Censorship is unnecessary.

And credits to Wikipedia for my opponents ENTIRE opening argument: <http://en.wikipedia.org...; Anyways, moving on =) =========================== Morals is a broad term. For this reason, I will define 'morals' as told by <http://www.dictionary.com...; Morals 1.of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes. 2.expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel. 3.founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations. 4.capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being. 5.conforming to the rules of right conduct (opposed to immoral): a moral man. 6.virtuous in sexual matters; chaste. As I read these definitions, the words "right conduct" are reiterated. So in answer to your question: -What "moral standards"? Christian morals? My morals? Yours? Morals is a very subjective word. Morals simply means doing the right thing, & every single individual has morals. You don't have to be Christian to have morals, because no matter who you are, at some point in your life you will choose to do the right thing. That in itself is a display of your morals. Now, as far as psychological effects are concerned. Censorship in television, movies and magazines have an affect on us; even though we may not realize it. According to <http://allpsych.com...;, "The Academy of Pediatrics says "More than >>>>one thousand<<<< scientific studies and reviews conclude that significant exposure to media violence increases the risk of aggressive behavior in certain children, desensitizes them to violence and makes them believe that the world is a ‘meaner and scarier' place than it is." If children begin to think that this type of violence is normal behavior these thoughts are often said to be difficult to change later on in life. This is similar to the studies of domestic violence where children who are exposed to violence either become offenders or victims because they believe that what they are exposed to is the norm. One instance that brought the worry of violence in media is the Columbine incident. The two young men that committed this act of violence were said to have played numerous hours of violent video games. Their exposure to violence is said to have been the cause since the children involved in Columbine came from secure home environments with active parental influence. As with Michael Carneal, from Kentucky, who in 1997 shot and killed three of his classmates. He too was also said to have been a video game fanatic. Michael Breen an attorney in the case against Michael Carneal stated in court; "Michael Carneal clipped off nine shots in a 10-second period. Eight of those shots were hits. Three were head and neck shots and were kills. That is way beyond the military standard for expert marksmanship. This was a kid who had never fired a pistol in his life, but because of his obsession with computer games he had turned himself into an expert marksman" (Ivory, 2003), (Hanson, 1999, p. 15). These two instances in a whole may be small evidence however, proves that violent media play a role in such violence. " And the studies conclude the same thing for violence on television, movies, as well as video games. Both on adults and children/adolescents alike. Also, according to <http://www.psychology.iastate.edu...;: "A 12-year-old boy in Florida brutally kills a 6-year-old girl by imitating professional wrestling moves (Stiff Sentence, 2001). Two teenagers in Littleton, Colorado practice shooting everything in sight by repeatedly playing the violent video game Doom before they embark on a shooting spree that kills 13 adolescents and themselves at Columbine High School (Gibbs & Roche, 1999). A 17-year-old in Texas sets himself on fire while being videotaped in an attempt to duplicate a stunt called the "human barbecue" from the MTV show Jackass (Brachear, 2002). Four youths, aged 13 to 17, watch the violent film Menace II Society on videotape, then commit a carjacking and shoot two other youths in a manner that parallels the film very closely (Means Coleman, 2002). These and countless other tragedies are the types of incidents that often come to mind when one mentions the effects of media violence on people." Also, according to <http://www.psychology.iastate.edu...; Of all the incidents of violent behaviors in American schools in 1998: 35 Deaths 257,700 Serious Injuries 990,500 Thefts or Larcenies 1,562,300 Reports of Fighting 18,000,000 Incidences of Bullying This was 10 years ago, before the media views were as graphic as they are today (Saw, Hostel, etc.). Since then, this number has increased. And like my previous sources stated, what we watch on the screen or play in games has an affect on us psychologically whether we realize it or not. So as far as censorship being necessary in this sense, the answer is yes. The studies show that what we watch has an affect on us and our children. I guarantee that if violent images were censored from the media, the violence rate in children would decrease. since my opponent didn't argue any other forms, neither will I.