Video games are an innocent hobby!

On the Uniqueness: It's not about probability that someone is going to kill someone. It's that it happens a notable amount of time. Devin Moore, a minor killed three people in 2005 in the name of Grand Theft Auto. A year later Warren Leblanc, in London faced the death penalty for the brutal murder of a peer causing headlines like "murder by playstation" for the incitement to violence caused by yes, Manhunt. Still games like 50 Cent Bulletproof, God of War, 300 and Manhunt cause what lawyers would even charge as copycat crimes. Meaning that the deeds done within the surreal world and mimicked by actions outside. Inciting violence to kids at such a young and a lot of the vulnerable age is dangerous. I think what you're saying is basically like guns don't kill people, people kill people. Lots of people own them, but they don't all shoot each other. I am saying that, yes, games don't kill people, people kill people but games have a responsibility to not incite that violence and to not enable people to kill people. I could go to a shooting range with fifty people and I can bet none of them will murder someone. Crime is not rational. That's why it is crime: it is an act of irrationality by irrational people. When you enable irrational people, already slightly not in the real world with an escape the line becomes blurred. Words like "innocent" are the kind of lack of seriousness that the companies and government need understand are not what the families of Ace Mealer, James Crump and Arnold Strickland who were killed by Mr. Moore would call it. Solvency: 1. I'm not claiming the Mario Brother is juvenile. The original argument you made was general, about all video games. I'm saying that some video games, and coincidently the most popular video games incite violence. You can crossiply my arguments above to your killing statement. The ESRB ratings, as you, if you play video games frequently probably know it is very, very easy to get a video game rated M if your a minor without your parents knowing. Getting it with a parent is not the only way. You could get someone else older to buy if for you and very often the vendors will sell it to you without question. 2. Yes, gamers are just kids and playing video games isn't a juvenile crime, but murder is. And incitement to murder is. And sadly some people, when it comes to the reward system. 3. As you being the affirmative it's like part of the burden of proof lies with you and you don't carry it. You talk about how it stops obesity and makes connections, but don't impact this at all. Negative saves more lives and strides further in a better direction of awareness then affirmative. Impacts: 1. Crossiply. Video games don't kill, true. They incite. I'm not calling you a killer or video games in general bad, but your plan was general. And as I said before, it's not the video games, it is how they warp the minds of vulnerable people to make them irrational. Irrational people commit crimes. 2. It doesn't matter what they are designed to do, they are designed to get results. They don't get results. You can sit. If you choose not to, that's great, but if you're lazy you don't. As for being stuck inside: I'm not going to exercise at all if I'm sick and DDR, eyetoys and Wii are still models that don't compete at all with real exercise. 3. Connections made are over a surreal playing field. You don't know their names, you don't know anything about except if they play well. They aren't relationships. They are solid deontology. You use them to achieve a means. In conclusion negative again, save lives and I can't stress that enough. They negative saves live, affirmative doesn't. Video games are a deonological playing field of people who can deal and those who can't. Those who can't decide what is real and what is not kill and it is because of video games. Thank you too! This is a good debate, I meant to bring up the army and laziness but don't have time. Good luck to you too.