Video Games are a primary source of violence

(The words that’s in bold and in all caps means that I want you to see that and it’s crucial information. Don’t just come here and bring out this conviction that everything in all caps means yelling. Submitting into that conclusion is vacuous.) Violence and Aggression are closely akin Just because you acknowledged something to be true doesn’t really make it so. So, that comes to show that your affirmation is biased. You’re saying that just because you’re showing some sort of aggression that just means that you’re bound to go out and commit violence. I’m pretty sure you have heard of the term “hot head.” I’m pretty sure that the vast majority of these hot heads out here have not committed a single crime in their lives. My dad can sometimes be a hot head, and he has never done anything wrong. Since you claim that my source that I used is “biased”, let’s use another one. According to the Scholastic website, it says, “Violence is heterogeneous. Physical violence can be impulsive, reactive or defensive; or it can be predatory, remorseless aggression… “Aggression is NOT VIOLENCE. An aggressive person may not be violent. Aggression is a behavior characterized by verbal or physical attack, yet it may be appropriate and self-protective or destructive and violent.” (http://teacher.scholastic.com......) Also, just because I didn’t refute against a certain part of your rebuttals doesn’t mean that I’m not challenging you on it. It’s apparent that you didn’t take into consideration that I often run out of characters to type. I would also like to point out that the Bandura Ross & Ross case uses children of the age of 3 TO 6 YEARS OLD. THAT IS NOT A PROPER AGE GROUP TO USE AGAINST A COMMUNITY THAT MOSTLY CONSISTS OF AGES OF 12+. Therefore, your case is completely invalid. (http://www.simplypsychology.org...) Effects of video games on violence are psychologically proven From where? Of course, I use movies and other forms of entertainment to support my reasoning. You know why? It’s because they have the exact same entertainment value and influence aggression just like you claim video games do. Gaming is so popular; it’s basically renowned as a sport now. (http://en.wikipedia.org......). It’s also apparent that you did not read all of my arguments because I’m obviously refuting against you when I’m saying that your objection is erroneous. Anyway: According to Former FBI Profiler, Mary Ellen O’Toole, she states that “video games DO NOT cause violence.” She also says that “individuals who were already contemplating in acting out in a violent way, if they are also emerged 24/7 in violent videos to the exclusion of other activities; and they’re isolated and they’re actually using these videos as planning or collateral evidence in terms of how to do it better, what equipment to buy, how to select the victims, how to approach the crime scene”, etc. “If their use is educational material for the offender to do the crime better, that’s what we take into CONSIDERATION.” What she’s saying is these “researchers” and “professionals” don’t take in other factors into account. They just blatantly look at video games and don’t search for other factors like mental health, the significance or insignificance of parental guidance, his/her social environment, school/work, etc. Still quoting, “As a threat assessment and as a Former FBI Profiler, WE DO NOT SEE THESE AS THE CAUSE OF VIOLENCE. WE SEE THEM AS SOURCES OF FUELING IDEATION THAT’S ALREADY THERE.” That means that the individual who is convinced by violence didn’t submit to it because he played X, Y, and Z. He capitulated to the desire of violence on his/her accordance. I mean, what else is there for me to provide as evidence. The FBI contradicts this claim; millions of gamers all over the world discredit this claim, the SUPREME COURT points out that the research that supports the claim is “INCONSISTENT” and “FLAWED” says Chris Ferguson. Thank you Mr. Ferguson. Seriously, this fallacious claim doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. (https://www.youtube.com......) According to TomoNews US, a recent study conducted more than a month ago has displayed another factor that ignites aggression (NOT VIOLENCE). This factor has shown to be the controls of games, not the game itself. This study was conducted in the University of Oxford and the University of Rochester. They took the game Half-Life 2 and modified the entire game with the help of some programmers. They discarded the blood and gore and scrabbled the controls. Their results had shown that the players who were playing with the shooting and violence showed no aggression at all. Meanwhile, the players became easily aggressive because of the absurd controls even though there wasn’t any gore or shooting taking place at all. This relates to aggression being caused by competition. It occurs very frequently, and like I said, it’s human nature. When something doesn’t work, we get frustrated. When we’re trying to win at something, and something occurs that deters us from winning, of course, we will flip out. (https://www.youtube.com......) (http://venturebeat.com......) (https://www.youtube.com......) (Warning about the video: I’m not saying that gun laws should be blamed totally. It can be, but I really don’t care about it for right now. What everyone needs to realize is that parenting and/or mental instability is the #1 issue here.) (http://www.theesa.com......) You have also failed to glance at the similarities between these two forms of entertainment. THEY BOTH CONTAIN MATURE CONTENT SUCH AS GORE, SEX, AND PROFANTIY. THEY BOTH HAVE CONTENT RATINGS. Just because these two things have that one little difference, don’t just come out here and say, since they have a small difference, you can’t use it as a source. That ideology is absurd. The General Aggression Model has expounded the case of violence Okay, first of all, Aristotle’s theory of gravity has been proven wrong by Galileo. Second of all, just because I said it’s outdated that doesn’t mean that old principles should not be used. That just comes to show that you don’t even know what the word “outdated” means. Outdated, according to Webster, means “no longer of use or unacceptable.” (http://www.merriam-webster.com......). That means that when something is proven wrong, it is no longer of use and it’s obsolete. I will correct myself upon saying that the GAM is outdated even though I didn’t directly say it is. However, the G.A.M still doesn’t provide evidence that video games cause violent crimes. You see, according to Oxford, (Man, I love Oxford for bringing me so much evidence.) “briefly, the model shows how factors in the IMMEDIATE SITUATION (such as being insulted while in front of friends, and having just played a violent video game) combine with factors that people bring with them to the situation (such as positive attitudes towards using aggression, impulsive personality, and a habit of taking slights too personally) to produce an internal set of aggression-related thoughts and feelings that are likely to yield aggressive behavior.” That comes into showing that the aggression shown in video games is SHORT TERM like I said. (http://www.oxfordscholarship.com......) Children inevitably imitates aggression, resorting to violence without supervision Basically, what you’re saying is “Monkey see, monkey do.” Yes, children imitate things, but you still haven’t taken into account that the parent is the one responsible for teaching their child right from wrong. What do you think parents are there for? Just to sit there and watch the kids? Even though that’s what some parents do, that’s not what the duties of what the parents are held accountable for. This “study” that you used has nothing to do with video games at all. It sounds like this study was conducted by children by a very young age. You did not refute that parents are responsible for telling their children that it’s wrong to do this. It’s wrong to do that. So, what’s your point? I mean, I can’t refute everything while bring out a hundred sources at once. There’s a character limit on here you know. Crime rate interpretations by opponents of the resolution are fantasy What? I don’t get what you’re refuting against here. So, the information that I’ve clearly given that’s from the FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION and the BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS is “fantasy”? That’s just an excuse because the facts are there and it shows that the correlation between video games and violence is non-existent. If it was, then don’t you think crime rates would actually increase? But, it doesn’t. I mean, the graph you just showed me proves it. Look, the trends of video game sales and federal offenses are NEARLY PERPENDICULAR. It doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. Con's parental argument provides no guarantee This rebut is totally wrong because, according to an article at Vision.org, they say that Parental Guidance is a crucial factor in child development. Also, I have cited other sources earlier that say so. (http://www.vision.org......) Let's be mathematical here 70% of the world population are gamers. There are 7.2 billion people on Earth. So, that's 5.04 billion people. That's a lot isn't it? So, lets say there were 15 gamers were found committing violence. Okay, that just makes 0.000000003% of gamers affected by violence. Okay, let's make 100 gamers committing violence. Okay, good for you, you've discovered that 0.00000002% are affected. Don't you see that it is insufficient? How can you come in here and try to prove to me that WAY LESS THAN 1% of something is valid? How can you come in here and say that video games cause violence when it actually has declined? Trying to prove that less than 1% of something to me is like trying to prove that ants can beat humans. Don't forget that I'm not saying that video games don't cause violence at all Video games are just a small factor out of MANY others that contribute to violence. Mental state and the environment they're in contribute to violence the most.