Video Games increase child violence

Where do my sources say that the experiments conducted were done using EEG? However if they were all EEG experiments then that is still showing a positive correlation between violence and video games. My opponent claims that scientists say that no link can be drawn from EEG tests yet he fails to back up this statement. He gives a reference that shows the statistics of video game spending versus gun related murders and video game consumption. I would like to point out that this statistic is very invalid to this debate for many reasons: 1. It just deals with gun related deaths as opposed to every other form of violence. 2. What child has access to a gun? Remember we are solely dealing with children 3. The population, size and laws of every country is vastly different e. g United States already has a massive chance of having more gun related murders over the Netherlands for example as there is a difference of about 295 million in population. Also guns are much more accessible in the US This cannot possibly be an accurate statistical argument for this debate. You keep saying that scientists will tell me that there is no link between violence and video games but you show absolutely no example of this. I have shown plenty of examples for my contrary motion. I found it very humorous that my opponent asks "If you are the guys that think that school shootings are directly linked to kids' exposure to violent video games, I'm sorry, but this is 2013 and you should be informed better" yet included gun related murders as a statistical source. You are the one that brought up gun violence my friend, not me. My opponent lists a source that claims to know all the causes of youth violence and he is basically saying that because video games is not on the list then it doesn't increase child violence. Therefore according to the list and my opponent, the only causes of child violence must be what the list says: Home environment, depression, stress and anxiety, weapons, media, peers, learning difficulties/health problems, lack of guidance and attention seeking. Although I don't discount that these cause child violence, it would be foolish to think that this is a definitive list. I have shown multiple examples of the positive connection between video games and increased violence. Again the graph that my opponent shows solely deals with gun-related violence and I have shown the problems with this argument. My opponent tries to argue that in America crime happens all the time but countries like Germany and France have way more video game sales yet crime rates are lower. Again I reiterate that my opponent can not speak on behalf of crime rates from the graph, just gun related murders. It is a completely invalid argument. So yes I don't think you have tried to make a strong case for your stance. Only this time your attempted refutes stem from invalid arguments. Yes you did mislead my argument. I said "teens who play violent video games for extended periods of time: tend to be more aggressive, are more prone to confrontation with their teachers". You turned this into "people who play violent video games don't do well at school and are more prone to get into an argument with a teacher". Total manipulation. You say "I think you are starting to realize the absurdity of your claims or you are just posting sources without reading them properly. " Again I laugh at the fact that my opponent tries to make a claim that my cited references are more absurd than his totally non-cited references. He tries to say this multiple times during the debate. Why do you not accept my sources as evidence? You say they have insufficient evidence? Let me get this straight, you can call my sourced claims insufficient but I'm supposed to accept your totally non-sourced claims? On what basis? There is absolutely no basis for me to accept them. I can however refute them. You try to refute my Example 1 experiment by saying that (1) a 12 year-old can be a researcher, (2) that they don't show the way they measured it and (3) that they probably just polled some kids and made a conclusion. Well, (1) unless you think that a 12 year old can research a diagnostic study of more than 1,000 teenagers then I think we can rule that out. (2) They showed it was the result of a survey (1000 kids to get a fair, random and accurate result). (3) Again, they showed it was the result of a survey (1000 kids to get a fair, random and accurate result). I didn't skip your question, I just felt it did not need an answer as it does nothing to enhance your argument. Example 1 of my round 2 argument holds a 1000 child survey. Unless all 1000 of those children were more prone to violence than their peers I think we can rule that one out. In your Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris paragraph you say the confusing sentence that "These people did not see something on a video game, so they said they should try it out on Monday at school. " I am having trouble trying to comprehend this sentence, as there is an apparent contradiction in it. However if you are trying to say that that they did not cause the murders as a result of video games then obviously that is very likely but you seem to think that I believe that every act of violence caused by a child/teenager must be because of video games. That is ridiculous of course. One or two people can not speak for everyone, as the case of your argument however 1000 people for example, can speak for a lot more. (My argument). We are slightly getting off topic. Remember the debate is whether or not video games increase violence not whether every act of violence is a result of video games. It is totally invalid to say that Klebold and Harris didn't kill people because of video games so therefore video games can't increase violence. You ask me the question that if I played violent video games then would I shoot a person. Of course I wouldn't but what are you trying to prove? You seem to think that shooting is the only form of violence. I never said anything about shootings in my argument. I only mentioned things such as higher incidences of aggression, more prone to confrontation with their teachers and increased incidences of fights with their peers. I don't know why you are so caught up with just shootings. If you are trying to make the argument that video games doesn't increase violence because there isn't school shootings every week then I'm sorry but that is a seriously flawed argument. In your last paragraph you tell me to check the link that talks about the real main reasons kids become violent. Again this is extremely flawed. If that link did in fact show evidence of the main reasons of child violence (which it doesn't, just opinions) then it would still in no way disprove that video games increase child violence. Again my opponent feels as if I should take his unreferenced claims while he shouldn't take my referenced claims. All in all I feel I have refuted all of my opponents attempts at making a point while at the same time defended my solid sources. With all do respect I don't feel that any of my opponents points were valid or that my opponent really addressed the title of the debate.