it loses its emotional impact on you," Huesmann said. "Once you're emotionally numb to violence, it's much easier to engage in violence." ]] It doesn't even counter it. They are talking about two different age groups and I focusing on children. My opponents criticism holds no water. --- Q1: The second source is pretty much the same. [[ When asked if it was okay for a boy to strike a peer if that peer said something negative about him, for example, these kids were more likely to say yes. They also scored higher on measures of hostility, answering that they would to respond with aggressive action when provoked, even accidentally. The more long-term gamers were also more likely to fantasize about hitting someone they didn"t like. ]] Solves the "language" issue. --- Q2: [[ Working with 3,034 boys and girls in the third, fourth, seventh, and eighth grades in Singapore, Anderson and his colleagues asked the children three times over a period of two years detailed questions about their video game habits. ... "What this study does is show that it"s media violence exposure that is teaching children and adolescents to see the world in a more aggressive kind of way," says Anderson. "It shows very strongly that repeated exposure to violent video games can increase aggression by increasing aggressive thinking." Brain imaging studies also hint that exposure to violent gaming may actually temporarily change the brain. In a 2011 study, for example, after a week of daily video gaming, brain scans of a small group of volunteers showed less activity in the regions connected to emotions, attention, and inhibition of impulses compared to participants who played non-violent video games. The effect appeared to be reversible, but the results suggested that extended periods of play could lead to more stable changes in the brain. ]] --- Q3: Completely shows my opponent misquoted the segment chosen: [[ Previous studies have suggested that the short-term effects of spiking stress hormones"typical of the fight-or-flight response"can rev up players" sensitivity to slights or provocations, and that playing violent games can lead to longer-term suppression of empathy. Another recent study purported to find a link between violent video games and racism. Anderson and his team, however, did not see any significant difference in empathy among the players who played more or fewer hours. That confirmed earlier lab-based studies that showed both undergraduates who played violent games and those that played non-violent ones were equally likely to help scientists pick up dropped pens. ]] This has nothing to do with with children, for one, and it has nothing to do with this study the article is on, for two, it looks at other studies which suggested something entirely different that wasn't even measured in the study cited. The "third" point has the same problem as the third point last time as it's an anti-bias point however if one reads it: [[ More recent research has not found that children who play VVG are more violent than other kids, nor harmed in any other identifiable fashion. A recent longitudinal study of my own, following 165 10- to 14-year-old boys and girls over a three-year period, now in press with Journal of Psychiatric Research, finds no long-term link between VVG and youth aggression or dating violence. ]] The age itself exceeds that of the scope of the study itself. The actual study, if read, shows as the article states: "That"s because children tend to act less aggressively as they get older, and learn more mature ways of dealing with conflicts than lashing out." However it is backed up with the above in segment Q2 which goes back and addresses the issue throughout the study and the rerouting of native behavior and behavioral choices. --- O1: I am no longer going to constantly "assert" the equivocation problem since it's been shown false twice now and it is clearly false in the third if one should read it. It does not even hide the term violence and it is extremely clear that it refers to at least violent behavior and fighting. As for the "source doesn't present evidence" the studies are cited and there is a link to one at the bottom. It isn't impossible to verify. That doesn't even make sense. I would understand if there were no citations, it wasn't reviewed, it didn't have scholarly status, and it was not from a reputable source but there's no value to your "questioning" as it is as sound as any source would get. You have to objectively prove why it's not a sound source not just inject why you don't like it. The standard for endorsement has nothing to do with the validity of the information. That is an outright Strawman (http://www.nizkor.org...) and means nothing. --- F1: "Third, the evidence it uses isn't even significant. The results from the study said, and I quote, "These studies find that playing violent video games does, indeed, cause aggression. The effect is a correlation of about r = .20", which is statistically insignificant. It's more likely that an alternative cause, like one's previously mentioned, are causing the violent behavior other than the violence in video games themselves. " I have to prove that VVGs cause aggression. This proves that VVGs cause aggression. You rejection based on the "amount" of aggression is ( http://rationalwiki.org... ) shifting goalposts. Instead of my source proving the point and being sufficient my opponent has decided that it's "not enough" and "doesn't work" based on absolutely no criteria. Furthermore the opponent doesn't explain why it's statistically insignificant or what "r=.20" actually means which misleads those who do not know to simply be swayed without an explanation which further makes for an actual Appeal to Authority: Self (http://www.nizkor.org...) as my opponent feels they are of sufficient standing to declare this as fact without backing. --- Overview: Pivot 1: My opponent commits Equivocation as a means of defense. Pivot 2: My opponent misquotes the sources, does not posit his own, and inters his own reasoning as a means of dissuading others regardless of his not being an Authority and his not having grounds or ignoring the content and context. Pivot 3: My opponent admits that at least one source did provide sufficient evidence that it does occur but then shifts the goalpost stating that it's occurrence was not sufficient to meet their criteria which was not revealed prior making it shifting of goal posts, a logical fallacy, and completely unfair. Conclusion: I was hoping I'd be reading things that backed VVGs rather than having to discuss basic language deciphering skills and listening to made up on the spot criteria. Note: I dropped the last two sources in agreement with my opponent because though they are actually signs of of the behavior in children and why they are so impressionable (and it does talk about video games in the last two sources) it's easier to continue without them.