Video Games are a primary source of violence

Pro has conceded and claimed forfeiture throughout the rest of the debate;therefore, the winner of this debate is obvious here. But, I'm not going to sit here. I still haven't even provided all of the professional evidence that I know that exist. I will continue my rebuts in Round 4. Countering: "Violence and Aggression are closely akin" I can forsee Pro's struggle through this debate, as most of his rebuts and arguments are based off of studies that either shows insignificant results, have been debunked/outdated by new and recent studies, or it's not even related to video games. For example, Pro cites a website that shows a procedure called EEG (ElectroEncephaloGram). Now, this study is claimed by Pro that EEG scans shows levels of aggression and impulsivity. But, according to Pro's own and ONLY cited source, EEG is "used to evaluate several types of BRAIN DISORDERS. Aggression does not mean you have a mental disorder. We have all felt aggression before. It does not take a genius scientist, or a 3-year psychological study to figure that out. It's just common sense. About my father, I'm using him as a source to contradict your affirmations. Of course, Pro completely overlooked my other points that clearly disproves his rebuts. My other sources are reliable sources that completely throws your assertions off. Just because I'm using YouTube videos as a source, that doesn't mean that it is not reliable. That's just another one of Pro's biased affirms. Especially, if you have tons and tons of videos who say the EXACT SAME THING ON THE EXACT SAME TOPIC, you can obviously see a pattern here. Pro states that all of his cases are linked together when obviously they aren't. 1. Just because they said that these actions can cause them to have violent behavior, doesn't mean it's long-term. You see, you're looking at the words, "behavior" and "personality." Aggression does sometimes lead to violence, but that is not the case for EVERYONE. People can control their emotions, some people can't. In terms of video game aggression, aggression shown in video games are FOR THE MOMENT like I said before. Do you remember that time that you got so angry after playing Call of Duty, that you were angry for 15 days? Do you remember that time that you absolutely raged at your console/PC for 10 hours? Yes, that doesn't seem right doesn't it? The only time someone is able to be that angry for that long is if they can't control their anger and/or if they have some sort of MENTAL ILLNESS. This goes back to me talking about mental instability doesn't it? 2. I've clearly said that Bandura's study is based on children of 3-6 YEARS OLD. Doesn't anyone see that using 3-6 year old children is not a valid to study to use against a community that mostly consist of ages of 12+? 3-6 year olds are in the early stage of comprehending language and they are unable to cause an extreme level of violence unless taught to them. This study that you use uses dolls to see if children imitates aggression. Gamers don't IMITATE AGGRESSION. That aggression comes from the player him or herself. So, that in itself, clearly falsifies the validity of your study to this debate topic. Also, the study of Bandura WAS CONDUCTED IN 1961. Video games were created back in the 70's by Physicist William Higinbotham. How can you conduct a study upon something that didn't even exist at that time period? 3. I already disproved #3. Okay, YouTube celebrities? Really? The YouTube channels that I've cited HAVE AN AVERAGE SUBSCRIBER COUNT OF 123,404 subscribers. 123,000 subscribers would be considered average in the YouTube community, probably below average by some. Yes, I actually calculated that with my super awesome TI-84 Plus C Silver Edition. Thank you very much. (I've discovered that the links are not working. They just go to the website itself which is odd. I'll try to reclarify the links again later.) Pro is saying that I have to use evidence for every single rebut I state, otherwise, it is not a contention, yet he hasn't even done that himself for some of his arguments; common sense can be most definitely used as evidence. Evidence is not just described by statistical facts posted by a website you found on the internet. So, that argument is self-defeating. Also, Pro has clearly used the 2 terms, "Autism" and "Ageism" imprecisely. He's saying that just because I'm contradicting the study based on 3-6 year olds, I'm practicing Ageism....... I don't need to explain how that is totally erreneous and has the word, "fallacy" written all over it. Autism is "a mental condition, present from early childhood, characterized by difficulty in communicating and forming relationships with other people and in using language and abstract concepts." IQ test scores does not measure these variables. Plus, due to your usage of the word, "may", you're basing your affirm off of hypothetics instead of imitating a real-life scenario. 12 years is not early childhood. 12 years is considered the early stage of being a teenager according to this website. http://www.cdc.gov... (Maybe, It'll work if I don't put the links in parentheses) Pro says that I resort to Semantics which, I'm using the most common definition of words and using general common sense. Also, I'm using the recent studies. So, this statement you made does two things. It makes you sound even more conceded. Two, it goes against what you refuted again which was assertions without evidence isn't a contention. You did not provide any evidence, so AGAIN, this assertion is self-defeating. Man, I'm running out. Effects of video games on violence are psychologically proven Again, Pro neglects my other points that I've made and just come down to the conclusion that neither his case or my mine is proven, YET HE SAID THAT HIS CASE SOLID AND AFFIRMED FROM PREVIOUS ROUNDS. Another assertion controverted and self-defeated. That just comes to show that he admits defeat beside the fact that he claims forfeiture. Finally, on to my new case that I'm about to present. (Mind you, do not count this as an argument as this case contradicts Pro's sources of studies.) Lawrence Kutner and Cheryl K. Olson, co-writers of a book named, "Grand Theft Childhood", states that there is no link between aggression and violent video games.The book consists of a study that "was funded 1.5 million dollars from the United States Department of Justice and studies on teenagers from real families in real situation." Of course, in the source material, they discuss about violence declining similar to like I affirmed in previous rounds. This is the MOST IN-DEPTH STUDY EVER DONE. So, sit back, go grab some popcorn, and watch me bury these false claims that the politicians keep spewing out. On Page 7, you can see that these authors expose the fallacy of the Anderson and Bushman case by saying, "That logic is highly strained. It doesn’t differentiate between aggression and violence. It assumes that the subjects in these experiments—usually college students who participate to earn some spending money or to get extra credit for a class--cannot tell fantasy from reality, and don’t know that "punishing" a person with a mild electric shock or a 9mm pistol will lead to different outcomes.""Teenage murderers and rapists may have played Mature-rated video games but, as you'll see in Chapter 4, so have most of the law-abiding boys on your local middle-school soccer team." (Pg. 8) "Criminals are also much more likely to have past exposure to other factors, such as poverty, alcoholism, family violence or parental neglect, that are known contributors to violent behavior." (Pg. 8) "Some researchers use “aggression” and “violence” almost interchangeably, implying that one inevitably leads to the other. That’s simply not true. A common definition of aggression as used by psychologists is, “behavior leading to self-assertion; it may arise from innate drives and/or a response to frustration, and may be manifested by destructive and attacking behavior, by hostility and obstructionism, or by self expressive drive to mastery.”25 As you can see, some behaviors can be aggressive but not violent." (Pg. 15) The authors also touch on Bandura's case and says, "One problem with this study is that there's not much you can do with a big inflatable Bobo doll other than punch it and watch it bounce back!" (Pg. 15) Most people outside of research associate aggression with physically trying to hurt someone. Whether the noise blast corresponds with anything like that is very debatable. My guess is that it's actually a better measure of competitiveness, which is right in the name: the Taylor Competitive Reaction Time test. In my opinion, it's a far cry from beating someone to death, or even spanking or slapping someone, because it's not that aversive. (This quote was from Mr. Ferguson refuting the aggression studies.) (Pg. 16) "According to the Surgeon General's 2001 report on youth violence,28 most children who are aggressive or engage in antisocial behavior do not grow up to be violent adolescents or adults—and most violent adolescents were not notably aggressive as children." (Pg. 17) "The results demonstrated that some people increase, some decrease and the majority saw no change in anger ratings. Unlike past research, we also demonstrate that these changes are mediated by the player’s feelings immediately prior to game play and a labile temperament—one predisposed to aggression….29" (Pg. 17) Over and over again. You can go read it yourself that is if you even feel like reading it. http://www.grandtheftchildhood.com... I will post the links to sources that I can't get to in the comment section. It's late, I'm kind of tired, and I'm nearly out of characters again. Don't you see that these claims that video games cause violence is fallacious, absurd, and just simply doesn't make any sense?