Violent or misleading video games or other media and content do not directly cause behavioral issues

I hope this will be a very interesting and useful debate. Remember that the second round is strictly for contentions only, so my opponent must not state ANY rebuttals when their turn comes. The effects of violent and misleading content: Fact or fib? Firstly, to see whether violent or misleading content may cause behavioral problems, first we must review the main effect of viewing that specifinc content. To make a long story short, viewing the content may or may not cause an influence on the viewer. What this specifically means is that the viewer only has a possibility of being influenced. And even that influence may be positive, or it may be negative. To make this clearer: After viewing misleading content, there are three possible outcomes: The viewer is positively influenced. The viewer is negatively influenced. The viewer is not influenced at all. The first outcome is quite baffling, because the simple reaction that often happens in many people when they hear of things such as nudity or pornography is disgust and probably ranting on about the NEGATIVE influence of it. However, when put into perspective, these people are only proving my point. After viewing or hearing of misleading content, it is a possibility that the viewer will argue against it (example at [1]). This is a positive influence, and thus my opponent has instantly lost. What must a viewer need to go through in order to be influenced? Now, I am not saying that porn should be banned, since according to the resolution it is off-topic. Moreover, what the resolution is saying is that misleading content does not directly cause issues with behavior. Here is what it causes to be stated: For it to be a direct cause, the viewer who is being influenced by the content must actually view it first. Therefore, if one says that the resolution is wrong at misleading content not causing behavioral problems, their statement is an instant fallacy, as I had added in the word "directly". This leads me to my next point, that misleading content cannot negatively influence a viewer if they do not allow it to, and vice versa. Allowing it to negatively influence a viewer must consist of not just viewing the content, but simply being negatively influenced after viewing the content without succeeding in, or even attempting to use willpower. The process to being influenced like this is not so much a 1-step process rather than a 2-step one. Here are three pieces of proof, either a real life example or a quote: When a charger is plugged into both a device and a socket, electricity SAFELY passes through the cord of a charger. This is because the device has hardware that processes the energy and actually uses it, and the waste energy, which is at a really low level, can safely exit the wire afterward. However, when a wire with two metal ends is plugged (one metal end for each slot), the energy isn't processed. Instead, it merely passes through the wire at a dangerous level and exits through one of the slots. This may, probably, or will cause the socket to go haywire and even corruptly explode. [2] [3] (Because I learned from two sources at the same time. ) This is a quote instead of a real life example, but it is quite true. In The Fault In Our Stars, there is a scene where Augustus and Hazel are on a plane to Amsterdam and Augustus is holding an unlighted cigarette in his mouth with absolutely no intention to light it. He never does, but in the case of being on a plane, it applies especially. However, when a flight attendant comes over and confronts Augustus, Hazel backs him up by saying "He puts the killing thing in his mouth, but he doesn't give it the power to kill him. " When inferred correctly, this statement means that nothing can harm you if you don't allow it to in any way. [4] (I do not personally think the content mentioned in this piece of proof is misleading, however one of the persons that are mentioned in this does. ) On YouTube, there is a music video for Mariah Carey's "Dreamlover". This is the comment on the video and the first few replies to the comment. oijhgvygf commented on a video on YouTube. Shared publicly - Jul 9th, 2014it's videos like these that are infecting the minds of young girls around the planet, young 12 year old girls such as ariana grande!1 Hide comments +(Full name, therfore deleted for privacy) 232 So Ariana is 12 years old? ?? (Full name, therefore deleted for privacy) Jul 28, 2014 + 232 Any video has the potential to create unwholesome activity if we allow it. This video was around when my 3 daughters were about 10,8 & 7. They have grown up to become excellent mothers themselves with their own daughters. Have they been "infected? " The bottom reply proves my point, that it is impossible for any content (videos in the case of this comment) to influence a viewer, even in any way, if we do not allow it to at all. ConclusionTo conclude, any violent or misleading video games or other content cannot directly cause behavioral issues in people. (1) . http://americanhumanist.org...;(2) My own experience! (3) My tutor after my exprerience(4) (5) ;(Due to the long list of comments, it may be difficult to find that same specific comment. )Over to you, pro!