Video Games are a primary source of violence

Thanks Dishoungh, much gratitude for that argument. I don't see anything wrong with the text script, nothing to worry. You should type your arguments in 'text' first instead of 'rich text'. This is to ensure whatever material you type will be automatically changed to the same font. Once you finish, you may then switch to rich text to change fonts and such. Apologies for not bringing that up before.Violence and Aggression are closely akinFirstly, Con's stated that aggression does not lead to violence, that it is just a 'feeling' without an action. He sourced a website where it merely clarifies definitions without any elaboration on psychological research. The only research that blank article had was Terry and Jackson's study which I acknowledged it to be quite true. However his argument is irrelevant to Con's case as terry's study was just to prove that violence in sports is different from violence in society. At best it proves my case to be true because both are still 'violent'.In addition to that, he asserted that thinking observed thoughts does not bring about violence. I have proven it is, Bandura Ross & Ross's case is one empirical example of how thoughts bring about violence. My case has evidence, while Con's case is just a blank assertion from his opinion as a gamer.Effects of video games on violence are psychologically provenSecondly, the same weakness can be seen from Con's argument. He barely contest my case as he blankly asserts "More people like video games isn't a means for them to be violent". My case was that if people were to observe video games, they would have increased level of aggression and by having my first premise, 'Violence and aggression' proves this case as a primary source for violence.Con did not deny the evidence presented. There is no way around this argument because EEG scans provide a reliable indicator. If my opponent denies this, he denies dialysis machine actually curing and helping kidney failure patients. He denies that heart rate monitors hold any objective measure. So all doctors are wrong in referring to such measures. Above all else, he cross examines my case of various psychologists' studies using movies. Con included something bizarre and gibberish to the topic at hand. This argument can't come into fruition and I'll tell you exactly why. Movies are completely different from games, movies are on a train track while games are helicopters choosing its own destination. This is like comparing astrology with astronomy. Both of the subjects are inconclusive towards each other. Thus, that argument is completely irrelevant.The General Aggression Model have expounded the case for violence Starting with his criticism of GAM being outdated. His argument is extremely vague. He stated that we have to discredit scientific sources that are outside the 10 years span. If we are to accept his criticism, this means that the theory of gravity and all other scientific sources should be discredited based on 'date' alone. So..Aristotle is useless?Next, his criticism with GAM model. He dismisses this simply because it is short term. Not quite, GAM model was actually aimed at proving long term aggressiveness. The model explicitly state "Increase in aggressive personality" from the picture [10.http://www.soc.iastate.edu...] given.Is personality short term or long term? obviously it is long term. this is not even a viable criticism. My proof remains solid.Lastly, his succinct argument of "Observational aggression does not necessarily translate into violence". A coach yelling displays aggression, players rambling displays aggression. How often do guys hustle in sports? Most of the time. Violence is the act of aggression so if a coach tears and pulls his player's shirt to him, that is characterized as violence because it is an 'act'. A case for aggression is a compelling case for violence as my premise states. It is the act of it, not how one interprets the situation.Children inevitably imitates aggression, resorting to violence without supervisionChildren imitate what they observe, they saw adults being violent with the doll in the experiment. As soon as the adults left, all of the children in all experimental settings did the same by being violent with the dolls. Similarly they play games, GAM model states that games act as a situational variable because they are fixated in their game, just like how they fixate themselves on observing the adults. So by observing games, they will learn all sorts of behaviour and will inevitably act on it. Just like the murder of Ann Maguire, [11.http://www.theguardian.com...] was additional proof of such case. The teacher was stabbed to death by a 15 year old(Ironically a gamer) and the juvenile is set to be brought before the court. This is just supplementary, empirical studies holds more relevance.Con did not refute or criticize the study directly as he argued that the study had a different conclusion, he even concede "Yes, children imitates aggression" . The experiment was based on aggression and violence, not 'parental supervision'. Bear in mind, the study garnered results of which 100% of the children imitate what they observed. Thus, my argument is solid and affirmed. Crime rate interpretations by opponents of the resolution are fantasyLet's start with Fantasy.It is defined as "something that is produced by the imagination : an idea about doing something that is far removed from normal reality"[12. http://www.merriam-webster.com... ]. This idea or interpretation are riled up based on fantasy. Opponents would have secondary statistical data in favor of defending video games. Why wouldn't they make their own statistic is clearly beyond me, since "secondary statistical data is better to justify my opinion". Secondary statistical data(data done by the government) are supposed to show a general trend, when a poll forecasted divorce rates, it was meant to prove divorce rates. it does not, in any way proves that family, or men or women or whatever variable to be the cause of said factor. Saying so otherwise is just imaginary or as the definition applies 'fantasy'Similarly this is the same with video games. A simple demonstration is given below Clearly, you can interpret this however you want, but I've have proven the bias of the author stating "what link?". Asking blatant rhetorical question is one evidence of such bias. Quantitative statistics does not provide reason for such sales or crimes, it relies on the author's interpretation of it. Gaming is a young industry, it does not encompass all of the population. When you look at a league of legends competition, viewers are relatively short, a few hundreds. This pales in comparison with Barca's Camp Nou's capacity [13.http://en.wikipedia.org...] (99,786 seats).Due to its unrepresentative nature, the evidence presented can be dismissed. Crime can be affected by a lot of factors, namely employment since obviously, its base is even bigger than gamers by 10x on my estimation. It is simplistic to isolate other variables when the statistic clearly measures general trends. So Gaming causes all that, what about sports, employment,elderly? They are to be discredited for gaming?Con's parental argument provides no guaranteeCon's argument is that parents don't supervise their children. Is video games that scary that just 1 minute away from parental supervision, games causes violence?. This endorses all my arguments that video games are one of the most significant factor and serves as the biggest primary source of violence. The issue is self explanatory in that children needs parental supervision to play video games to avoid being violent.Furthermore, this endorses the premise of situational variable as described by GAM. Situational variables directly affects their personality, hence causing them to be violent. Parents supervision clearly shows how serious video games are in affecting children's minds.Con's cross examination of sports is without meritMy best friend told me a football story once that a defender was extremely pissed off at him using all sorts of verbal insults just because he was dribbling & having body contact with the perpetrator. Similarly, a guy bicycle kicked just 10 cm from his face and even then, my friend was confrontational and became aggressive. Even I myself became very aggressive just by imagining how disrespectful they are of my friend.My point is to remember, violence is the act of aggression. Yes sports do have violence and so? I didn't say otherwise. The debate was not about the government or sports, they may choose to do things however they want. If both sports and video games promote violence, what does it matter? both media are still violent. There is no difference and it proves nothing of Con's build up case. Con's sources are guilty of bias often asserting with a blank chequeGaming commentators on this issue are just...gamers. When someone threatens your way of life, destroys what you believe to be epitome of life, of course you will immediately be hostile to this idea. You lose objectivity because it involves too much of your interpretation and opinions of such events. You have first hand experience with your way of life, why would you chose those that are different.Moreover, Con provides sources that are filled with multiple layers of bias that renders the argument invalid. My Case was psychologists, they are not even politicians let alone be knowledgeable in that area. They are objective in their assessment, thus affirming the resolution.Con's case is without an objective foundation.The only reliable source was Harvard. That source was balanced in terms of its distribution of views, it emphasize both parents, media & causes. It neither proves his case to be solid because it is 'neutral'. I have an equal amount of argument there. Thus, it doesn't proves either of us.