Resolved: Violent video games cause increased aggressive behavior

1. Meta-analytic reviews My opponent drops most of the studies, and only offers a simple response: Anderson et al. is flawed. He cites a rebuttal paper by Christopher J Ferguson, who seems to be one of the few scholars remaining who opposes the consensus view. Ferguson claims Anderson’s statistical testing is flawed, but they actually relied upon accepted statistical techniques which only Ferguson seems to criticize. Ferguson also criticizes Anderson’s use of unpublished studies, but there is no reason to exclude those from a meta-analysis. Indeed, Ferguson has often claimed there is publication bias. By Anderson including those papers, publication bias is then controlled for. Using unpublished papers, book chapters, and books in a meta-analysis is actually a common meta-analysis technique as biased journal reviewers can’t deny those papers. If anything, it is a good thing those papers were included in the analysis. Ferguson claims Anderson excluded papers, but this is not the case. Every paper which fit the author’s criteria was placed into the paper. And Ferguson’s final criticism is how the paper’s effect (e. g. how much videogames cause aggression) is untrue. The aggression correlations found were actually more than enough to warrant medical intervention. Ferguson literally claims conspiracy, claiming Anderson et al. are trying to create a public scare. Ferguson uses typical denial tactics (for other examples, see climate change, tobacco, and drugs) [1. . http://public.psych.iastate.edu...]. 2. Non-laboratory results Con claims the study is biased because it is not blinded. Teachers, for example, rate the kids. But the teachers are blinded as to which children play videogames—so any biases in relation to videogame playing are non-existent. This is also a large assumption which claims the large differences in violent behavior reported are due to teacher biases against certain students. But this assumption seems highly unlikely: do all of the student’s the teacher dislike play videogames? And all of the student’s the teachers dislike play videogames for longer durations? As you add these variables on, the theory that bias was the reason the conclusions came about seems highly unlikely. Further, the older students—who exhibited arguably the most adverse effects—were asked to rate themselves. If anything, they would have a bias to *reduce* their aggressive behaviors when reporting. Therefore, if there was any teacher bias, chances are it would be canceled out by the bias which is trying to make them feel better about themselves. The older students in college also likely have less of a personal relationship with their teachers, so any biases would be minimal. They were also rated by their peers. If anything, bias explaining *all* of the results seems extremely unlikely. Both peers, teachers, and the students would have to claim aggression for my opponents claim to make sense. But if anything, students when self-rating would provide ‘good’ answers, counterbalancing the negative ones from their teachers or peers. Therefore, bias is not a good argument against the study’s results [2. . http://drdouglas.org...]. Con claims many people believe videogames do not cause them to be aggressive. Ok? Merely because most of a demographic supports videogames does not mean they do not have negative effects. I noted how the majority of actual evidence supports my theory, which is a stronger point than merely a head-count. Further, the American Academy of Pediatricians contradicts my opponent’s entire claim that pediatricians support videogames. Their report—if anything—suggests they oppose excessive video game play. They suggest “limiting screen time” and also recommend “making sure there are no televisions, computers or video games in children's bedrooms” [3. . http://www.aap.org...]. Research published in Pediatrics journals also concludes how violent videogames lead to increased aggressive behavior, and claims of videogames ‘mediating violence’ are empirically false [4. . http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com...]. As noted, there are non-laboratory studies proving my point. But to assume *all* laboratory studies are incorrect is ludicrous. Even if you put the violence into a story, there is no reason to believe it would mitigate the impact on aggression. If anything, it may romanticize it—making the effect more extreme. As noted, in the real world many things are known to cause violence. Laboratory studies have found these ‘real world’ effects still cause violence in the lab, which confirms that laboratories can, at least partially, reproduce what will occur in the real world [5. . http://www.apa.org...]. 3. Crime I have already proven crime can go up and down regardless of videogame consumption as other factors—whether it be gun laws, death penalty laws, arrest/conviction rates, or gasoline can all overpower media consumption. But that does *not* mean videogames do not increase the crime rate nor does it disprove the effect videogames have on violent behavior. Again, this is a throw-away argument which has little weight on this debate. Say temperature didn’t change inside a cabin when it got colder outside. It does *not* mean the weather outside is not having a cooling effect on the cabin—it only means other factors—like the automatic heater—are causing homeostasis. The temperature obviously is exerting a cooling effect, but other factors are masking what otherwise would be a frigid house. And the cold is having one effect: a higher gas bill! ;D