developers should be allowed to put as much violence as they please into their games

Well, you said that creators should have complete control over their product, which seems to contradict your side in the debate, but I will follow what you are saying. I do believe that it would be better if game developers had to consider the violence that would go into their games, but that is completely different than saying that the violence should be neglected, or even restricted, in games. There may be a middle ground to reach here, but that would make voting hard for this debate. This matter, though, can wait until your next debate. I will just get right down to your points and try to see if I can find any flaws Let's get 1) and 2) out of the way first: The ESRB is in charge of rating most games. If a game has no violence, it will be given an E for Everyone rating, and it is safe. M for Mature should be watched out for, and T for Teen should be monitored. Most people who are involved with gaming have heard this exact debate time and time again, and in the modern era it is easy to find the information necessary to make a conclusion. If the parents are able to find this info, and understand the connection to aggression and violence, and still let their preteen child play games like Hatred, unmonitored for vast amounts of time, then that child was doomed from the start. The parent should monitor to see how violent video games affect grades, personality, etc., and be ready to pull the plug at any time; or better yet, just stay away from games like these in the first place. [1] Further, while it may sound off-topic right now, the color red has been stated to, to an extent, cause aggression, adrenaline, and similar things. I'm going somewhere with this, trust me. The link I got this info from did say that research was a little rusty in this area, but it tends to say red would "stimulate the body and mind and to increase circulation", or "causes people to react with greater speed and force". If nothing else, this should speak about how nearly everything in life can affect the mind in one way or another. I'd be worried if video games couldn't make us feel more mad or aggressive. And with that out of the way, let's get to point 3). I am glad to find another gamer who understands games as an art form, and I will go as far as to agree with you on basically everything you said here. Remember Hatred? Hatred was a poorly made game, with most of its focus pointed to mindless sadism as opposed to good gameplay or an actual storyline, based on what I saw of it. And who needs another COD clone? Honestly, I'm a teenage boy, the target demographic for these games, and I would prefer to play Undertale on pacifist mode to playing either of those. But violence, in itself, can't be all bad; it all depends on how the developers use it. Spec Ops: The Line used violence (specifically mind-numbing violence) to jab at the aforementioned COD clones by having you engage in such killing without thinking about it, only to pull you out and remind you that these people you are killing are people (even though, yes, they are pixels on a screen). It even brings a monologue at the end that directly, if subtly, jabs at these games and their players. While it is true that most of the ways this game did violence correctly were to point out how most games do it incorrectly, it still shows that violence can be used in ways that actually help story and immersion, without just being a cop-out for game developers. [1] http://psychology.about.com...