Video Games should be banned for people 18 and younger

Topic: Video Games Should be Banned for People Under 18. Stance " Con *Con"s case revolves around the interpretation that this topic applies to the USA. Argument I first want to thank my opponent for issuing this challenge. This is a topic that I have a personal passion about. To keep with the parameters of the debate, my R2 will only be the Argument for Con. My rebuttal to Pro"s R2 Argument will be in R3. Definitions Video Games " Any various interactive games played using a specialized electronic gaming device and a television, or other display screen, along with a means to control graphic imagery. Banned " To prohibit, forbid, or bar by law; interdiction. People under 18 years old " Applying to US citizens in identifying the "age of voting" as the social "rite of passage into adulthood recognized by law." For clarity, I will offer the outline for my case "Parental Responsibilities "Protecting Civil Liberties "Higher Learning Opportunities, Job Placement, and Military Service through Video Games "Video Game Addiction as a Symptom, Not Root Cause "Driving Age is 16 " Voting/Military Service/Smoking is 18 " Drinking is 21 (I)I believe this may come down to be the core issue that surrounds this debate " the role and responsibility of parents. More importantly to that point is the significance of the "parent/child dynamic." Issuing a ban on anything is only limited to the individual decision of what the law recognizes as "legally able" to obtain restricted items. I would like to point to the underage smoking and drinking statistics as a parallel argument to support the stance that "banning an item from people under 18 does not stop people from under 18 from legally obtaining said item." If there is to be a restriction from people under 18 to play video games, it will ultimately come down to the parent"s decision on whether their kid will/won"t play. Parents do have legally protected rights in deciding the way their child will be raised, and in many states (pertaining to alcohol) the consumption of alcohol is permitted by law if the parent is "in direct, not obstructed, supervision and presence of the minor." With this, the parent also bears the responsibility of consequence of their actions. If you look at the current prescription drug problems and see that the root cause isn"t children obtaining medication from the streets, but rather from their parents. Everything under the roof of the parent is the parent"s responsibility. So, to begin this argument " A ban will do nothing since the decision to play video games under 18 is a protected parenting right. To double, a ban can be argued as "unconstitutional" as I will further elaborate later. Labels and restrictions currently exist " just the same at movies, music, tv shows, and various forms of entertainment. Regulations already currently exist " it is up to the Parent/Guardian to adhere to the ratings system and make the best decision (they feel) there is to make on the matter. (II)The second observation is that of the civil liberties of: artists, developers, minors, and citizenship (in general) must be protected. For artists and developers there is the freedom of speech and media. To issue a ban on video games is to directly ban a form of recognized Art " which, in turn, infringes on the freedom of speech and media (1st amendment) of those creating video games. There are "unalienable rights given by their Creator" that are also in need of defense for this case. Even if you are under 18, you are still recognized as a US citizen. "Among these rights are: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." As the Con, I would like to argue that removing video games removes a viable outlet for an American citizen to "pursue happiness." Along with "liberty" Con is attempting to protect the freedom of choice for US citizens with what they consume. Pro"s argument that video games threaten "life" will be dispelled during rebuttal. A person under the age of 18 should be allowed the same protected freedoms that exist in "channel surfing" tv shows in playing video games. WHAT video game they choose to expose themselves to is a liberty each free citizen is entitled to have. We are all responsible for the choices we make " and must be allowed to make our own choices, protected by law. Personal tastes in "satisfaction" does not allow for an "absolute solution" through restriction. The solution is freedom, the American ideology. (III)To elaborate a main point for my case I would like to state that in today"s world, video games have opened an entire industry, and with that countless opportunities. There are numerous accredited schools of higher learning that are currently recruiting and educating gamers on: game development, graphic arts, coding, programming, and even alpha/beta testing. There are recognized degrees that can be earned through the video game platform. Playing video games now provides the youth an opportunity that never existed years previous " to attain a college scholarship and degree through video games. The workforce is in demand for video gamers as well. We see the ever-increasing usage of automation in the workforce, and the need for people with sharpened "digital skills" are in the highest need ever. If we apply the same training methodology in the workforce then it can only be suggested that for a person to "better their prospects in a digital workforce" is to have as much practical experience in the digital world to grow those skills. The sooner the exposure, the greater the probability of higher skill than the labor pool compared to those who weren"t exposed as soon. We see this with specialization in the sports world as well. This is the method of job placement we utilized " gaining experience is so vital, and in today"s world, video games are providing practical experience for many in-demand jobs. Another observation to this point is that of the active military recruitment for advanced video gamers: mainly to fly drones. The "ways of war" have evolved into the unmanned/digital warfare age. Opportunities for people to serve their country have directly opened for video gamers " specifically that of "translatable skills video games provide to fly drones with greater precision than those who did not play video games growing up." I can argue that our national security is currently seeking/depending on gamers to populate the military force in the future. The last observation on this point is that video games are currently being adopted into learning institutions as we speak. More and more schools are looking for ways to engage the students and for the information to "stick" " video games have been identified as a great "tool for learning." Whether it is typing, data entry, graphic designs, software applications, digital performances, retaining attention, more opportunities to practice, instant feedback on errors, etc"Schools across the country have noticed the value of influence video games possess and implemented their usage within their curriculum. (IV)To offer another point I would like to identify that the main problem identified by Pro is that of "video game addiction." I would like to state that video game addiction is not the root cause of "problematic behavior" but rather a "symptom." Of the examples listed from the psychologytoday.com source Con would like to argue that: the root cause to the deviant behavior is more likely to exist in the personal relationship the child has with the parent. Traumatic events (like that of divorce/separation) are identified as a more severe root cause to a child"s behavior and social assimilation. Video game addiction is nothing more than another symptom of a greater underlying problem existing in the individual " it is not the root cause. Con is arguing that by banning video games we are misdirected in working on the real issue that is causing the detrimental behavior in children, thus never truly "fixing" the real problem. Video games are nothing more than an outlet " a personal entertainment device " to the user. The contents of each game are novel to other games and thus the entire industry would be unfairly punished over the contents of a small percentage of what can be identified as "a problem for kids to play." Effects from video gaming are not 100% negative and I would like to argue that for every "bad" there is a "good" to balance. Hand-eye coordination, self-esteem growth, measurable academic improvement, increase in online social presence (which is important in today"s working world), and in some studies, it also leads to a decrease in crime. Con will not argue that there are only "good benefits" to playing video games " but I would like to exude the thought of that of " "Screen Addiction" (ancillary argument) The most measured impact on the physical nature of gamers is that of "screen exposure." This isn"t a "video game problem" as video games are consoles " this is a problem with the manufacturing of what we call "smart screens" and the intense displays of LED lighting. Turning off the video game to watch TV does not provide time to heal, it is the same lighting impacting the eyes. Studies have proven that "screen addiction" exists in children and adults and that the compulsion to stare at LED screens (via phone, tv, computer screens) are the cause of "distraction, eye damage, and sleeplessness." If Pro would like to correct a "root cause" to a problem " Con would like to suggest the energy be focused on the constant factors that video games must adhere to be "played." That may be where your problem with video game addiction exists. (V)My final point will be that of current statue age restrictions compared to applying a video game ban to persons under 18. Driving, in the US, is legally obtainable at the age of 16. The statistics of deaths of people under 18 related to driving is staggering"and on the rise. The need to drive outweighs the risks, however the dangers are not reduced. We are actively placing people on the road facing the real possibility of dying before they are 18. To do this the person must display competence and skill in driving. Even with all these restrictions, driving accidents and deaths are not being decreased " they are on the rise. Along with the hypocrisy of banning video games until a person is 18 compared to what is legally allowable by law would compromise citizens 16 years old from using a cell phone " yet permitted to drive. Video games are not limited to a single console, and the video game industry (like all industries) strives to reach newer and more people to participate. What constitutes a "video game" currently exists with each person"s cell phone. How are we to punish a person more severely for "playing a video game" compared to the life and death moments driving offers? A game over/death in video game can be restarted"not so much with human life " regardless of age. If we are to state that people under 18 cannot handle the influence of video games, Con would like to argue that by this standard we should restructure the age of driving in harmony with the danger associated with usage. Smoking and Drinking are directly related to many unnatural deaths; thus, the age restrictions are placed (18 and 21 respectively). The number of people killed from driving would suggest that the age of driving be greater than that of drinking " and the number of deaths directly attributed to video games (to receive a ban) would raise the age of smoking/drinking ten-fold (if we are to have proportion in our legal restrictions.) Keep in mind that what you are arguing is that a person is not responsible or able to handle video games until they reach the age in which they can Vote and join the Military. The age ban has always been a key concept in increasing life expectancy. In Closing Placing a ban on video games is: unconstitutional, disproportionate, misguided, detrimental to the economy, limiting the future potential of citizen"s contribution to our society, and cannot be viewed as anything other than "Wrong." The consequences of removing video game access to people under 18 can only be detrimental to the social development of our youth in assimilating (plus contributing) to our evolving culture. The world of the youth is digital " to remove this from the youth can be equated to "burning books" to limit information/experience. America is the "land of the free" " freedom is scary. Our social solutions and reasonings why we have age restrictions to begin with do not apply to this argument. Video games are quite simply " and entertainment TOOL. Tools do not do anything other than what the person using the tool decides. People are responsible for their decisions and consequences " but please, for the sake of video games, do not conclude that only negative things exists in the world of "video gamers" " it is an ever-growing industry that continues to gain legitimacy in our culture and develops a newer "type" of citizen that is now more well-equipped to handle the demands of our evolving society. Sources "Military Recruits Video Gamers (www.cbsnews.com/news/army-recruits-video-gamers/) "Schools Adopting Video Games to Teach (www.usnews.com/education/high-schools/articles/2011/11/01/high-school-teachers-make-gaming-academic) "Role of Parenting in Child Development (www.pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/104/Supplement_1/164) "57 Schools Offering Video Game Degrees (www.successfulstudent.org/best-video-game-colleges) "Colleges Offering Video Game Degrees (www.foxnews.com/story/2005/11/07/colleges-offering-video-game-degrees.html) "The Business of Video Games: A Multi-Billion Dollar Industry (https://www.forbes.com...) "Cognitive Benefits of Playing Video Games (www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/201502/cognitive-benefits-playing-video-games)