Violent media causes people to be violent and should therefore be banned or censored.

----Disclaimer---- For the record (and ONLY for the record), I do not necessarily believe the position I am arguing for this debate. ----Thank you---- I would like to thank my opponent, scottpreston, for creating such a delightful debate. ----Counterarguments---- My opponent's first argument is that men--now having had the Colosseum taken away--must deter their "violent predisposition". He claims that violent media IS that deterrent: "(Violent video games) will in effect lessen the need for people to be violent in real life." However, where are his sources? It is one thing to make a claim, and another to prove that claim. My opponent has not met the burden of proof for his first argument, and so it therefore must be ignored. My opponent's second argument, if I understand correctly, is that: The media is entirely based on the real world, and because we live in the real world, the media cannot possibly be more violent that what we perceive around us. This argument is deeply flawed. First and foremost, most of the media is NOT based off the real world. This is an incorrect assumption. I regret to inform my opponent that heinous movies such as the Saw series were invented in the twisted minds of a few select individuals who wish to damage society. Secondly, even if all of the media around us WAS entirely based on the real world, that does not negate the fact that most people do not comprehend ALL the horrific events that have taken place. For instance, many do not know of the existence of the Nanking Massacre, a Japanese invasion that lead to severe rape and torture, and more than three hundred thousand deaths. When the movie, "Nanking" came out, many felt disgusted. Therefore, my opponent's argument--that media can never be more violent than the real world--should be ignored because (1) The statement is wrong; and (2) all the horror of the world can never be completely known, and the perception of the real world through media may be the first impression of those events. My opponent's third argument is that media violence has been around for generations, and older generations seem to be unaffected. I will not negate that--this debate deals with the present. However, I would like to ask my opponent if he truly sees no difference between something like The Exorcist (1973), and something like Saw III. ----Argument---- Media violence has a HUGE effect on youngsters and their violent tendencies. The most thorough study conducted (lead by L. Rowell Huesmann, Ph.D. and lasting over fifteen years) for example said that: "Results show that men who were high TV-violence viewers as children were significantly more likely to have pushed, grabbed or shoved their spouses, to have responded to an insult by shoving a person, to have been convicted of a crime and to have committed a moving traffic violation. Such men, for example, had been convicted of crimes at over three times the rate of other men. Women who were high TV-violence viewers as children were more likely to have thrown something at their spouses, to have responded to someone who made them mad by shoving, punching, beating or choking the person, to have committed some type of criminal act, and to have committed a moving traffic violation. Such women, for example, reported having punched, beaten or choked another adult at over four times the rate of other women."[1] That study went on to conclude three things:[11] " 1. Children may become less sensitive to the pain and suffering of others 2. Children may be more fearful of the world around them 3. Children may be more likely to behave in aggressive or harmful ways toward others" And these results are not only limited to TV-violence. The Washington Post reported of a Gallop poll that discovered, "34 percent of boys who admitted to being in a physical fight over the last year have played 'GTA,' while 17 percent who were in a fight have not played the game." This is not an extraneous poll either. It is supported time and time again by a variety of studies,[2][3][4.1-.4.3][5.1-5.3][6][7][8] including one conducted by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary which wrote, "Since the 1950s, more than 1,000 studies have been done on the effects of violence in television and movies... these studies conclude that: children who watch significant amounts of television and movie violence are more likely to exhibit aggressive behavior, attitudes and values".[9] It's conclusive. Both TV and video game violence cause children to be more violent. This makes sense really. "By the time a child is eighteen years old, he or she will witness on television (with average viewing time) 200,000 acts of violence including 40,000 murders."[10] Again, it's conclusive. Violent media causes people to be violent. Therefore, it should be banned, or at least censored. I rest my case. scottpreston, you have the floor. ----References---- [1] http://www.apa.org... [2] http://news.bbc.co.uk... [3] http://news.bbc.co.uk... [4.1-.4.3] http://www.lionlamb.org... http://www.lionlamb.org... http://www.lionlamb.org... [5.1-5.3] http://www.lionlamb.org... http://www.lionlamb.org... http://www.lionlamb.org... [6] http://www.medicine.indiana.edu... [7] http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu... [8] http://www.psychology.iastate.edu... [9] Senate Committee on the Judiciary (1999, September 14). Children, violence, and the media: A report for parents and policy makers. [10] Huston, A.C. et al (1992). Big world, small screen: The role of television in American society. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. [11] http://www.psychologymatters.org...