Video games are not a significant cause of violence in children

It is a debate, and I am playing the role on the side that I am on. Now to my rebuttals against my opponent, and potential new arguments. To begin, my opponent admits about my previous arguments being true. He even said it within the given quote being: "Yes I have agreed with you on many things. In fact most of your argument is completely true and I know this from experience". So if my opponent agreed with my previous arguments, did he just "drop" this debate? He admitted on my previous arguments and tries to throw in new arguments to make up for it, which actually shows that he is not counter arguing my own arguments, but shows a sign of "defeat" in a way. Anyways, besides that statement I will counter argue my opponents new arguments, for the sake of being "fair" within the debate. My opponent begins using sources, which is kind of too late when you start the 4th out of 5 rounds, about how video games cause violence. When I previously mentioned, and my opponent refused to look at, that violence is not all about criminal acts. Violence can be an emotion, which kids do receive after playing a game for at least 40 minutes; stated in my previous argument. Following along with the statement that violence is not all about actions, violence can also cause anger in a child's emotion. My opponent brought up a statistic, previously used, that 71.9% dropped in juvenile arrests because of video games increasing in sales. That is great and all, but how do you know they are not violent at home? Since the definition of violence can be an angry emotion, who doesn't say that the consumers don't get violent once in a while stay their home? Stated in a previous argument, 70% of kids prefer to stay inside than outside; meaning less possible actions on the outside world. Your example being criminal actions, but who does not say they reveal their violence inside their own home? Either in anger, or like the definition of your view on violence, within the privacy of home? My opponent clearly does not really add any new points within the argument. While I, admittedly, didn't either; however, my opponent admitted on my previous arguments of being true, so no point in adding more arguments if my opponent "dropped" the debate. As well as did not define the term "violence" within the first round of the debate; where violence can now mean two different meanings. To conclude this argument, video games do, technically, cause violence within children and teens who play it for a little bit. Not in the way of "violent" or "criminal actions", but in the way of anger towards others and him or herself. Sources: www. pamf. org/parenting-teens/general/media-web/violentgames. html www. rootsofaction. com/video-games-for-kids-more-good-than-bad-for-development/ www. focusonthefamily. com/parenting/protecting-your-family/parents-guide-to-video-games/hooked-the-addictive www. dana. org/Cerebrum/2009/Video_Games_Affect_the_Brain%E2%80%94for_Better_and_Worse/ www. venturebeat. com/2011/09/12/global-ad-spending-in-video-games-to-top-7-2b-in-2016/ www. addictionrecov. org/Addictions/? AID=45 www. statista. com/topics/868/video-games/ www. cliffsnotes. com/sciences/sociology/contemporary-mass-media/the-role-and-influence-of-mass-media