Violence in video games does not significantly contribute to real world violence.

Thank you debatability for challenging me to this topic. It's been a pleasure. INTRODUCTION I think pro has came at this debate the wrong way. Since the start of round 3 she has been on the defensive, which is really bad. The reason being is because, depending on the judge's voting style she'll typically either have the full burden of proof or at least share it with me. She has spent most of this debate attacking my arguments while barely defending her own and at the end of the day when the dust clears. My arguments still stand and hers have completely fallen. AFFIRMING THE DISJUNCT My opponent claims she hasn't committed this particular logical fallacy, and she is absolutely wrong. She has on multiple occasions stated that video game doesn't significantly contribute to real world violence because poverty does or because videogames cause aggression not violence. What she doesn't realize is that every statement she made could be true and it wouldn't show that violence in videogames doesn't contribute to real world violence. Remember pro has a certain amount of burden to show that videogames in fact do not contribute to real world violence. She hasn't met it. Revisit her arguments. They all make use of the logical fallacy I've mentioned. some arguments from pro; In round 2 pro asks "What really causes violence in teens? ". She answers this by saying serious crimes and aggression does. The truth is this doesn't rule out violence in videogames being a significant factor. This is her first real argument and is entirely affirming the adjunct. The 2nd argument in round 2 discusses a chart which she admits after posting it means absolutely nothing. her 3rd and final argument discusses " Video game's effect". summed up she says that people play video games to release aggression and also that people who love violence may be attracted to them. This is yet another case of Affirming the Adjunct. Just because violent people are attracted to them (which she hasn't proven) and they help release aggression doesn't mean that they don't significantly contribute to real world violence. These are her opening arguments. This is the foundation for her entire case. Her case is a chart she admits doesn't mean anything and 2 arguments affirming the adjunct. She has some BOP in this debate and she has came nowhere near meeting it. NOT BORN TO KILL My opponent misses the point with the government training. I'll take this point by point. PRO-"The first thing to look at here is the difference between video games and these "killing sessions. " My opponent essentially drops this argument. " I never dropped this argument at all. I attacked it head on. Go ahead to the last round and reread what I said. The differences made in training to up kill rates was a replacement of circle targets with human looking ones. Not only in the shooting range, but also the ones that pop up in simulations. Also video games that soldiers participate in to simulate killing. This is science at it's best, in practice. A bunch of people noticed a problem. The problem was a huge amount of soldiers not killing in battle or police officers not taking out a suspect who is an imminent threat. After seeing the problem, they came up with a hypothesis that if true could help. hypothesis- Simulating killing humans will desensitize people and make them more likely to kill. test- This hypothesis was tested out by replacing shooting range targets with human shaped targets and the popup targets in simulations with human looking pop up targets. Also some videogames were added in. repeat- This test was repeated with several government organizations and proved successful. That is the scientific method and the scientific method is common knowledge so I won't cite it. The scientific method has proven that simulating violence causes people to be more likely to act on violence. Videogames simulate violence. Those simulated experiences desensitize people to violence and makes it more likely that they'll commit acts of violence. " The reason firing rates went up is because of the implementation of a method known as "point shooting. " This is a new argument and should be completely disregarded, but I will briefly touch on it. My studies have shown that people in the civil war weren't even firing their weapons but only pretending. I can buy that point shooting will increase accuracy in close combat situations, but it isn't increasing the percentage of people pulling the trigger. DESENSITIZE ME "My opponent points out some flaws in my desensitization study. " Yes, and I urge voters took look at the prior round to see those flaws. None of them have been addressed. "1. My opponent's study has multiple variables since it involves the actual playing of a video game. Essentially, the competition factor is very present in this study. There is no way of knowing whether the violence, the desensitization, or the competition caused the willingness to push the button. " It wasn't the competition that caused it. There was a close to an even number on each side. Half being avid violent video game players. Half not being. They all participated in the competition, so it's not a factor. The violent gamers were more willing to dish out physical pain to their opponent. They all participated in the game. If competition was the only factor than significant differences should not have been noticed in their willingness to dish out pain. The study proved that people who play violent videogames have less qualms about hurting you. That part is indisputable and has been shown in several similar studies. "We can't look to a study with multiple variables that shows, at best, a correlation rather than a causation. My study further weakens this point by disproving the correlation between desensitization and violence in video games. " I've shown the flaws in your study, and they were ignored. I welcome the voters to take another look at the previous round. The study alone may be brushed away as correlation, but when taken with all the other evidence It serves as some damning evidence in my favor. DR BRUCE What I've tried to get across to the voters as well as my opponent, is that Violent video games contribute significantly to an overall culture of violence. In the famous Kitty Genovese event what is known as the bystander effect took place. Though the concept known as diffusion of responsibility certainly played a factor it wasn't the only factor. As Dr. Bruce mentions in the article I cited. Growing up in rough urban environments can cause desensitization, just like videogames. A lot of people just didn't give a damnn if that girl was being murdered outside their windows. CONCLUSION My opponent hasn't really upheld her BOP in this debate. She is attacking my arguments but not doing enough to defend her own. I should win this debate, because I've proved that violent videogames have increased state violence. I should win, because I've shown it increases not only the likelihood somebody will engage in violence, but also that it contributes to a culture of violence. My opponent has largely ignored my arguments concerning the overall culture of violence and psychopathy. For all the reasons mentioned.