Video Games is Ruining Society

Thanks for the quick reply rsgather! My opponent started the previous round by complaining that I rebutted already. To me, cross-examination means a questioning period and "cases" often include rebuttals, as is the case in Lincoln-Douglas debate. He should be clearer next time if he wants all rebuttal arguments reserved for later. ==Here is my rebuttal of his Round 3== R1) 10 more examples Originally, I criticized my opponent for only providing two examples of video games leading to death. He provides a source that contains "ten more deaths" attributed to video games. Let's look briefly through these: Example 10 is someone playing StarCraft for too long and dying from exhaustion – possibly video game related, although also stupidity related. Example 9 is someone with an undiagnosed heart condition who merely happened to die while playing an arcade game; people with undiagnosed heart conditions more often die while playing sports, but anything that leads to adrenaline release would do it; NOT CAUSED BY VIDEO GAMES. Example 8 – someone borrowed his friend's game and sold his virtual sword for $675; his friend stabbed him in retaliation. The death was related to a theft, albeit a virtual one, but virtual property can be worth tens of thousands of dollars. NOT CAUSED BY VIDEO GAMES. Example 7 – someone committed suicide while Everquest just happened to be on; even the article says NOT CAUSED BY VIDEO GAMES. Example 6 – a highly confused 13-year-old thought his video game characters were real and jumped off a 24-story building so he could meet them; small children have also drowned trying to meet SpongeBob. This, also, cannot be directly attributed to video games, but instead to a highly deranged child who needed better supervision. Example 5 – ok, video game related. 13-year-old kills 81-year-old for video game money. Example 4 – autopsy found that the father had physically abused his toddler daughter many times previously, but he ultimately killed her after she broke his Xbox. Video game related, although, again, this individual was highly disturbed. Example 3 – Daniel Patric, already refuted. More gun-related than video game related. Example 2 – the murder weapon was a video game controller, but other than that, video games were not a motivation for the murder. Example 1 – GTA inspired cop-killing spree. Video game related, although, again, carried out by a highly disturbed individual. So out of the 10 examples, only 4 were truly related to video games, any more than tangentially. The examples all have many things in common as well – all were HIGHLY disturbed individuals already; many of them were drunk at the time, like the abusive father, and many involved handguns. These 10 examples prove that there are psychopaths, so possibly our society needs to raise its children better (our schools, values, and parents are ruining society, possibly). Also, potentially alcohol and guns are ruining society. My opponent also never answers the PBS evidence that although video games have exploded in use over the last 30 years, juvenile crime rates are at a 30-year low. This completely refutes my opponent's argument when we look at the big picture. R2) Are video games anti-social? Even if they are, this doesn't prove they are ruining society. In addition, my opponent's study finds the obvious – people who played excessive hours of video games had suffering social relations. Since time is limited, it seems fairly obvious that the more time someone spends gaming, the less time they spend with family or friends. However, the vast majority of gamers are not extreme addicts, but are casual users. The PBS source says the average boy plays 8 hours a week of video games; the average girl plays 4 hours. This is moderate use. In addition, it's just selection bias. Kids who are ALREADY anti-social have nothing better to do than play video games. In fact, extend the Nick Yee study that says if you already have extreme social anxiety, playing online MMORPG's actually makes you more likely to interact with people face-to-face. Video games help the socially awkward engage MORE socially, providing an outlet that lets them get over some of their fears. R3) Smoking pot My opponent cites a study that people who play video games every day are more likely to smoke pot. However, he never explains how a video game forces you to smoke pot. Correlation does not equal causation. This also turns his social argument. Only social kids can smoke pot since they have to know the right people in order to acquire it, meaning they have a social network. So gamers tend to be MORE social than non-gamers. Lastly, no evidence is provided that smoking pot is bad. R4) Safer addictions My opponent says that jumping off a bridge with pads is safer than without pads. That's fine – if you HAD to jump off the bridge, you'd want pads, or a bungee cord. Addictive personality types HAVE to satisfy their addictive personality in some way. Halo 3 is vastly superior in this respect to cocaine, for example. This argument still stands. R5) 8.5% are addicted to video games My opponent's own source takes issue with the study cited, saying it defines addiction too broadly (for example, saying you would rather play video games than do homework is considered addictive behavior). Ultimately, HIS source concludes, "Using these criteria, we've been addicted to the following at some point in our lives: Pokï¿½mon cards, Pogs, Skittles, Spelling Bees, laser tag, gardening, dating, Lego bricks, Frisbee golf and blogging. Yet somehow, despite our multitude of unshakable, soul-crushing dependencies, we turned out just fine." My Washington Post evidence used a different poll to break down the statistics, having a much higher bar for being truly addicted, and found closer to 2% were fully addicted to video games. Regardless, my opponent's own source shows that if kids aren't addicted to video games, they'd just be addicted to something else that's fun. R6) Video game addicts could become president This is essentially my opponent's argument – that video games addicts could do great things. The problem with this is that people with extremely addictive personalities are unlikely to do well in life because they just replace one addiction with another. The second problem is that society is far from completely destroyed simply because a tiny fraction of its citizens are addicted to something and are thus, less productive. ==On to my case and all the dropped arguments== 1. Video game violence My opponent drops most of my evidence here. He drops the PBS evidence that although video games have exploded in use over the last 30 years, juvenile violent crime rates are at a 30 year low. This completely disproves that video games lead to more violence in society. My opponent drops the University of Illinois longitudinal study that followed video gamers and a control group and found that gamers did not exhibit more violence or irritation in their social relationships. He drops the Surgeon General's report (2001) that the greatest predictors of school shootings are mental stability and home life, NOT video game use. Notice ALL of my opponent's examples of deaths caused by video games were usually people who were BOTH mentally unstable AND had bad home lives. Lastly, and most importantly for this point, he drops the turn. The Scott Cunningham study concluded that juvenile violence rates are at a 30-year low BECAUSE OF video games; violent individuals use fantasy, rather than reality, as an outlet for their violent urges. This is a good thing. 2. Addiction My opponent doesn't have a great response to my analysis that addictive personalities can get addicted to anything. Just because something leads to addiction doesn't make it bad (see sex). There is nothing INHERENT to video games that makes them addictive, unlike cigarettes which contain nicotine. If someone gets addicted, that's their fault. 3. Video games are good My opponent drops every single argument here, except to smirk at the Gabrieli evidence. Extend the Mitch Wade evidence; he is an information consultant for RAND Corp. and Google and he says that video gamers have better problem solving ability, better team play, and better and more careful risk-taking than non-gamers. His book, "Got Game," argues that video games are central to training the work force of tomorrow. The John Gabrieli evidence points out that video games are a GREAT way to keep people engaged in a learning process, since they have adaptive difficulty. I talked about how teachers use games like Civilization and other video games to demonstrate various concepts in World History and International Relations. The Shawn Green study found that gamers have better hand-eye coordination, better peripheral vision, and better visuo-motor skills than non-gamers. The Daphne Bavelier studies found that "video gamers show improved skills in vision, attention and . . . cognition. And these skills are not just gaming skills, but real-world skills. They perform better than non-gamers on . . . tests of attention, speed, accuracy, vision and multitasking." This answers my opponent's objection that video game skills do not transfer to real world skills. Not only does Mitch Wade find that video gamers do better in business, but Daphne Bavelier finds that on non-video game tasks, gamers have more concentration, greater speed and accuracy, and better multi-tasking skills, all of which translate to great success in life. Every single argument I have mentioned here was dropped by my opponent so this should be a clear Con victory. Thank you.