Violent Video Games Cause Violent Behavior

Good luck to him/her! :)Before I begin, I want to point out that the onus is on my opponent to prove that the resolution is true. This is because:a) The burden is on him to prove a positive statement (i. e. the resolution), as it's impossible to prove a negative claim. b) The resolution demands that he prove that violent video games cause violent behavior, and that I prove they do not. This means that so long as I'm refuting my opponent's arguments, then it's sufficient for me to win the debate, as I'm disproving my opponent's position, i. e. showing how violent video games do not cause violent behavior. OVERVIEW TO MY OPPONENT'S CASE:My opponent seems to be using the tactic of just citing sources without actually writing out an arugment. There's a few problems with doing this. First, this is just the appeal to authority fallacy. He's just showing the articles to me and saying that I'm wrong because it's all right there. By that line all I have to do is show my own sources and nothing in his last round stands anymore because the sources would cancel each other out. Without writing any actual arguments, he doesn't have anything to advance in the round, and thus no way to win. Second, this is a debate between me and the user blackbird. If I wanted to debate the authors of those articles, I'd contact them and do so. It's unfair to me to be expected to read through every article and respond to everything in them while all my opponent did was just list off a few results from Google. Judges, I ask that you don't let him get away with this kind of behavior. If he doesn't actually give you any arguments of his own, then vote him down. But, even though it's unfair for me to have to, I read through his sources. Let's examine each one in depth:THE CNN SOURCE:His first source is a source from CNN talking about the link between violent video games and aggression. This source is a wash for a few reasons:First, he's mistakingly saying that aggression and violent behavior are the same thing. That's not the case though. I can be an aggressive person without doing a single violent thing. Aggression doesn't necessitate violent acts and the onus is on him to prove that it does. Second, his own source admits that there could be an outside reason other than the violence that's causing the aggression. To quote his own article, ""It's not the violence per se that's the problem, it's the context and goals of the violence," said Olson, citing past research on TV violence and behavior. ". Since my opponent has to be proving that it's the violence that's causing the violent acts, as per the resolution, if I show that there's an outside reason other than violence that's causing these violent acts then you vote con. Third, his own source admits that his own source has too vague of definitions, and that there needs to be better definitions of what a violent video game constitutes and what aggressive behavior constitutes. To quote his own source, ". But she argues that the label "violent video games" is too vague. Researchers need to do a better job at defining what is considered a violent video game and what constitutes aggressive behavior, she added. " This means that a) his source doesn't fully defend the position he's taking and b) it further confirms my earlier point that aggression isn't the same thing as violent acts. THE TIME SOURCE: My opponent's next source is a source from the New York Times, talking about, again, how exposure to violent video games leads to aggression. This source is even worse. First, refer back to my above argument about how aggression and violent acts are not the same thing. Second, his own source contradicts his claim. To quote his source, "Anderson and his team, however, did not see any significant difference in empathy among the players who played more or fewer hours. That confirmed earlier lab-based studies that showed both undergraduates who played violent games and those that played non-violent ones were equally likely to help scientists pick up dropped pens. " And this is important because if there's no difference in empathy between those who play violent video games and those who do not, the claim that violent vidoe games lead to aggression looks even worse than it did before. Also, if violent video game players are showing the same levels of empathy as non-violent video game players are, then they're just as likely to also commit acts of violence as those who do not, since empathy is the opposite of aggression (helping someone as opposed to hurting them), which suggests an alternative cause to the violent acts than the violence in video games. Third, his own source blatantly argues against his position. To quote, "The evolving literature is why some researchers, including Christopher Ferguson, chair of the psychology department at Stetson University, insist there isn’t strong evidence that exposure to violent video games leads to more aggressive behavior. He notes, for example, that the rise in popularity of video gaming has not been matched by a similar rise in violent crime among adolescents who are most likely to play them. Studies that link violent video games to violent behavior, he says, often fail to account for other factors that can contribute to aggression, such as violence in the home, abuse, and mental illness. " This is catastrophic for my opponent because it shows that a) violent video games don't lead to more aggression, b) if it did then there would be a corrolation between video game and violent crime among adolescents, which his own source says doesn't exist, and c) that there are alternative explanations to the violent behavior (i. e. domestic violence, abuse, and mental disease) that causes the violent behavior. THE PAMF SOURCE:My opponent's third source is from the Palo Alto Medical Foundation, and makes the claim that violent video games leads to aggression. This source is trash as well. First, refer to the above as to how aggression and violent acts are not the same thing. Secondly, the source doesn't actually present any kind of evidence. It says a bunch of stuides have said things (" A 2004 study by Gentile, Lynch, Linder & Walsh found that teens who play violent video games for extended periods of time: . .. ), without giving us anything about the study (i. e. methodology, sample size, etc. ). This means it's impossible to verify the integrity of the study conducted, which means there's no reason we should trust the accuracy of the study for the purpose to this debate. Third, even his own source won't defend the accuracy of outside sources/websites. To quote, "[B]elow are links PAMF accessed when researching this topic. PAMF does not sponsor or endorse any of these sites, nor does PAMF guarantee the accuracy of the information contained on them. " If the source he's citing to make x claim won't even defend the information they used to make that claim, there's absolutely no reason we should trust his source. THE PSYCHOLOGY TODAY SOURCE:His fourth and final source is from Psychology today and is saying that---wait, where have I seen this before? Is it making the claim that violent video games lead to aggression? Oh no, it is. .. Well, might as well dive right in. First, refer above to why violent acts and aggression are not the same thing. Secondly, the empirical evidence cited by this article is not even linked, just the results were stated, meaning we have no way to confirm that the study was a valid study. Third, the evidence it uses isn't even significant. The results from the study said, and I quote, "These studies find that playing violent video games does, indeed, cause aggression. The effect is a correlation of about r = .20", which is statistically insignificant. It's more likely that an alternative cause, like one's previously mentioned, are causing the violent behavior other than the violence in video games themselves. HIS OTHER TWO SOURCES:My opponent cites two more sources, which, as he claims, show how children "will emulate Power Rangers and all sorts of things they see on television as well ". This is irrelevant to the debate. Our discussion is about violent video games. Anything outside of this should have no relevance to the debate at hand. IN CONCLUSION:I have gone through all of my opponent's claims and thuroughly refuted each and every source he cited. Moreover, he has not actually presented a single argument this debate, only letting google do his arguing for him. This means that a) you're defaulting to voting con because he doesn't have a single argument to advance through the round, which means he isn't proving that violent video games cause violent behavior, and b) even if you're counting his source-spam as an argument, I've gone through and shown how his sources are both flawed and contradictory to his position, providing me with evidence for my position, meaning I'm doing the better job upholding my resolutional burden. :)