Question: Do violent video games contribute to youth violence?

Are Video Games the main cause for Violent Juvenile Crimes Increasing reports of bullying can be partially attributed to the popularity of violent video games. The 2008 study Grand Theft Childhood reported that 60% of middle school boys who played at least one Mature-rated game hit or beat up someone, compared to 39% of boys that did not play Mature-rated games. [2] Video games often reward players for simulating violence, and thus enhance the learning of violent behaviors. Studies suggest that when violence is rewarded in video games, players exhibit increased aggressive behavior compared to players of video games where violence is punished. [23] Violent video games desensitize players to real-life violence. It is common for victims in video games to disappear off screen when they are killed or for players to have multiple lives. In a 2005 study, violent video game exposure has been linked to reduced P300 amplitudes in the brain, which is associated with desensitization to violence and increases in aggressive behavior. [24] A 2000 FBI report includes playing violent video games in a list of behaviors associated with school shootings. [25] Violent video games teach youth that violence is an acceptable conflict-solving strategy and an appropriate way to achieve one's goals. [26] A 2009 study found that youth who play violent video games have lower belief in the use of nonviolent strategies and are less forgiving than players of nonviolent video games. Violent video games cause players to associate pleasure and happiness with the ability to cause pain in others. [3] Young children are more likely to confuse fantasy violence with real world violence, and without a framework for ethical decision making, they may mimic the actions they see in violent video games. [4] Violent video games require active participation, repetition, and identification with the violent character. With new game controllers allowing more physical interaction, the immersive and interactive characteristics of video games can increase the likelihood of youth violence. [5] Playing violent video games increases aggressive behavior and arousal. [27] A 2009 study found that it takes up to four minutes for the level of aggressive thoughts and feelings in children to return to normal after playing violent video games. It takes five to ten minutes for heart rate and aggressive behavior to return to baseline. Video games that show the most blood generate more aggressive thoughts. When blood is present in video games, there is a measurable increase in arousal and hostility. [28] Playing violent video games causes the development of aggressive behavioral scripts [29]. A behavioral script is developed from the repetition of actions and affects the subconscious mind. An example of a common behavioral script is a driving script that tells drivers to get in a vehicle, put on a seat belt, and turn on the ignition. Similarly, violent video games can lead to scripts that tell youth to respond aggressively in certain situations. Violence in video games may lead to real world violence when scripts are automatically triggered in daily life, such as being nudged in a school hallway. A 1998 study found that 21% of games sampled involved violence against women [23]. Exposure to sexual violence in video games is linked to increases in violence towards women and false attitudes about rape such as that women incite men to rape or that women secretly desire rape. [30] Several studies in both the United States and Japan have shown that, controlling for prior aggression, children who played more violent video games during the beginning of the school year showed more aggression than their peers later in the school year. [31] Exposure to violent video games is linked to lower empathy in players. In a 2004 study of 150 fourth and fifth graders by Professor Jeanne Funk, violent video games were the only type of media associated with lower empathy. Empathy, the ability to understand and enter into another's feelings, plays an important role in the process of moral evaluation and is believed to inhibit aggressive behavior. [32] When youth view violence in video games, they are more likely to fear becoming a victim of acts of violence. According to a 2000 joint statement by six leading national medical associations including the American Medical Association and American Psychological Association, this escalated fear results in youth not trusting others and taking violent self-protective measures. [33] Violent video games can train youth to be killers. The US Marine Corps licensed Doom II in 1996 to create Marine Doom in order to train soldiers. In 2002, the US Army released first-person shooter America's Army to recruit soldiers and prepare recruits for the battlefield.

Violent Video Games cause Violent Behaviour The facts are strongly against the Proposition’s analysis The proposition’s arguments fail to stand up in the real world. Several major studies published in The Journal of Adolescent Health, The British Medical Journal and The Lancet (among others) have shown no conclusive link between video game usage and real-life violent behaviour. The Federal Bureau of Investigation found no evidence linking video game use to the massacre at Columbine (or other highly publicized school shootings).[1] There is no evidence to support the idea that people exposed to violent video game (or other violent media content) will then go on to commit crimes.[2] Further, if violent video games were causing violent behaviour, we would expect to see rates of violent crime increase as games with realistic portrayals of violence became more widely available on popular game consoles. Instead, violent crime has decreased in recent years. Some economists have argued (based on time series modelling) that increased sales of violent video games are associated with decreases in violent crime.[3] In Grand Theft Childhood: The Surprising Truth About Violent Video Games and What Parents Can Do, researchers/authors Lawrence Kutner, PhD, and Cheryl K. Olson, ScD of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital’s Center for Mental Health and Media refute claims of violent behaviour increase caused by violent video games. The researchers' quantitative and qualitative studies (surveys and focus groups) found that young adolescents view game behaviour as unrelated to real-life actions, and this is why they can enjoy criminal or violent acts in a game that would horrify them in reality. They also found evidence that those relatively few adolescents who did not play video games at all were more at-risk for violent behaviours such as bullying or fighting (although the sample size was too small for statistical significance). The authors speculated that because video game play has gained a central and normative role in the social lives of adolescent boys, a boy who does not play any video games might be socially isolated or rejected. Finally, although more study is needed, there is some evidence to suggest that violent video games might allow players to get aggressive feelings out of their system (i.e., video game play might have a cathartic effect), in a scenario that does not harm anyone else.[4],[5],[6] [1] O’Toole, Mary Ellen, ‘The School Shooter: A Threat Assessment perspective’, Critical Incident Response Group, www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/school-shooter [2] Editorial. Is exposure to media violence a public-health risk? The Lancet, 2008, 371:1137. [3] Cunningham, Scott, et al., ‘Understanding the Effects of Violent Video Games on Violent Crime’, 7 April 2011, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1804959 [4] Kutner, Lawrence & Cheryl K. Olson. Grand Theft Childhood: The Surprising Truth About Violent Video Games and What Parents Can Do. Simon and Schuster, 2008 [5] Bensley, Lillian and Juliet Van Eenwyk. Video games and real-life aggression: A review of the literature, Journal of Adolescent Health, 2001, 29:244-257. [6] Griffiths, Mark. Video games and health. British Medical Journal, 2005, 331:122-123.

There is no causal link between violent video games and aggressive behaviour The fact there are many other contributing factors to aggressive behaviour should not lead to a blind eye being turned to the effects of violent video games. As Dill & Dill found in 1998, 'if violent video game play indeed depicts victims as deserving attacks, and if these video games tend to portray other humans as targets, then reduced empathy is likely to be the consequence…thus putting the player at risk for becoming a more violent individual’1. An Anderson and Dill study in 2000 also found that ‘students who had previously played the violent video game delivered longer noise blasts to their opponents’2. Whilst it is a truism to say that the banning of violent video games will not prevent youth aggression, it will no longer be able to act as the catalyst for it in certain cases. 1Goldstein, 2001. 2Walsh, 2001.

Youth playing violent games exhibit more aggression. Paul Boxer. "It's up to parents to enforce a ban on violent video games." NJ.com. July 1st, 2011: "High-profile events such as teenagers getting inspired by the actions of a violent video game character can be tragic, but they also distract from the large body of knowledge that has accumulated on the impact of violent media on children. Since the early 1970s, scientists have observed very clear, frequently replicated and strikingly robust effects. In experimental studies, children who view violent television shows or films — or who play violent video games — are significantly more likely to behave aggressively in comparison to children who view nonviolent television shows or films, or who play nonviolent video games. In long-term studies, individuals who consume violent media during childhood end up more aggressive as adults, in comparison with peers who consume nonviolent media during childhood. The studies that have produced such findings now number in the hundreds. The effects have been seen in children from urban areas, as well as suburban and rural areas; in the United States, as well as many other Western and non-Western nations."

The content of Video Games It's a good thing that the rate of teen violence has been decreasing. But we are not here to debate whether the rate is higher or lower than before. Instead, we are here to discuss whether there is a direct correlation between engaging in violent video games and acting out violence in real life, for teenagers. Psychologists have shown that youngsters spend a significant amount of their spare time playing video games, boys more so than girls. While not all video games contain violence, the most popular ones do. More importantly, playing violent video games has been linked to having aggressive thoughts (http://www.apa.org...). In my opinion, having aggressive thoughts is, for a teenage, the first step toward becoming violent in action. Since violent media games lead to aggressive thoughts and aggressive thoughts may lead to violent action, by the rule of transitivity, for sure violent media games contributes to teenage violence. There is no doubt about it.

Violent video games lead to violent behaivior Studies have shown that when children are introduced to violence of any form the become aggressive, even if the aggression is short-term, it affects the child's personality, and can cause him or her to show that same type of aggression in real life situations. One report states, "One of the most severe effects of violent video games on children is that the games are addictive and they tend to keep children engaged for a longer period. Many parents must have observed that their child becomes restless if he/ she does not play the specific game for the specific time every day. This can affect the child's mental stability and make him dependent on the game." Clearly the evidence shows that violence from video games can have devastating effects.

Both experimental and non-experimental research have shown that violent video games damage young people. Many researchers (Ask, 1999; Funk, 1993, 1995; Provenzo, 1991) conclude that there is no causal link between violent video games and aggressive behaviour. Other influences, such as social environment, family background and peer pressure cause aggressive behaviour. Additionally, even if video games might create violent thoughts, according to researchers there is no reason for these thoughts to display themselves in action more than the aggressive thoughts caused by frustration in non-violent video games, or by the fast pace of action films (rather than their content). The small number of people who would be affected by such aggressive thoughts are people who probably already are habitually violent.

Both experimental and non-experimental research have shown that violent video games damage young people. Both experimental and non-experimental research have shown that violent video games damage young people playing them in both the short and long term, leading to criminal and anti-social behaviour. Exposure to violent video games causes aggressive thoughts and feelings. It also creates unwanted psychological arousal and belief in a ‘scary world’, especially among young children. This is particularly significant as video game graphics develop to become ever more realistic. The effects of violent video games are even worse than those of films and TV because of the interactive element that exists in video games. In addition, most video games are played alone, whereas cinema and television are usually a social experience, allowing social pressures to filter the experience of violence upon the viewer.

Video Games do not Cause Violence As to the Columbine massacre (the news article that you are talking about), it has never been proven that Eric Harris' and Dylan Klebold's playing of violent video games had influenced their actions. The most likely cause of the massacre was bullying and mental illness (as the FBI had found). Many implications have been made pointing to video games being the cause but the majority of these are either proven untrue or not confirmed. [1]To the 8 year old killing his grandmother, the link between playing violent video games and the murder is unproven. This was just the police racing to find a cause of the attack and finding out that the kid played a violent video game. This unfortunately happens a lot with violent crimes, people will race to find a cause and end up finding the wrong one. [2]A study published in the Journal of Youth and Adolescence found absolutely no evidence between video games and violence in vulnerable teens. In fact, in some cases the violent video games had a calming effect on the player. [3]My arguments:Many studies have shown that violent video games do not desensitize kids and those most liable to have their minds altered. The studies would show kids who play non-violent and violent games different pictures, some showing graphic scenes (like a man holding a gun to a woman's head). The subjects would have their reactions to the photos monitored and recorded. They found that there was no difference between the violent game players' and non-violent game players' reactions. Many kids recognize and respect the boundaries between the virtual and real world, and would not cross them when it comes to violence. [4][5]Sources:[1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] . http://www.cnn.com...[3] . http://www.springer.com...[4] . http://health.usnews.com...[5] . http://gamepolitics.com...

should vilent video games be banned Violent video games require active participation, repetition, and identification with the violent character. With new game controllers allowing more physical interaction, the immersive and interactive characteristics of video games can increase the likelihood of youth violence. Playing violent video games causes the development of aggressive behavioral scripts . A behavioral script is developed from the repetition of actions and affects the subconscious mind. An example of a common behavioral script is a driving script that tells drivers to get in a vehicle, put on a seat belt, and turn on the ignition. Similarly, violent video games can lead to scripts that tell youth to respond aggressively in certain situations. Violence in video games may lead to real world violence when scripts are automatically triggered in daily life, such as being nudged in a school hallway.

Do games teach kids violence. Violent juvenile crime in the United States has been declining as violent video game popularity has increased. The arrest rate for juvenile murders has fallen 71.9% between 1995 and 2008. The arrest rate for all juvenile violent crimes has declined 49.3%. In this same period, video game sales have more than quadrupled. [7] [8] A causal link between violent video games and violent behavior has not been proven. [34] Many studies suffer from design flaws and use unreliable measures of violence and aggression such as noise blast tests. Thoughts about aggression have been confused with aggressive behavior, and there is a lack of studies that follow children over long periods of time. A 2004 US Secret Service review of previous school-based attacks found that one-eighth of attackers exhibited an interest in violent video games, less than the rate of interest attackers showed in violent movies, books, and violence in their own writings. The report did not find a relationship between playing violent video games and school shootings. [35] The small correlations that have been found between video games and violence may be explained by violent youth being drawn to violent video games. Violent games do not cause youth to be violent. Instead, youth that are predisposed to be violent seek out violent entertainment such as video games. Playing violent video games reduces violence in adolescent boys by serving as a substitute for rough and tumble play. [36] Playing violent video games allows adolescent boys to express aggression and establish status in the peer group without causing physical harm. http://videogames.procon.org...

Video games make children More violent Do Violent Video Games Increase Aggression? Studies have shown that playing violent video games can increase aggressive thoughts, Behaviors, And feelings in both the short-term and long-term. Violent video games can also desensitize people to seeing aggressive behavior and decrease prosocial behaviors such as helping another person and feeling empathy (the ability to understand others). The longer that individuals are exposed to violent video games, The more likely they are to have aggressive behaviors, Thoughts, And feelings. These effects have been seen in studies in both Eastern and Western countries. Although males spend more time than females playing violent video games, Violent video game exposure can increase aggressive thoughts, Behaviors, And feelings in both sexes. The analysis of 24 studies from countries including the U. S. , Canada, Germany and Japan found those who played violent games such as "Grand Theft Auto, " "Call of Duty" and "Manhunt" were more likely to exhibit behavior such as being sent to the principal's office for fighting or hitting a non-family member. "Although no single research project is definitive, Our research aims to provide the most current and compelling responses to key criticisms on this topic, " said Jay Hull, Lead author of the study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. "Based on our findings, We feel it is clear that violent video game play is associated with subsequent increases in physical aggression, " said Hull, Associate dean of faculty for the social sciences at Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire, And the Dartmouth Professor of Psychological and Brain Sciences. Video game violence has been a hot-button issue for more than a decade. Interest in research on video games' potential for violence increased after it was learned Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, The two teenagers who committed the Columbine High School shooting, Played the first-person shooting computer game "Doom. " But in a 2011 Supreme Court decision overturning California's ban on the sale of violent video games to minors, The late Justice Antonin Scalia dismissed a link between the games and aggression. "These studies have been rejected by every court to consider them, And with good reason: They do not prove that violent video games cause minors to act aggressively, " he wrote in the majority opinion. Since then, An American Psychological Association task force report in 2015 found a link between violent video games and increased aggression in players but insufficient evidence that violent games lead to criminal violence. Earlier this year, President Donald Trump convened a video game summit a month after the February shooting that killed 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. Prior to that meeting, Trump said, "I"m hearing more and more people say the level of violence on video games is really shaping young people"s thoughts. " The Dartmouth researchers sought to reduce confusion about research findings " including disputes about the association between violent games and aggression " with a finely structured meta-analysis. Those in the study who played violent games, Whether frequently or infrequently, Had an increase risk of aggressive behavior. The new research echoes Hull's previous finding that playing violent games equates to about twice the risk of being sent to the principal"s office for fighting during an eight-month period, He said. A separate 2014 study he oversaw of violent video games in 2, 000 families is one of the 24 included in the meta-analysis. The effect is "relatively small, But statistically reliable. The effect does exist, " Hull said. While there's not research suggesting violent video games lead to criminal behavior, Hull's previous research suggests players may practice riskier behaviors such as reckless driving, Binge drinking, Smoking and unsafe sex. "A lot of people ask, Do these games really cause these kids to behave aggressively? I would say that is one possibility, " he said. "The other possibility is that it's a really bad sign. If your kids are playing these games, Either these games are having a warping effect on right and wrong or they have a warped sense of right or wrong and that"s why they are attracted to these games. Either way you should be concerned about it. " Aggressive behavior is measured by scientists in a number of ways. Some studies looked at self-reports of hitting or pushing, And some looked at peer or teacher ratings on aggressive behaviors. Other studies looked at how likely an individual was to subject others to an unpleasant exposure to hot sauce or a loud noise after playing violent video games. Unfortunately, Few studies have been completed on violent video game exposure and aggression in children under age 10. There is also little information about the impact of violent video game exposure on minority children. There have not been many studies on the effects of different characteristics of video games, Such as perspective or plot. However, Some studies have found that competition among players in video games is a better predictor of aggressive behavior than is the level of violence Do Violent Video Games Increase Violence? Violence is a form of aggression, But not all aggressive behaviors are violent. Very few studies have looked at whether playing violent video games increases the chances of later delinquency, Criminal behavior, Or lethal violence. Such studies are difficult to conduct, And require very large numbers of children. It makes sense that since playing violent video games tends to increase the level of aggressive behavior it would also results in more lethal violence or other criminal behaviors, But there is no clear evidence to support that assumption. Policy In the aftermath of the Parkland shooting in Florida in 2018, Policymakers are again questioning the influence of violent video games. The Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) affirms that their rating system is effective, But the APA Task Force on Violent Media recommends that the ESRB revise their rating system to make the level of violence clearer. The Task Force also recommends that further research must be done using delinquency, Violence, And criminal behavior as outcomes to determine whether or not violent video games are linked to violence. Bottom Line Studies show that they make children more violent.

Are Video Games the main cause for Violent Juvenile Crimes First, the claims of harm caused by video games have not been proven. The most criticised violent video games are generally military shooters. However, these games generally focus much more strongly on multiplayer components of the game. These multiplayer components often require significant levels of teamwork in order for one side to be successful over the other. As such, many of these video games end up teaching players core teamwork skills as well as often teaching leadership skills when players become part of organised gaming groups. Further, numerous researchers have proposed potential positive effects of video games on aspects of social and cognitive development and psychological well-being. It has been shown that action video game players have better hand-eye coordination and visuo-motor skills, such as their resistance to distraction, their sensitivity to information in the peripheral vision and their ability to count briefly presented objects, than non-players. Video games also promote the development of intellectual skills such as planning and problem-solving, and social games may improve the social capabilities of the individual.[1] Given then that video games provide these benefits, banning violent games would harm the industry overall, causing many of the developers of other games which encourage these kinds of skills to lose their funding from game publishers. Put simply, the banning of violent video games would lead to fewer games overall being published and if these games have the effects listed above then a great net benefit is lost in the process.

Resolved: Violent video games cause increased aggressive behavior 1. Meta-analytic reviews Meta-analytic analysis is very important when looking at a variety of issues. Meta-analysis is when scholars look at the research and determine what the sum of the research indicates. Many would claim this is merely a bandwagon fallacy—just because a majority of experts believe in one thing, it does not make it true. But this is misleading: meta-analysis is not a head count, but it tells us what a majority of the evidence is telling us. Meta-analysis techniques, therefore, are important when forming an opinion on any issue. An early meta-analysis was published in 2001. The analysis was in response to the growing popularity of violent videogames. The study was not there to make new claims, but rather summarize what has already been published. Overall, evidence indicated violent videogames do cause aggression. The study also attempted to reconcile how there are some who argue videogames do not cause aggression. For example, an early meta-analysis in 1998 claimed there was strong evidence that videogames cause aggression, whereas in 1999 there was a study with the opposite conclusion, criticizing previous research for methodological flaws. This study reviewed all of the evidence, and concluded violent videogames likely causes aggressive behaviors—but concedes some methodological flaws are prevalent in the literature, and offers suggestions for future research [1. http://tinyurl.com...]. Another analysis was published on the same year in the American Psychological Society. A criticism which CON notes is how laboratory results may differ from the real world—and I accept that idea. However, studies in the field also corroborate the idea that violent videogames do foster aggressive behavior. The results seem to apply to both males and females. Violent videogames also reduce prosocial behavior—i.e. helping people in need. Research indicates violent media in general can cause increased aggressive behavior. Violent video games, then, should have the same effect. If anything, it should be greater, as it is more immersive. The authors conclude, “These results clearly support the hypothesis that exposure to violent video games poses a public-health threat to children and youths, including college-age individuals” [2. http://tinyurl.com...]. The former analysis was briefly updated in 2003. The updated version looked more closely into methodological differences. It noted methodologically weaker studies found no effect. Methodologically superior studies found strong effects between videogames and violence. Other meta-analytic reviews failed to look into methodology very closely. This means, if anything, previous reviews underestimate the amount of violence videogames cause. The vast majority of research supports my position—and the stronger methodology used, the stronger the effect between violence and videogames seems to become [3. http://tinyurl.com...]. The final review worth noting is Anderson et al. 2010. Easily the most comprehensive review of the literature, the study expands upon previous research. Looking over new evidence as well as adjusting for methodological flaws pointed out by critics (namely, Christopher Ferguson). What is interesting, the skeptical reviews my Ferguson rely upon “a very small set of available studies” [4. http://tinyurl.com...]. Those studies also use poor methods in order to control for perceived publication bias, questionable trim and fill methods, and the multiple studies are not independent studies—they rely upon similar datasets with few changes. The authors conducted this review on order to address Ferguson’s criticisms and expand upon previous summarization. The study also reviewed evidence from foreign nations—such as Japan—as previous reviews focused solely on Western countries. Players are not merely moving the controller. They become immersed within such virtual reality, which leads them to become aggressive and mimic certain behaviors. The evidence strongly supports the idea that violent videogames cause aggression [4]. 2. Non-laboratory results confirm that videogames cause aggression Laboratory studies are invaluable for this line of research—there is no doubt about it. But laboratory research alone is not sufficient enough to prove a causal link, as the real world has other factors at work. A large survey asked questions to 430 elementary schools students, 607 adolescents, and 1441 older adolescents (mean age 19 years). Rating of behavior was both self-rated as well as rated by teachers. Peers were also utilized in order to rate their fellow classmates behavior. Nearly every methodology and age group had one thing in common. Those who played videogames were rated higher in aggression categories, and those who played violent videogames more often were also rated as more aggressive [5. http://tinyurl.com...]. According to the APA, there is an abundance of evidence that videogames “may also be more conducive to increasing aggressive behavior than passively watching violence on TV and in films”. The APA recommends “the reduction of all violence in videogames and interactive media marketed to children and youth” [6. http://tinyurl.com...]. It is also illogical to argue that laboratory studies are wholly irrelevant. Factors which lead to real-world violence seem to have similar effects in laboratory settings. Therefore, it is incorrect to argue that effects in the real world will differ significantly than results in a lab [7. http://tinyurl.com...]. 3. Crime rates A significant portion of Con’s case revolves around youth violence decreasing as videogame consumption increases. What first must be noted is the study my opponent cited (Ferguson 2014) excludes children who are within the age group 18 – 22. These children are in college. If anything, those in that age group are the most prone for aggressive behavior due to violent videogames. Indeed, college videogame players tend to become agitated much more easily as they see higher aggression rates when playing games which are only E-rated [7]. Therefore, the results may have been different had this high risk group been included. Second, to claim youth violence is decreasing does not harm the theory. Violence is decreasing not because of videogames, but in spite of it. The claim assumes a few things. A) videogame consumption is increasing, B) youth violence is decreasing, and C) videogames are a primary factor in overall violence rates. (a) is likely a correct assumption. (b) is debatable. A 2001 report by the US Surgeon General’s office shows an increase in youth violence. And since about 1989, the trend has stayed relatively stable [8. http://tinyurl.com...]. The second assumption is blatantly false. Media violence is one factor in determining overall crime rates, but it is not the most important one [7]. Therefore, it is not shocking that decreases in violence could still occur even if media consumption increases. It is undisputed that overall violent crime has fallen since the late 1980s [9. http://tinyurl.com...]. A lot of research has answered the question as to what caused the decline. If these factors are large enough—which they were—they would override any positive relationship between videogames and crime. So, what large forces cause the crime decreases? One of the factors was the increased usage of the death penalty. The vast majority of peer-refereed publications support the notion that the death penalty decreases crime. The death penalty has been used more frequently during the period which we saw massive crime reduction. The increase in executions likely led to 12 – 14% of the nation’s decrease in the homicide rate. The death penalty may even have a slight deterrent effect on other violent crimes, as if a victim dies in a rape, robbery, or assault they can be executed. Therefore, the DP may even reduce overall violent crime rates. The number of prisoners may also have decreased crime rates. As there were higher arrest rates, criminals were deterred. Studies indicate the more certain the punishment, the more deterrent effect will be produced. Higher overall arrest rates and conviction rates significantly decreased crime. Arrest rates decreased crime 16 – 18%, and increased conviction decreased another 12%. Right-to-carry laws were also implemented and those who had concealed carry permits became a more common occurrence. The death penalty, law enforcement, and right to carry laws were responsible for 60% of the violent crime decrease [10. John Lott. Freakonomics (2007) pp 135, 139, 144]. Violent videogames did not cause a crime decrease: a crime decrease occurred in spite of increased media consumption. Other factors have merely masked the effects of increased media consumption. 4. Theoretical considerations Most sociological models predict repeated exposure to media violence would increase aggressive attitudes. Psychologists Craig Anderson and Brad Bushman have created the General Aggression Model, which claims videogames do cause aggression [2]. The model neatly explains how videogames lead to increased violence. The model has recently been verified [11. http://tinyurl.com...] using empirical techniques. Therefore, it is not surprising that the majority [1][2][3][4] of published research supports the notion that videogames cause increased tendencies for violence. Nor is it surprising that laboratory [7] and empirical [1][2][3][4][5][6] studies both conclude videogames cause violence. The following graphic is from [2], and briefly explains the general aggression model. The empirical verification of the model [11] is below it. Conclusion A vast majority of published research corroborates the conclusion that violent videogames cause violence. I have fulfilled any suggested burden of proof.

Video Games Lead To Violence There was a study done with 200 kids, with kids the age of 10 or 11, showing that the longer they played video games, the more aggression was stored up in the kids. Children who played for longer than three hours each day had higher levels of aggression and lower levels of academic engagement. Considering the vast number of children and youth who use video games and that more than 85% of video games on the market contain some form of violence, the public has understandably been concerned about the effects that using violent video games may have on individuals, especially children and adolescents. Now admittedly that video games are not the main reason for mass homicide and school shootings because it all comes from the person's family, environment, and chemical imbalances that they might hold but like you said, "Video games can assist with the growth and development of our brain." While video games can be healthy for brain development they can do just the complete opposite in people, especially in children and adolescents, because their brains are still developing. Scientific research has demonstrated an association between violent video game use and both increases in aggressive behavior, aggressive affect, aggressive cognitions and decreases in prosocial behavior, empathy, and moral engagement. Playing violent video games causes more aggression, bullying, and fighting. 60% of middle school boys and 40% of middle school girls who played at least one Mature-rated (M-rated) game hit or beat up someone, compared with 39% of boys and 14% of girls who did not play M-rated games. A 2014 peer-reviewed study in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that habitual violent video game playing had a causal link with increased, long-term, aggressive behavior. Several peer-reviewed studies have shown that children who play M-rated games are more likely to bully and cyberbully their peers, get into physical fights, be hostile, argue with teachers, and show aggression towards their peers throughout the school year.

Are Video Games the main cause for Violent Juvenile Crimes Do you even look at what you are posting? Were in that argument does it mention anything relevant to the question once again. Please just leave this argument as all you have been doing is commenting with copy and pastes and not showing your own facts. I don't believe you have actually commented one word which is not a copy and paste. Playing violent video games reduces violence in adolescent boys by serving as a substitute for rough and tumble play. Playing violent video games allows adolescent boys to express aggression and establish status in the peer group without causing physical harm.

Violent video games make children violent Accepted.

Violent games lead to violent actions I personally do not play violent video games regularly, but I have watched many different gamers play a plethora of violent games, ranging from CS:GO to Grand Theft Auto. If you look at how people react or express themselves while playing these games, you can notice a well-defined trend of screaming, cursing, and in extreme situations, attacking/hitting something. If you are thinking that this is just because of the competitive nature of many violent video games, you are misinformed. Honestly, you cannot tell me that you get the same reaction from dying on CupHead and dying on a tied CS:GO game. This is because the flashes of gun muzzles and blares of gunshots creates an environment that simulates yourself inside the game, as the game developers want you to be. Everyone gets immersed in a game that stimulates all of your senses and in one where you are able to do things that you wouldn't be able to do in real life. This is how Grand Theft Auto attracts so many players, as you can shoot guns at people, speed in fancy cars, go parachuting from the sky, break into stores, break into the military base, go to the strip club, and so much more. This draws a gamer into the game, and they get the realization that you can do all of this in real life, but many do not think of the consequences, ranging from killing yourself to killing others around you. This is why violent games should be restricted to a certain point around growing teens and youths, as they cause them to think that the world is just like the video game they play.

Violent Video Games cause Violent Behaviour Video games exist as an interactive medium. The player has control over their character and many of their character’s actions whereas in a book or movie, the audience does not. This means that the player can become invested emotionally in characters to a greater extent because of the autonomy afforded to each character. Given that this is true it becomes more difficult to ensure dissociation between the real world and the game world with which the player interacts. With the growing drive towards realism of videogame graphics, game environments are able to look incredibly similar to real life, further blurring the distinction. If this is the case, then a person who visits violence upon another person within a game universe feels the same emotions as someone who does so within real life, and therefore may be desensitised to real-life violence. Whilst game producers would claim that is not their aim and that their games do not cause this desensitisation, many have been actively pursuing technologies that allow for greater immersion within their game-worlds. If this is the case then acts of violence may fail to register the same level of shock or revulsion in a person than they usually do. Given that this is true, people who play video games become more able to harm others or less likely to intervene to prevent harm. In terms of actual evidence, there is very little to back up this analysis. Most studies supporting the concept have been debunked by others.[1] [1] Anderson, Craig  & Bushman, Brad. Effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal, and prosocial behavior: A meta-analytic review of the scientific literature. Psychological Science, 2001, 12: 353-359

Violent games lead to violent actions Thank you khlover520 for your helpful insight on this topic. For any doubters that think that violent games don't cause violent behavior, look toward Pewdiepie's recent outlash while he was playing PUBG, a survival game where you try to outlast everyone else in the game by killing them with guns or vehicles. He was getting close to winning, with the final few left against him. When he was shot, the previous violent actions bottled up and let out the racist, derogatory n-word. This is not the only occasion, as seen from a plethora of videos on the internet of player lashing out at other players, their gaming tools, and their screen when something does not go their way in the violent game. These, in themselves, are violent actions, but they can also lead to actions outside of someone's house or gaming area. In violent video games, actions like attacking and killing other people are rewarded and encouraged, since that is what must happen to win the game. This can be translated into real life, since children will feel encouraged to do these actions outside of the game. According to a 2015 peer-reviewed study," Two teenagers in Tennessee who shot at passing cars and killed one driver told police they got the idea from playing Grand Theft Auto."(p2) This terrible incident shows that teens are capable of doing these attacks, just because of what they did in a game. Grand Theft Auto is an explorative game where your character can do many things, including stealing cars, driving recklessly, and attacking people with weapons. When you kill someone in the game, you receive money, which can be used to buy vehicles or fancier weapons. This kind of rewarding system is motivating the gamer to continue doing harm, which can severely impact what people do outside of the game, especially with guns. Shooter games trained players actually have better accuracy in shooting a real gun, and they're more likely to aim for the head, which is much more lethal. This is important because with the increase of violent video game sales, more and more teens and children are being exposed to this negative encouragement. This will increase violence rates among children, and could carry with them even when they become adults. While humans are trying to end war and violence, even more problems are growing right under us, seeping through the screens, speakers, and controllers that teens and children use to interact and become characters that steal cars or shoot people. We don"t want to let gamers think that aggression against others will be rewarded, in the game and in real life. It's clear that violent video games are increasing violence levels in teens and children all over the world.

Violence in video games does not significantly contribute to real world violence. What began the controversy:It is obvious that violence has been a major issue in society today. Events such as the school shooting in Newtown and the bombing of the Boston Marathon have made people begin to wonder what exactly pushed the guilty individuals to commit such atrocities. Many people have concluded that one of the major factors that promotes violence today are video games. Jay Rockefeller is one of the activists against video game violence. Minnesota Post explains that Rockfeller introduced a legislation instructing the National Association of Sciences to investigate the effects of violent video games on children, saying, “People believe that violent video games are no more dangerous to young minds than classic literature or Saturday morning cartoons. Parents, paediatricians, and psychologists know better.” (1) The effects of video games on the minds of young children has been studied for years, and the data quite contradicts Rockfeller’s conclusion.What really causes violence in teens:Serious CrimesAdam Lanza, the gunman from the Sandy Hook shooting, played violent video games regularly. This caused many to believe that this is why he committed his violent crime. However, this was not the case. Eric Huey explains, “It turns out that delinquent peers, depression, and an abusive family environment account for actual violence incidents…” (2) Obviously, mental disorders would be another thing that promotes such violence. Here we can see that video games did not compel him (or most other school shooters) to commit the crime.AggressionA common argument against violence in video games is that violence in video games cause aggression. This is actually not the case. Carol Pichefsky notes that aggression is not caused by violent video games; rather, it is caused by a competitive environment (3). So, a game of MarioKart would be just as likely to result in aggression as a game of Call of Duty. This is not exclusive to video games either, competitive sports and competitive debate (especially on this website) are just as likely to result in aggression. So, it is certainly not the violence in video games that causes such feelings. The last thing I would like to note is that aggression and violence are two different things. Aggression is an intention. Violence in an action (4). My opponent showing that video games cause aggression is simply not enough.Violence rates:Here is the most important point of this debate. Logically, if violence in video games significantly contribute to real world violence, violent crime rates would rise as video game sales rise. This, however, is untrue: Now, I don't claim that this decrease is due to video game sales (a lot of other factors could have affected the decline). However, this decrease makes mockery of the idea that video games have legitimately contributed to the rise of violence in society today (5). Video game's effect:Releasing AggressionStudies suggest that video games give individuals an outlets to release aggression; there was a study done on inmates. An observer notes "If you give them video games, they’ll be less likely to start fights. So once a week we’d hook up a bunch of TVs in a classroom so all of the murderers and rapists could play Halo. There’s nothing more interesting than seeing guys who have killed multiple people deathmatching each other (6)." The inmates clearly were able to release their aggression in a way that doesn't hurt other people. This can be applied to other people as well. Logically, if violence in video games makes inmates less violent, they won't have an opposite affect when it comes to kids.Enjoyment of ViolenceThis is an important part of the debate. Many people don't become violent because of violence in video games. Rather, they play violent video games because they enjoy violence. In order for con to win this point, he must prove that the violence in video games causes the violence. A simple correlation between violent people and people that play violent video games is not enough.(1) http://www.minnpost.com...(2) http://www.sfgate.com...(3) http://www.forbes.com... (4) http://www.goodtherapy.org... (5) Chasing the Dream, “The Economist”(6) http://freakonomics.com...

Research has shown violent video games encourage criminal and anti-social behaviour Both experimental and non-experimental research have shown that violent video games damage young people playing them in both the short and long term, leading to criminal and anti-social behaviour. Exposure to violent video games causes aggressive thoughts and feelings. It also creates unwanted psychological arousal and belief in a 'scary world', especially among young children. This is particularly significant as video game graphics develop to become ever more realistic. The effects of violent video games are even worse than those of films and TV because of the interactive element that exists in video games. In addition, most video games are played alone, whereas cinema and television are usually a social experience, allowing social pressures to filter the experience of violence upon the viewer. An Australian Senate Committee established to look at this issue in 1993 concluded 'there is sufficient anecdotal evidence of a linkage…that the community cannot fail to act to control a situation which has the very real potential…to affect young people’1. 1Senate Committee, 1993.

Violent Video Games Prevent Violent Behaviour In most people’s lives there are instances where they might like to react to a situation with a level of aggression. However, owing to a number of reasons such a solution is often impossible and undesirable. It has been theorised by psychologists that pent up frustrations with the world are the root of many psychological problems. Given that this is true then, an outlet for frustrations is required in society such that aggressive behaviour in individuals can be avoided. Video games in this situation provide such an outlet for aggression and frustrations. Firstly aggression is dealt with through the simple act of defeating enemies within games and frustration is dealt with through the completion of goals within the video games, allowing players a sense of satisfaction upon their completion. Hence, one could argue that this may result in comparatively lower levels of aggressive behaviour among video game players. This is supported by research conducted by Dr. Cheryl Olson and her team at Harvard. Studying a sample of 1,254 students aged 12 to 14 years, she found that over 49% of boys and 25% of girls reported using violent games such as Grand Theft Auto IV as an outlet for their anger. She suggests that instead of a blanket ban on M-rated game use by young adolescents, parents should monitor how much time children spend playing games and how they react to specific game content.[1] [1] Olson, Cheryl K., et al., ‘Factors Correlated with Violent Video Game Use by Adolescent Boys and Girls’, Journal of Adolescent Health, Vol.41 no.1, pp77-83, July 2007, http://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(07)00027-4/abstract

Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned Science has come to a general consensus that violent TV does have an effect on kids' behavior. video games have additional reasons for concern, leading psychologists to believe that it is worse than TV. 1) video games are even more likely to affect people's behavior than TV because they're immersive. People don't just watch video games; they interact with them. 2) The games are also repetitive 3) based on a rewards system. Repetition and rewards are primary components of classical conditioning, a proved psychological concept in which behavioral learning takes place as a result of rewarding (or punishing) particular behaviors. The brains of children and teens are still developing, & are thus even more susceptible to this type of "training." THE EVIDENCE: A 2001 study reported in the journal "Psychological Science" ( the highest ranked empirical journal in psychology) found that: "Children who play violent video games experience an increase in physiological signs of aggression."[1] In 2006 at the Indiana University School of Medicine researchers found that kids who played violent game showed increased activity in the amygdala, which stimulates emotions, and decreased activity in the prefrontal lobe, which regulates inhibition, self-control and concentration. [2] The 2008 study Grand Theft Childhood reported that 60% of middle school boys that played at least one Mature-rated game hit or beat up someone, compared to 39% of boys that did not play Mature-rated games.[3] In March 2011 A study published in the afore mentioned "Psychological Science" found that: "playing violent video games is associated with denying humanness to other people and Violent Video Games Increase Aggressive Behavior."[4] The APA: The (APA), is the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States and is the world's largest association of psychologists. The following are from the APA: Article: "Video Games and Aggressive Thoughts, Feelings, and Behavior in the Laboratory and in Life," Craig A. Anderson, Ph.D., Iowa State University of Science and Technology and Karen E. Dill, Ph.D., Lenoir-Rhyne College: Violent Video Games can Increase Aggression: "...Video games may be more harmful than violent television and movies because of the interactive nature of the games. Playing violent video games increase a person's aggressive thoughts, feelings and behavior both in laboratory settings and in actual life. violent video games may be more harmful than violent television and movies because they are interactive, very engrossing and require the player to identify with the aggressor... ...Violent video games provide a forum for learning and practicing aggressive solutions to conflict situations," said Dr. Anderson. "In the short run, playing a violent video game appears to affect aggression by priming aggressive thoughts. Longer-term effects are likely to be longer lasting as well, as the player learns and practices new aggression-related scripts that can become more and more accessible for use when real-life conflict situations arise... ...One major concern is the active nature of the learning environment of the video game," say the authors. "This medium is potentially more dangerous than exposure to violent television and movies, which are known to have substantial effects on aggression and violence..."[5] "Two studies examined violent video game effects on aggression-related variables. Study 1 found that real-life violent video game play was positively related to aggressive behavior and delinquency... Academic achievement was negatively related to overall amount of time spent playing video games. In Study 2, laboratory exposure to a graphically violent video game increased aggressive thoughts and behavior. The results from both studies are consistent with the General Affective Aggression Model, which predicts that exposure to violent video games will increase aggressive behavior in both the short term (e.g., laboratory aggression) and the long term (e.g., delinquency)... ...Violent video games provide a forum for learning and practicing aggressive solutions to conflict situations. The effect of violent video games appears to be cognitive in nature. In the short term, playing a violent video game appears to affect aggression by priming aggressive thoughts. Longer-term effects are likely to be longer lasting as well, as the player learns and practices new aggression-related scripts that become more and more accessible for use when real-life conflict situations arise. If repeated exposure to violent video games does indeed lead to the creation and heightened accessibility of a variety of aggressive knowledge structures, thus effectively altering the person's basic personality structure, the consequent changes in everyday social interactions may also lead to consistent increases in aggressive affect. The active nature of the learning environment of the video game." [6] "Research shows playing violent video games increases aggressive behavior and decreases helpful behavior..." [7] From APA's Resolution on Violence in Video Games and Interactive Media: "...Exposure to violent media increases feelings of hostility, thoughts about aggression... Comprehensive analysis of violent interactive video game research suggests such exposure a.) increases aggressive behavior, b.) increases aggressive thoughts, c.) increases angry feelings, d.) decreases helpful behavior, and, e.) increases physiological arousal (Anderson, C.A., 2002b; Anderson, C.A., Carnagey, N. L., Flanagan, M., Benjamin, A. J., Eubanks, J., Valentine, J. C., 2004; Anderson, C.A., & Dill, K. E., 2000; Bushman, B.J., & Anderson, C.A., 2002; Gentile, D. A., Lynch, P. J., Linder, J. R., & Walsh, D. A., 2004). Studies further suggest that sexualized violence in the media has been linked to increases in violence towards women, rape myth acceptance and anti-women attitudes. The characteristics of violence in interactive video games appear to have similar detrimental effects as viewing television violence; however based upon learning theory (Bandura, 1977; Berkowitz, 1993), the practice, repetition, and rewards for acts of violence may be more conducive to increasing aggressive behavior among children and youth than passively watching violence on TV and in films (Carll, E. K., 1999a). With With the development of more sophisticated interactive media, such as virtual reality, the implications for violent content are of further concern, due to the intensification of more realistic experiences, and may also be more conducive to increasing aggressive behavior than passively watching violence on TV and in films (Calvert, S. L., Jordan, A. B., Cocking, R. R. (Ed.) 2002; Carll, E. K., 2003; Turkle, S., 2002); and studies further suggest that videogames influence the learning processes in many ways more than in passively observing TV: a.) requiring identification of the participant with a violent character while playing video games, b.) actively participating increases learning, c.) rehearsing entire behavioral sequences rather than only a part of the sequence, facilitates learning, and d.) repetition increases learning (Anderson, C.A., 2002b; Anderson, C.A., Carnagey, N. L., Flanagan, M., Benjamin, A. J., Eubanks, J., Valentine, J. C., 2004; Anderson, C.A. & Dill, K. E., 2000)..." [8] [1] http://www.apa.org... [2] http://www.soc.iastate.edu... [3] http://repository.upenn.edu... [4] http://www.academia.edu... [5] http://www.apa.org... [6] http://www.psychology.iastate.edu... [7] http://www.apa.org... [8] http://www.apa.org...

Violent video games desensitize individuals to real violence When people are given repeated and long term exposure to media and video game violence they become aroused by the violence via a number of physiological and hormonal cues. Aggression is one of them. It's accurate to suggest that after exposure to violent video games adolescents and young adults do become aggressive. The effect wears off after about half an hour. The same effect is witnessed when people are exposed to pornography. Rape proclivity (similar questionnaire style psychology test of appropriate vs. inappropriate responses) and hormone levels spike and return to normal after about half an hour. The study you cite supposes that it can draw this short term spike of adrenaline into a long term correlation via "delinquency". You want to know why long term exposure to video games results in declines of academic performance? --- BECAUSE THEY ARE PLAYING VIDEO GAMES ALL THE TIME!!!! Exposures to sex-materials and exposure towards violent materials do have a notably short term effect of sex and violent related activity. If you get somebody riled up, it takes a little bit of time for them to settle down. This isn't some kind of long term psychological scarring, it's hormones. If you expose people to sex they're okay with sex. If you expose people to violence they're okay with violence. These hold true for half an hour with a notably steady drop off throughout. ---- You need to establish that violent video games desensitize individuals to real violence. So far you've established: * People process video game violence in the same way as video violence. * You can rile a person up with video games. * If students play video games all the time they do worse in school. Are you going to cite a study with some direct relevance to the topic next? ---- These studies and this topic has been explored for decades and to date there's no good evidence to support the hypothesis and not for a lack of trying. It's become a joke of made for TV movies and school kids the world over. The idea that some kid is going to play GTA and car jack somebody and drive over a large number of people (fewer than ten if you want to avoid getting three stars) is simply wrong. The way kids figure this out without any fancy psychology PhDs? They play violent video games and would never do such a thing. No amount of psychology papers could possibly put that asunder. No amount of desperate attempts by psychologists trying to prove a link that they absolutely want to find is going to make a link suddenly appear. In the harder sciences when have a hypothesis and it fails, you look somewhere else, you don't keep searching for the next 20 years. The studies are going backwards. They assume that there must be a link and go about searching everywhere for it, they aren't trying to understand some underlying mechanism or odd effect they witnessed. They are making a conclusion and desperately seeking science to back it up. However, when we look at the bigger picture and compare populations to see if there is some effect there, we don't find it. There is more violent video games in Japan, and if you've ever seen Anime you'd know that there's plenty of video violence as well, however Japan still has nearly no violent crime. There's very little point in doing research to find the mechanisms behind something that can't even make a statistical dent. I'm sorry but you're wrong. I get the feeling that you're passionate about this and I don't mean to offend, but violent video games aren't making kids violent. It doesn't matter how many video games kids play, you threaten them with real death and expose them to real violence and they act the same way: scared.

Video game violence does not contribute significantly to school shootings. It has been proven that there is a casual link between predisposed kids that end up fulfilling their disposition via the cognitive deterioration of emotional tolerance by playing violent video games[1]. Case in point. http://www.msnbc.msn.com...

Violent videos games lead to aggression in individuals As of now, every lawsuit that has been filed against the game industry for cases such as this have been thrown out. Why, you ask? Because the science doesn't back up such claims. As we all should very well know, correlation doesn't imply causation; this is basic psychology. The burden of proof is on my opponent to show the causal link between video game violence and an increase in aggression. As is with most studies, the one my you have posted simply concludes that individuals who play violent video games experience an increase in physiological signs of aggression. However, this still does not address the issue at hand, of whether or not violent video games lead to real life violence. Such experiments are methodologically unsound' the environment is drastically different, and participants are in situations they normally wouldn't be. Even so, such experiments don't establish this "link" between violent video games and aggression. [1] People know what they are playing, and what context it is. It's for fun, and they are conscious of what goals they are playing it for: entertainment. Studies in apes show a distinction between play fighting and ripping each others gut out in real combat. It shows that apes do make distinctions between the two, so why can't humans? [1] Yeah, individuals get a physiological response to violent video games, as do people who watch porn. In the same way, the movie industry has been here long before video games came along, and the violence in many movies such as Saw (yummy) is no secret. Roughly 79 percent of America's youth play video games, many of them for at least eight hours a week. [2] Holy camels there must be shootings and beatings and rapes all over the street! But wait a minute, then explain to me why the crime rate in America is going down. [3] Surely, it should be spiking up with the video game industry exploding in its few decades of existence, but the evidence speaks otherwise. ---References--- 1. http://www.pbs.org... 2. http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu... 3. http://www.livescience.com...

Video Games do not increase or perpetuate juvenile violence First of all, as an observation, Juvenile can be defined as the following, from Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary: " physiologically immature or undeveloped", :reflecting psychological or intellectual immaturity", and "of, relating to, characteristic of, or suitable for children or young people." Therefore, since no exact age-bar ws given by the Pro, we can assume anyone is a juvenile if they match the description. This means adults who have mental disabilities, and people of all ages who bear these characteristics meeet the criteria of "Juvenile." First - Kids/Juveniles who play violent video games are prone to Violent Videogames, as told by a journal Pediatrics in it's study in 2008. Anne Harding of CNN, who covered the study, reported on three groups in the study: "In every group, children who were exposed to more video game violence did become more aggressive over time than their peers who had less exposure." CBSNews' 60 Minutes even went on about how a violent video game, Grand Theft Auto, led to a rampage by one of the kids who played it: "And now, the game is at the center of a civil lawsuit involving the murders of three men in the small town of Fayette, Ala. They were gunned down by 18-year-old Devin Moore, who had played Grand Theft Auto day and night for months." American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry elaborate on these effects: "Studies of children exposed to violence have shown that they can become: “immune” or numb to the horror of violence, imitate the violence they see, and show more aggressive behavior with greater exposure to violence. Some children accept violence as a way to handle problems. Studies have also shown that the more realistic and repeated the exposure to violence, the greater the impact on children. In addition, children with emotional, behavioral and learning problems may be more influenced by violent images." Therefore, the effects of violent video games are true, and do exist. Therefore, I contend that video Games do increase juvenile violence, as anyone, including children, who are deemed able to be a "juvenile" by definition, can be pushed into doing violence.

Do games teach kids violence. We aren't even debating the existence of a causal link, only the fact that children learn violence from video games. I hereby provide quotes from the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry and the American Academy of Pediatrics to settle this issue once and for all."Some researchers have demonstrated that very young children will imitate aggressive acts on TV in their play with peers. Before age 4, children are unable to distinguish between fact and fantasy." [1]"Extensive research evidence indicates that media violence can contribute to aggressive behavior, desensitization to violence, nightmares, and fear of being harmed."The evidence is now clear and convincing: media violence is 1 of the causal factors of real-life violence and aggression. At a Congressional public health summit in July 2000, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) was joined by the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and the American Psychological Association in issuing an unprecedented joint statement on the impact of entertainment violence on children. Also in 2000, the Federal Bureau of Investigation released a report on shootings in schools that stated that media violence is a risk factor. "In 2003, a panel of media-violence experts convened by the National Institute of Mental Health, at the request of the US Surgeon General, published its comprehensive report on the effects of media violence on youth, which revealed media violence to be a significant causal factor in aggression and violence. Most recently, in 2007, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released its report on violent television programming and its effects on children and agreed with the Surgeon General that there is “strong evidence” that exposure to media violence can increase aggressive behavior in children." [2]"As one leading group of researchers has stated, there should no longer be any controversy that a cause-and-effect relationship exists. More than 3500 reports, including 1000 research studies, have been made; <30 studies have found no relation. In fact, the connection between media violence and real-life aggression is nearly as strong as the connection between smoking and lung cancer. "Given the complexities of performing social-science research, this finding is quite striking. Not everyone who smokes will get lung cancer, and not everyone who views media violence will become aggressive. In addition, context is extremely important, as are mediating factors such as personality differences and parenting. "Overall, an estimated 10% to 30% of violence in society can be attributed to the impact of media violence. Clearly, media violence is not the leading cause of violence in society, but it is a significant one." [3]Specific sources in comments :)

Violent Video Games Lead to Real Violence (First Debate) Well, it is definitely the case that violent video games lead to violence in real life due to the fact that it encourages new ideas to try illegal things which are seen as "cool" by teenagers. For example, the violent 18+ video game, which is played by those much younger too, show that speeding cars and not following rules is fun and thrilling. This leads to people trying this in real life...

The content of Video Games You seem to be saying that in war-torn places, kids are exposed to real-life violence and such exposure is linked to real-life teen violence; but in places where there are no wars and where kids have access to electronics and the Internet, teens who play violent video games will limit the violence to the virtual world and will not transpose their participation in violent acts from the virtual to the real world. In other words, as far as violence goes, you think there is a partition of the virtual and the real worlds. There are no crossovers. From a logic standpoint, to prove you wrong, all I need to do is to cite one example of crossover. Such an example is not hard to find: e.g. the Columbine High School Massacre that took place in 1999. In this event, 2 teenagers, after a long period of planning, finally walked through the school hallways one day and killed over a dozen schoolmates before killing themselves. They were known to be gamers and, in the afternoons, they used to played the game DOOM, a first person shooter game that not only pioneered immersive 3D graphics and networked multiplayer gaming but also engaged in graphic and interactive violence. The two killers did not come from broken homes. They experienced a normal amount of bullying, both receiving and providing. The only constant source of mental images of violence came from the virtual world of DOOM. Eventually, through mutual encouragement and collaboration, they decided to put in action a violent way to die for themselves and for some of their schoolmates. They crossed over. I am not saying all gamers will cross over. I am saying we can not afford to have even a single person crossed over because of the potential devastation. When we experienced an event such as Columbine's, we drew the conclusion that violent video games do contribute to teen violence in real life.

Violent videos games lead to aggression in individuals Violent video games desensitizes individuals, causing them to take real violence lightly. People habituate the video game violence and become physiologically numb to it. Nicholas Carnagey, an Iowa State psychology instructor and research assistant, and ISU Distinguished Professor of Psychology Craig Anderson collaborated on the study of "The Effects of Video Game Violence on Physiological Desensitization to Real-Life Violence" with Brad Bushman, a former Iowa State psychology professor now at the University of Michigan, and Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam. 257 college students, 124 men and 133 women, were tested individually. After measuring their heart rate and galvanic skin response and asking questions about their video game preferences and general aggression levels, each participant was exposed to one of eight randomly designated violent or nonviolent games for 20 minutes. The four possible violent games were Carmageddon, Duke Nukem, Mortal Kombat or Future Cop; the non-violent games were Glider Pro, 3D Pinball, 3D Munch Man and Tetra Madness. After the 20 minute duration, the test subjects were subjected to the same tests and then asked to watch actual violent episodes constructed from TV episodes and commercially-released films in the contexts of courtroom outbursts, police confrontations, shootings and prisons fights. Physiological differences were observed throughout the entire viewing. When viewing the actual images of violence, participants that played the violent video games had a significantly less skin response than those that had played nonviolent video games. In addition, the participants that had played the violent video games had a lower heart rate than those that played nonviolent video games. The people that participated in the experiment had no discrepancy in heart rate or skin response before the beginning of the study or immediately after playing the assigned games The results demonstrate that only 20 minutes of exposure can cause people to be less aroused by violence. When desensitized to violence and accepting it as the norm, one is more apt to commit violence. Video game players can become more aggressive in outlook, perceptual biases, attitudes, beliefs, and behavior than they were before the repeated exposure or would have become without such exposure. In a study entitled "Video Games and Aggressive Thoughts, Feelings, and Behavior in the Laboratory and in Life', it was found that violent video game play and aggressive personality separately and jointly accounted for major portions of both aggressive behavior and nonaggressive delinquency. "Violent video game play was also shown to be a superior predictor of both types of delinquency compared with time spent playing all types of video games. This is also consistent with our GAAM formulation and suggests that future research (unlike most past work) needs to distinguish between these types of video games. The positive association between violent video games and aggressive personality is consistent with a developmental model in which extensive exposure to violent video games (and other violent media) contributes to the creation of an aggressive personality. The cross-sectional nature of this study does not allow a strong test of this causal hypothesis, but a zero or negative correlation would have disconfirmed the hypothesis, so the test is a legitimate one. " I conclude, from the evidence stated, that video games lead to aggression. If you wish to verify these studies or this information, go to . http://www.sciencedirect.com... . http://www.apa.org... . http://www.public.iastate.edu...

Playing violent video games make people more violent. I'm just a 13-year-old kid from Hong Kong and I'm setting up this debating to collect the useful information from dear repliers, in order to help me prepare for my grand debate competition soon. Hope you could help me. There might be errors or points that lack solid evidence. Please help point them out. Thank You! Playing violent video games make people more violent. This is certainly a joke. The true reason of such violent acts is actually all because of your family background, affection of the same age group as well as the mental problems of one. It is not what you think that when you are addicted to a game, you will start doing the same thing in reality just as the one you experience in the game. We have brains, for god's sake, which we are able (or supposedly) to identify and classify what is right, what is wrong. It is our responsibility to discover the black and white of human society. But however, in the process of learning how to do that, it is our parents who should have taught us well and control our acts, limiting us from doing something beyond our reach. So, parents do have a responsibility to build a supportive and steady foundation for the young, let them know that the fighting and punching, killing and stabbing, as well shooting is no good. Parents can do it by limiting the stuff that the young take reach, the games they play etc. On the contrary, nowadays parents are very caring. They buy and give whatever the child wants, just to keep the kid happy. I am thirteen only, and don't ever ask my parents to buy whatever I want. I can only do it if I can prove myself worthy to do so, otherwise, forget it. Well, playing violent video games make people more violent. Why do people say such thing? How do you define violent? If such statement stands, does it mean that a boring class would make people more boring (meaning the person would become not exciting)? Things don't go like that. A cause-and-effect relationship concept is the key of such misunderstanding. Boring doesn't mean you're boring, so does violent doesn't mean you're violent. Moreover, it is a matter of opinion and fact. How do you define violent? Does violent mean involving killing? Yes, in extreme cases, but otherwise, it is an intense in force, causing destructive or damage. If it is so, is Angry Birds a violent video game, since it is causing destructiveness for the Pigs. This is what we should understand, that is it a fact or opinion. Furthermore, we should also ask that how does playing violent video games literally make people more violent. Being violent is a matter of yourself, your heart, where it is your choice, a choice to be made by you, to decide whether you want to be bounty hunter, a killer, an assassin, or just rather a peaceful person. Last but not the least, we should also beware of the words of the motion --- "make". What does make mean? Well, make means to cause. It this motion, we lack the meaning of make, whether it is indirectly or directly. Therefore there are grey areas where we cannot debate clearly or just deciding to use one aspect. In such case, being a negative side, I would chose indirectly. This actually means that there is something else besides than violent games that causes people to become violent. The lack of control of parents, the lack control of the export of violent materials etc. Lastly, we should have a clear mind, of identifying good and bad, as well spread such message to others, especially the next generation.

Youths are impressionable Young people are influenced by everything and have less experience so a violent video game with no consequences could have adverse affects on their actions in real life. For instance gta (grand theft auto) in 1999 columbine young kids were influenced by guns and knives there were two young boys shot over 10 kids in the cafatirea and then shot them selves.Even though some people have enough power to just play the game some people like to follow and become like the characters.

Video Games are a primary source of violence I accept. Thanks dishoungh, Since I'm pro, I should be the first. Let's beginViolence and Aggression are Closely AkinIt is important however, not to be confused between these 2 terms. As Dishoungh did not establish any definitions whatsoever, we are left with standard definitions.When a person commits an act of violence which is defined as "...an exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse" (1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...), it is an act of aggression. Aggression is defined simply as an "intent" to harm or to commit an act of violence(2. http://www.goodtherapy.org...#). However, aggression is merely an intention rather than an action. Violence is the action of aggression.An aggression may not be literal but in most case scenarios, Aggression will inevitably leads to Violence. The cognitive process makes them both interchangeable as both revolves across the same aspect. The intention to harm an individual will always translate into an action as the word "intention" applies. Further, to satisfy one's craving aggressive intention is to act on it literally, hence translating into violence. It is self explanatory between the two terms. Thus, any concept to prove aggression is a compelling case for violence.Further elaboration are given below. Effects of video games on violence are psychologically proven Surprisingly, Gamers have a huge preference for violent games, with 73% for boys and 59% for girls (Bunchman & Funk,1996) (3. http://ecap.crc.illinois.edu... ). Most of them preferred to play games that are subsequently filled with gore thereby exposing themselves to violent trends under a virtual screen. Opponents would argue that virtual screen exert no influence, but I would beg to differ. Ignoring such variables is a reductionist argument. Assessing the mind on violence requires a wide elaboration, not one that isolates variables just to justify an ideology. An empirical study was carried out by Calvert and Tan(4. http://serendip.brynmawr.edu...) of which set out to assess the influence of a virtual screen on gamers' arousal levels & their cognitive thoughts. Results shown were shocking. College students showed high levels of aggressiveness, a level of hostility and overall exhibited a hostile posture. In order to solidify this argument, they made EEG scans. As such, Empirical methods were carried out to make sure that there is no interpretive bias. EEG scans were used on the students, and results have shown that their heart rate increased drastically the moment they inhibit that hostile stance. Similarly, they also reported having dizziness and experience some form of nausea after prolonged periods of playing.Based on this study, the experiment had 2 aspects that is Psycho-metric tests and Qualitative analysis, of which are on the same boat as both proves that by playing games, Gamers inhibit a hostile stance. A case for violence nonetheless. No moral human being is going to deny these psychological studies, except those sleazy gaming journalist who are filled with nothing but bias. To assess something such as violence, one has to dig deep into Psychology. Furthermore It is logical to adopt this approach, violence is a social construct, we define what violence is according to our values, as such in order to assess this social construct made by our minds, we have to retreat back to Psychology. Besides, it is only way for the research process to be "value-free" away from gaming journalists' multiple layers of bias.An Overwhelming majority. This serves as both direct and indirect primary source for violence.The General Aggression Model have expounded the case for violenceThe GAM (Anderson & Bushman, in press, University of Missouri) [5. http://web.clark.edu...], along with its 3,033 participants along with the high concurrent validity supported by both Bunchman & Funk's experiment & Calvert and Tan's experiment, have altogether proved that video games as a primary source for violence beyond reasonable doubt.The model was intended to provide a causal correlation between violence and gaming. It assessed participants' perspectives based on their interpretation of virtual screensA simple demonstration of the GAM is given below [6. http://www.soc.iastate.edu...] The enactment or act of committing violence through video games can be determined by the cognitive processes within the participants' mind, and their interpretation of specific situations. This is known as a situational variable, because they primarily rest their judgment on a virtual screen(the environment affects their thought process). That environment is gaming.Research by Anderson & Bushman based on the GAM model shows that violent games increases aggressiveness because the environment, since it is a variable that affects participants' thought processes, teaches the observers to be aggressive by increasing arousals that effectively prime aggressive cognitions. This is evident through the scripts that observers or gamers went through a game such as racial slurs at the beginning of GTA 5, as if it was entirely acceptable in a civilised society. Once they hear this sort of slurs, they will likely follow as this case is similar to that of the GAM model.As seen above, the intention to harm,in other words, violence have a strong link. It all begins with the fact that each variable indirectly constitute aggression, therefore acting on violence as the end product. The craving intention of aggression has to be quelled somehow, and for 'somehow' to end, it has to be satisfied through violence. The evidence behind this fairly simple, yet compelling. Various studies(33 independent tests to be specific) collected over 3,033 participants as samples to ensure representativeness. 17 more tests are conducted on 1,151 participants to assess this claim, and here is the results(For relevance please see highlighted) [7. http://www.soc.iastate.edu...] The overall results shows positive correlation and the results were significant enough to prove violence to be primarily associated with gaming. For example, the correlation coefficient(r) for aggressive effect was 18 and the aggressive behavior was 19. This is a staggering high correlation. Weller puts it rather elegantly "Indeed, this effect of violent video games on aggression is as strong as the effect of condom use on risk of HIV infection".This model proffers a strong case for violence caused by video games. It has been empirically proven by more than 1 test. In practice, only 1 test is needed to prove that theory is true but in this case, there were immeasurable tests that justify this model. Proving this model proves that games are a primary source of violence. What, with most gamers having a large preference for violent type games, this even furthers the case 10 fold. It is beyond reasonable doubt. There is no denying this evidence presented.Children inevitably imitates aggression, resorting to violence without supervisionEven Children are prone to violence. They imitate their peers, especially those high up the ladder whether it be games or their parents. Firstly, opponents would argue that imitation does not occur most of the time, that it does not serve as a necessity. Critics argue that by looking at a virtual screen playing Dead Space 3's cliffhanger ending, it is not necessarily for everyone to follow what was observed. This claim is however not true at all considering several emperical studies. Bandura,Ross and Ross conducted a study based on imitating behaviors [8. http://www.sp.uconn.edu...]. The study used a bobo doll with the use of a model as a stooge and children as participants. Around 36 boys and 36 girls were taken to see if they were to imitate aggression simply by observing the stooge. The experiment may be accused of bias, but this is needlessly unwarranted criticism, as the experiment used the participants under 2 conditions, aggressive & non-aggressive[9. http://www.holah.karoo.net...]. The participants were observing both conditions, the experiment was entirely objective. If both conditions were followed and imitated by the participants, either non-aggressive or aggressive, the results would still endorse my premise, even if 1 of the condition is not met. Results shown were not conflicting, however , as it proves that children imitated both conditions. They followed exactly what the adults(stooges) did in that experiment, in both aggressive and non-aggressive thereby endorsing the theory of imitating aggression. For example, the adults used to hit the bobo doll as the experiment commence while one of the children was observing under the 3 stages. This also included verbal aggression to stimulate that of a virtual screen, with all its prepared scripts.As it were, the children followed the aggressiveness displayed by adults. This gives even more reasons to believe that by watching a virtual screen characterized by all sorts of plots will likely be followed by our youth. Bear in mind, this includes violence as well as the children displayed the same behaviour that of the stooges(I.E hitting the bobo doll)Finally, any story projected by our video games on a screen will likely be followed by children as they imitate behaviors according to this study. They will use the script to their own interpretation and use the environment to act upon aggression, thereby constituting violence. Imitation shown by the study to be 100%, that is all the participants followed the behaviors made by the stooges. Similarly they would follow what was projected by video games.===Case closed. I will provide more arguments in the next round. Rebuttals won't be here as per our agreement.Thank you Dishoungh for instigating a fun topic.

This House believes that violence in video games directly leads to real-world violence New research suggests that hours of exposure to violent media like video games can make kids react in more hostile ways compared to ones who don't spend lots of time controller-in-hand, reigniting the debate about children and gaming. [1] In theory, when someone becomes excessively submerged in some sort of activity, either mental or physical, they begin having a sequence of recurring flashbacks and lapses that can cause them to assimilate what they have seen and experienced in the particular activity. This is not only true in theory, but it has also been set in motion in practice. It has been scientifically accepted that overindulgence in any activity, whether it is binge-drinking or playing gold, can have a directly detrimental effect on your life in ways that are unexpected and haphazard. A definitive example of this is the Columbine shooting, in which two kids embarked on a deadly rampage at their high school. These two kids were, and I do not intend for this to be taken lightly, 'hard-core gamers' who have been enraptured in the M-rated game Call of Duty since they were small children. After playing the game for almost a decade, these children were subconsciously inclined to emulate the synthetic role of the players into reality. The Columbine shooting is not a single manifestation of the effects of extended artificial violence. There exist many statistics that show a direct correlation between gory violence in video games and real-world violence. I'd like to project one very objective trend: The amount of mass-shootings and indiscriminate killings has expanded to a large degree ever since the gaming industry has expanded to homes across the globe, and has become mainstream in much of the developed countries in America. The kids who were implicated into the Columbine shootings were not just involved with an aggressive gaming addiction but instead, the gaming addiction had bled into other negative interests such as metal music and gothic subculture. Recently, legislators have made a seminal move in taxing violent video games and decreeing a proposition for enforcing age-restrictions towards who can buy them. The uprise of the gaming industry has even prompted President Obama to address the concern by making this statement to an interviewer: '...violent video games set kids up to react in more hostile and violent ways.' I'd like to summarize with a quote from an article published by the Times Magazine. "Working with 3,034 boys and girls in the third, fourth, seventh, and eighth grades in Singapore, Anderson and his colleagues asked the children three times over a period of two years detailed questions about their video game habits. They were also given standardized questionnaires designed to measure their aggressive behavior and attitudes toward violence. Overall, the students" scores on aggressive behavior, as well hostile attitudes and fantasies about violence against others, declined slightly throughout the study. That"s because children tend to act less aggressively as they get older, and learn more mature ways of dealing with conflicts than lashing out. But a closer look at kids who played more hours of violent video games per week revealed increases in aggressive behavior and violent tendencies, compared to those who played fewer hours a week. When asked if it was okay for a boy to strike a peer if that peer said something negative about him, for example, these kids were more likely to say yes. They also scored higher on measures of hostility, answering that they would to respond with aggressive action when provoked, even accidentally. The more long-term gamers were also more likely to fantasize about hitting someone they didn"t like." [1] http://time.com...

The content of Video Games No, violent or inappropriate video games do not necessarily cause teens to act violent. Hundreds of years before the present day, teens were surround with violent things. People would see death and violence much more often than we do today. Not only that, if video games did cause teens to be violent then we would see a much higher crime rate. According to http://www.pbs.org... According to federal crime statistics, the rate of juvenile violent crime in the United States is at a 30-year low. Not only that, but a 2001 U.S. Surgeon General's report, the strongest risk factors for school shootings centered on mental stability and the quality of home life, not media exposure. If you just take a look at the topic, it will be clear that violent games do not invoke violence in teens.

Violence in video games does not significantly contribute to real world violence. I've been meaning to explore some things that coincide with my arguments and this is a great opportunity to do so. TRAINED TO KILL I'll explain this more as I go along, but the fact is kids are being trained to kill. Everyday they are on their video games simulating acts of murder over and over. Call of Duty, Grand Theft Auto all these games work to desensitize kids to violence and murder. It infects their brain and they lose their conscience. I hope by the end of this debate, I've convinced a lot of people to expose themselves and children to these violent forms of media significantly less. NOT BORN TO KILL Humans despite being a violent species are disgusted with violence. They can't bring themselves to kill people. Experts say that in World War 2 when solders would get within killing range of an enemy combatant only 1 in 5 would take the necessary shot. According to Army historian Brig. Gen. S. L. A. Marshall this has nothing to do with cowardice. Soldiers would still do feats of heroics, but just have a repulsion towards murder. Recovered muskets from the civil war showed that 90% were fully loaded. This means most of those simply weren't fired. Soldiers were pretending to shoot at the enemy. In the 1960s law enforcement was shown to have a similar problem. Cops just weren't shooting at suspects even when civilian lives were in danger. Psychologists stepped in to help the government create more efficient killers. How did they do it? Well look at a quote from the article this whole section is sourced from. "Target practice on hollowed cabbages filled with ketchup to mimic the way a bullet rips open a human head. Marching to chants of "kill, kill, kill. " Video game simulations that reward points for every successful "shot. " These are among hundreds of techniques that experts say can recondition the human brain. " That's right. The government uses video games to desensitize soldiers to acts violence, so killing becomes more palatable. This stuff actually worked. By the time Vietnam rolled around the kill rate was at 90% and is likely even higher now. The kill rate jumping from 20% to 90% in military operations aided by violent video games meant to desensitize people clearly fulfills my portion of the BOP, but let's take it a step further. . http://m.sfgate.com... DESENSITIZE ME It's not so much Video games being directly responsible for real world violence so much as violent video games being a major contributing factor. The more kids play violent video games the more they become desensitized to violence and the less empathy they have for victims of violence. . http://static2.wikia.nocookie.net... It's simple. The more you see violent images, the less it bothers you to see violent images. This desensitization makes it easier to either commit violent actions or to stand by and do nothing when violent acts are being committed. So it contributes in 2 major ways. I'm not the only one that sees this connection between violent video games and real world violence. "In fact the surgeon general, the National Institute of Mental Health and multiple professional organizations " including the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association " all consider media violence exposure a risk factor for actual violence. " . http://mobile.nytimes.com... I'm not saying that an individual that plays violent video games is going to be violent, but it certainly increases their chance of becoming violent, which in turn has a huge real world effect when taking into account how many people are exposed to this desensitization. In one recent study over 30 people were exposed to different images before playing a game where they could harm their opponent by blasts of sound. The people exposed to the most violent images, were far more likely to punish their opponent more than the ones not exposed to them. . http://videogames.procon.org... DR. BRUCE Dr. Bruce Perry an expert brain development in children provides a useful list of things that contribute to kids becoming violent scholastic. com z His first cause directly blames desensitization to violence as a result of violent media (aka video games). Number 2 is becoming detached from people which could also be a result of playing violent games too much. His number 5 reason is because we are becoming more practiced at killing and specifically mentions violent video games as helping with the practice. . http://teacher.scholastic.com... If you think that video games aren't good at teaching anything check out this article. . http://www.wired.com... A man actually saves a life from the practice he got on a military recruiting game called America's Army. FACT OR FICTION According to psychologists, up to 25% of the population can't tell the difference between reality and fantasy. . http://healthland.time.com... Maybe on an intellectual level they can, but these violent games are desensitizing them worse than anybody else. These people are at particular risk of going too far after being pushed. Violent video are a major contributor to real world violence. CONCLUSION I'll post my rebuttals next rebound and anxiously await my opponent's arguments.

Youth violence has been declining, violent video games fine. F.B.I. data shows that youth violence continues to decline. It is now at its lowest rate in years. Violent video games, therefore, can hardly be seen as a major problem since they´ve been around for years.[4]

Video game violence does not contribute significantly to school shootings. I argue that the exposure to video game violence does not contribute significantly to school shootings, but rather, the living environment of the individual.

media violence is having a negative effect on today's youth That is true. But then again Music,Movies,Games,. Are entertainment. There not meant for kids to act on in real life. Everyone has free will. If they choose to act out on what they see in the game that is there choice. The games are not meant for them too. So it's Really them doing that to themselves. yeah the Games may contribute to them acting out. But at the end of they day it's THERE choice.

Video Games do not increase or perpetuate juvenile violence As Pro, I am advocating that video games do not increase or perpetuate violence. First Round: Case Presentation Second:Rebuttals Third:Voters 1. Statistics point to the Pro argument According to the FBI in 2009,The arrest rate for juvenile murders has fallen 71.9% between 1995 and 2008. The arrest rate for all juvenile violent crimes has declined 49.3%. In this same period, video game sales have more than quadrupled. The FBI statistics show that video game sales have been on the rise, while all juvenile violent crimes have fallen in the same amount of time. Looking at today's debate, you have to see that Pro shows with this evidence that the claim that video games cause violence is not backed up by reasonable statistics. Therefore, the claim is false. 2.There is no correlation between violence and video games. A 2004 US Secret Service review of previous school-based attacks found that one-eighth of attackers exhibited an interest in violent video games, less than the rate of interest attackers showed in violent books, movies, and writings. The report did not show any link between video games and school based violence. 3. Violent video games can indeed be a healthy outlet. A 2007 study by the Journal of Adolescent Health reported that 45% of boys played video games because "it helps me get my anger out" and 62% played because it "helps me relax." Those statustics show that children go to video games to give them an escape from the pressures of life around them. Also, video games can provide helpful lessons for the future. They allow people to explore situations like war, violence, and death without real consequences. Overall, statistics show that there is no correlation between video games and juvenile violence. In fact, video games help more than they hurt.

Violent video games desensitise users Violent video games do not only affect individuals but also society as a whole. The sole purpose of a player in these games is to be an aggressor. The heartlessness in these games and joy of killing innocent people create a desensitization and disinhibition to violence that can ultimately lead to a more violent society. A Bruce Bartholow study in 2011 proved for the first time the causal association between desensitisation to violence and increased human aggression1. They are also a very selfish, lonely form of entertainment which undermines the structure of an ordered, interdependent society. A study conducted by psychologists in 2007 found that of 430 primary school children, 'the kids who played more violent video games changed over the school year to become more verbally aggressive, more physically aggressive and less helpful to others.'2 1 University of Missouri-Columbia. (2011, May 26). Violent video games reduce brain response to violence and increase aggressive behaviour. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from ScienceDaily: 2 Schaffer, A. (2007, April 27). Don't Shoot. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from Slate: improve this

Can video games be healthy I shall present my next evidences: 1. 90% of pediatricians and 67% of parents agreed or strongly agreed that violent video games can increase aggressive behavior among children. [75] 2. Violence is Fun Violent video games make hurting and killing people entertaining. This notion that violence is fun can cause gamers to imitate the game just for fun. 3. 60% of middle school boys and 40% of middle school girls who played at least one Mature-rated (M-rated) game hit or beat up someone, compared with 39% of boys and 14% of girls who did not play M-rated games. [63] 4. Makes Violence Acceptable The games impart that violence is an effective strategy for solving conflicts and for attaining one"s goals. A 2009 research found that those who play violent video games believe in violent strategies more than those who play non violent video games. 5. Simulating violence such as shooting guns and hand-to-hand combat in video games can cause real-life violent behavior. Video games often require players to simulate violent actions, such as stabbing, shooting, or dismembering someone with an ax, sword, chainsaw, or other weapons. Game controllers are so sophisticated and the games are so realistic that simulating the violent acts enhances the learning of those violent behaviors. [23] A 2015 peer-reviewed study found "compelling evidence that the use of realistic controllers can have a significant effect on the level of cognitive aggression." [118] Two teenagers in Tennessee who shot at passing cars and killed one driver told police they got the idea from playing Grand Theft Auto III. [49] Bruce Bartholow, professor of psychology at the University of Missouri, spoke about the effects of simulating violence: "More than any other media, these [violent] video games encourage active participation in violence. From a psychological perspective, video games are excellent teaching tools because they reward players for engaging in certain types of behavior. Unfortunately, in many popular video games, the behavior is violence." [53] A Sep. 2014 peer-reviewed study found that first-person shooter games trained players to have better accuracy in shooting a gun outside the game, and made them more likely to aim for the head. [85] 6. Many perpetrators of mass shootings played violent video games. The teenage shooters in the 1999 Columbine High School massacre of 13 students played violent combat games. [43] Many mass shootings have been carried out by avid video game players: James Holmes in the Aurora, Colorado movie theater shooting (2012); Jared Lee Loughner in the Arizona shooting that injured Rep. Gabby Giffords and killed six others (2011); and Anders Breivik, who killed 77 people in Norway (2011) and admitted to using the game Modern Warfare 2 for training. [53] An FBI school shooter threat assessment stated that a student who makes threats of violence should be considered more credible if he or she also spends "inordinate amounts of time playing video games with violent themes." [25] 7. The American Psychological Association (APA) lists violent video games as a risk factor for aggressive behavior. In its Aug. 2015 resolution on violent video games, the APA wrote: "WHEREAS many factors are known to be risk factors for increased aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition and aggressive affect, and reduced prosocial behavior, empathy and moral engagement, and violent video game use is one such risk factor." [119] Dr. Craig Anderson, PhD, Director of the Center for the Study of Violence at Iowa State University, wrote: "Playing a violent video game isn't going to take a healthy kid who has few other risk factors and turn him into a school shooter, but it is a risk factor that does drive the odds for aggression up significantly." [120] 8. There is broad consensus among medical associations, pediatricians, parents, and researchers that violent video games increase aggressive behavior. [74] A 2014 study published in Psychology of Popular Media Culture found that 90% of pediatricians and 67% of parents agreed or strongly agreed that violent video games can increase aggressive behavior among children. [75]. More than 98% of pediatricians in the United States say that too much exposure to violent media heightens childhood aggression. [62] In addition, 66% of researchers agreed or strongly agreed. Since only 17% of researchers disagreed or strongly disagreed, and 17% were undecided, the study concluded "That means that among researchers who have an opinion, eight out of 10 agree that violent games increase aggression." [75] A joint statement by six leading national medical associations, including the American Medical Association and American Psychological Association, stated: "Well over 1,000 studies - including reports from the Surgeon General's office, the National Institute of Mental Health, and numerous studies conducted by leading figures within our medical and public health organizations - our own members - point overwhelmingly to a causal connection between media violence and aggressive behavior in some children." [33] And so now I await the PRO's argument.

Violent video games and school shootings are related In recent years the video game industry has surpassed both the music and video industries in sales. Currently violent video games are among the most popular video games played by consumers, most specifically First-Person Shooters (FPS). Technological advancements in game play experience including the ability to play online has accounted for this increase in popularity. Previous research, utilizing the General Aggression Model (GAM), has identified that violent video games increase levels of aggression. The following abstract taken from the US national library of medicine shows a direct connection between video games and aggression. Longitudinal effects of violent video games on aggression in Japan and the United States. Anderson CA, Sakamoto A, Gentile DA, Ihori N, Shibuya A, Yukawa S, Naito M, Kobayashi K. Abstract CONTEXT: Youth worldwide play violent video games many hours per week. Previous research suggests that such exposure can increase physical aggression. OBJECTIVE: We tested whether high exposure to violent video games increases physical aggression over time in both high- (United States) and low- (Japan) violence cultures. We hypothesized that the amount of exposure to violent video games early in a school year would predict changes in physical aggressiveness assessed later in the school year, even after statistically controlling for gender and previous physical aggressiveness. DESIGN: In 3 independent samples, participants' video game habits and physically aggressive behavior tendencies were assessed at 2 points in time, separated by 3 to 6 months. PARTICIPANTS: One sample consisted of 181 Japanese junior high students ranging in age from 12 to 15 years. A second Japanese sample consisted of 1050 students ranging in age from 13 to 18 years. The third sample consisted of 364 United States 3rd-, 4th-, and 5th-graders ranging in age from 9 to 12 years. RESULTS. Habitual violent video game play early in the school year predicted later aggression, even after controlling for gender and previous aggressiveness in each sample. Those who played a lot of violent video games became relatively more physically aggressive. Multisample structure equation modeling revealed that this longitudinal effect was of a similar magnitude in the United States and Japan for similar-aged youth and was smaller (but still significant) in the sample that included older youth. CONCLUSIONS: These longitudinal results confirm earlier experimental and cross-sectional studies that had suggested that playing violent video games is a significant risk factor for later physically aggressive behavior and that this violent video game effect on youth generalizes across very different cultures. As a whole, the research strongly suggests reducing the exposure of youth to this risk factor. After this study established to create a direct connection between the increase of aggression and video games, we can just imagine how this dark aggression that aims at destruction and not on construction- with the easy acquisition of guns- will make school children behave at their schools. Knowing that a child spends most of his time at the school with periods of recess, this will be more than enough time for a child to participate in school shootings.

Research has shown violent video games encourage criminal and anti-social behaviour Each of the three approaches to proving a correlation between violent video games and criminal behaviour has its flaws. Studies that look for correlations between exposure to violent video games and real-world aggression can never prove that the games cause physical aggression1. Randomized tests, which assign subjects to play violent or nonviolent games and then compare levels of aggression, depend on lab-based measures of aggression that are difficult to compare with real-life aggression. Finally, longitudinal tests, which assess behaviour over time within a group, are a middle ground between the other two but similarly cannot prove it was the video games specifically that leads to increased aggression. In contrast to the claim that the effects of violent video games are worse than those of TV, a Potter study in 1999 found that 'children are more likely to be affected and more likely to imitate aggressive acts if the violence is depicted more realistically.'2 1 Schaffer, A. (2007, April 27). Don't Shoot. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from Slate: 2 Gentile, D. A., & Anderson, C. A. (2003, October 16). Violent Video Games: The Newest Media Violence Hazard. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from improve this

Violent video games can cause psychological disturbances Multiple groups contend that the interactive nature of computer games considerably blurs the line that separates fantasy from reality1. As a result, game players are likely to become psychologically disturbed by the violence contained within these products. It is conceivable that many young gamers will view the new age of video games as fair depictions or representations of reality, real-world themes, real-world personalities, real-world violence. Because violent video games frequently develop and an exaggerated level of violence and destructiveness, they may arouse a belief that in a "scary world". If this is true, a greater level of fear and paranoia can be expected from such gamers in the real world than is justified. This may have the potential to lead to many adverse social effects from these gamers, such as social disengagement. 1 Gentile, D. A., Lynch, P. J., Linder, J. R., & Walsh, D. A. (2004). The effects of violent video game habits on adolescent hostility, aggressive behaviours, and school performance. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from Jounral of Adolescence

Violent videogames cause violence in players My opening I like your reasos but to make your argument more convincing you should have had girls and boys together so here's my argument . 97% of 12-17 year olds in the US played video games in 2008, thus fueling an $11.7 billion domestic video game industry. In 2008, 10 of the top 20 best-selling video games in the US contained violence. Violent video games have been blamed for school shootings, increases in bullying, and violence towards women. Critics argue that these games desensitize players to violence, reward players for simulating violence, and teach children that violence is an acceptable way to resolve conflicts. Video game advocates contend that a majority of the research on the topic is deeply flawed and that no causal relationship has been found between video games and social violence. They argue that violent video games may reduce violence by serving as a substitute for rough and tumble play and by providing a safe outlet for aggressive and angry feelings. The debate over violent video games can be traced back to the 1976 release of the game Death Race. [40] The object of the game was to run over screaming "gremlins" with a car, at which point they would turn into tombstones. Controversy erupted because the "gremlins" resembled stick-figure humans, and it was reported that the working title of the game was Pedestrian. After protestors dragged Death Race machines out of arcades and burned them in parking lots, production of the game ceased. In 1993, public outcry following the release of violent video games Mortal Kombat and Night Trap prompted Congress to hold hearings on regulating the sale of video games. During the hearings, California Attorney General Dan Lungren testified that violent video games have "a desensitizing impact on young, impressionable minds." [14] Threatened with the creation of a federal regulatory commission, the video game industry voluntarily established the Entertainment Software Rating Board on Sep. 1, 1994 to create a ratings system. Based on the video game's content, the ESRB assigns one of the following ratings: "Early Childhood," "Everyone," "Everyone 10+," "Teen," "Mature," or "Adults Only." In a Pew Research Center 2008 survey, 50% of boys and 14% of girls aged 12-17 listed a game with a "Mature" or "Adults Only" rating in their current top three favorite games. The controversy over violent video games resurfaced following the massacre of 13 people at Columbine High School in Jefferson County, CO on Apr. 20, 1999. The two teenage shooters were revealed to be avid players of weapon-based combat games Wolfenstein 3D and Doom. Following the shooting, 176 newspaper articles across thecountry focused on the allegation that video games were the cause of the tragedy . A 2005 resolution by the American Psychological Association called for the reduction of violence in video games marketed to youth because of possible links between video games and aggression towards women. [30] In response to the discovery of disabled but accessible sexual content in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, then-Senator of New York Hillary Clinton introduced a bill in 2005 to criminalize selling "Mature" or "Adults Only" rated video games to minors, arguing that video games were a "silent epidemic of desensitization." The bill died in committee at the end of the 109th Congress.

Video Games Are Causing Violence In Children Thanks Con for this good topic. The following argument will have: Why Video Games, are Influencing, and Causing Violence amognst kids. Some Rebuttals on what Con had stated. Violent video games are causing children to have the mindset that, it ok to deal with your problem(s), in a anti-social way. The 2008 study Grand Theft Childhood reported that 60% of middle school boys that played at least one Mature-rated game hit or beat up someone, compared to 39% of boys that did not play Mature-rated games. http://videogames.procon.org... Con has stated examples of Violence in Children. "Many people after the Sandy Hook Shooting blamed violent video games on the shooters behavior because he tended to play them a lot." "I myself play a lot of violent video games, assassins creed, black ops, GTA, and others yet feel no compulsion to go and shoot out a super market or stab random people on the street. If a child plays a lot of call of duty, it does not mean that he is going to try and kill someone at school. " However these occurances are rare as it is. We dont see another replica of the Sandy Hook incident everyday. We dont see kids going out and shooting other people. BUT, the perpitrator, during the Sandy Hook shooting, was mentally ill! So this impared his ability to judge how realistic these games he was player were! So this brings the question -- Could he have thought he could did this no problem? I think YES. Cons argument basically says that Video Games arent causing EXTREME violnece suvch as shootings, and murders. But there are other types of small violence that are coming from video games that just arent making world headlines. Bullying is a type of Violence that is extermely commom amongst kids these days and these game can turn kids INTO bullys. Games are making kids change thier thoughts, on how to deal with small everyday problems. To hit or punch a kid because he mad you mad THATS VIOLENCE. This can be influenced because lets say this kid was playing Battlefield thother day and when he got mad at other player online, he KILLS them. So thought before he hits someone is "I can kill people in Battlefield or Call of Duty! I can hit this kid" Its a small form of violence, but it is still violence. Many children playing games such as Call of Duty, Battlefield, and especially GTA, are UNDER THE AGE OF 12. So many of these children are not realizing that in Real Life, you can not just punch someone and run away. You have to answer for what you did. In these games you would never see that. People kill other people, and think like its no big deal. Yes, this will not translate into someone going to shootout a scholl, BUT IT WILL TRASNLATE INTO KIDS COMMITING SAMLL FORMS OF VIOLENCE AMONGST THEMSELVES. Con states: "Therefor, if a child does cause harm, the parents are the ones to be to blame as they bought the game for their child and are responsible for the outcomes of what happens to their child." Not true. If a parents buys a violent game for a child, this child will be influenced by THAT GAME. Unless the parents are teaching them that its ok to enflict harm on other people. (Which we all know that hardley ever happens) This game is what made/contributed to making that kid commit violence. Not the parents buying the game.

Video games are not a significant cause of violence in children I first have to state that I will probably bee counted off for the copy and paste thing. If you feel I should be counted off please do so voters, although this is your own action. Also for the last round (The fifth) you do not have to have an official closing, you may continue making new arguments in your respective round. although I am giving con the upper hand. On with the debate. Yes I have agreed with you on many things. In fact most of your argument is completely true and I know this from experience. I have said BoP is shared, and it is. If you feel I have not brought up enough logic on my positive claim than I will start using statistics. Monday 10 November 2014 A recent long-term study by the USA shows the violent games are not the cause for violence in society If you read this study its states that in the first of the two historical evaluations researchers studied the links between violent films and societal violence by looking at the top grossing titles between 1920 and 2005. What they deduced was that film violence went in a rough U pattern during this time period whereas societal violence decreased in the later half of the 20th century. The second study used data from ESRB to estimate the violent content of video games from the time of 1996-2011. It showed that as the popularity of violent video games went up, youth violence went down. you can read more of thisin the sited resources below. To continue on into a more depressing topic, children who commit homicide have different brain structures. This article talks all about it. Apparently researchers found that children who commit murder have lower levels of grey matter in their medial and lateral temporal lobes and the hippocampus and posterior insula, according to news release. If you are wondering what grey matter is its the stuff that helps you process information in the brain. This means the less grey matter you have the more likely you will become confused between violent video games and reality. In another article posted Wed/July23/2014 showed that harsh corporal punishment can knock grey matter levels down in children. If a person receives this, they are more likely to commit violent acts in the future. This has nothing to do with the debate at hand, but what we can deduce is that when children between ages 10-17 play a violent video game they aren't losing anything beneficial to them and therefor are not violent in the future. Again I will restate a few more points There has never been a link between violent video games and violent acts in kids and teens. The sales rate for video games has quadrupled from 1995-2008 along with a 71.9% drop in juvenile arrest rates and a 49-50% drop in juvenile crimes. Any small correlation between violent youth and violent video games may be explained: Violent games do not cause youth to be violent, instead already violent youth are attracted to violent video games. cites http://www.independent.co.uk... http://www.natureworldnews.com... http://www.news-medical.net... http://www.cnn.com... http://videogames.procon.org...

Violent Video Games Cause Social Interaction Problems The facts are against the premise again. Research does not support the idea that young people who play violent video games have decreased social ability. This is refuted most notably in studies by Anderson and Ford (1986), Winkel et al. (1987), Scott (1995), Ballard and Lineberger (1999), and Jonathan Freedman (2002). More recently, Block and Crain (2007) claim that in a critical paper by Anderson (and his co-author, Bushman), data was improperly calculated and produced fallacious results. Additional meta-analyses (reviews of research that attempt to statistically combine data from multiple studies for more powerful results) by other researchers, such as by Ferguson and Kilburn (2009) and Sherry (2007) have failed to find any causal link between video game violence and aggression, as have recent reviews by the Australian Government (2010) and the US Supreme Court (June, 2011). The question of whether violent games that only allow violence as a solution to problems could negatively affect young people in subtle ways deserves further study. However, there are many aspects of video games, such as puzzle solving, that are intrinsic parts of even the basest first person shooters. Many first-person shooters themselves require tactical deployment and thinking—all of which are able to stimulate thought in people, albeit in a different manner than negotiation might do.[1] Further, newer military games are more sophisticated, often requiring the player to take one side of a conflict and then the other in different levels of the game, or forcing the player to face moral dilemmas that affect the game’s storyline or outcome. [1] Freedman, Jonathan L. Media violence and its effect on aggression: assessing the scientific evidence. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2002. ISBN 0802084257

There is no causal link between violent video games and aggressive behaviour Many researchers 1/2/3 conclude that there is no causal link between violent video games and aggressive behaviour. Other influences, such as social environment, family background and peer pressure cause aggressive behaviour. Additionally, even if video games might create violent thoughts, according to researchers there is no reason for these thoughts to display themselves in action more than the aggressive thoughts caused by frustration in non-violent video games, or by the fast pace of action films (rather than their content). The small number of people who would be affected by such aggressive thoughts are people who already are habitually violent. 1 Scott, D. (1995). The Effect of Video Games on Feelings of Aggression. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from The Journal of Psychology: 2 Funk, J. B. (1993). Reevaluation of the impact of violent video games. Clinical Pediatrics, 86-90. 3 Provenzo, E. F. (1991). Video kids: Making sense of Nintendo. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. improve this

Violent video games really cause bad behavior in children. According the American Psychological Association, violent video games can increase children's aggression. So when kids have anxiety, which they do, instead of soothing themselves, calming themselves, talking about it, expressing it to someone, or even expressing it emotionally by crying, they tend to externalize it. They can attack something, they can kick a wall, they can be mean to a dog or a pet." Additionally, there's an increased frequency of violent responses from children who play these kinds of video games. Violent video games don't teach kids moral consequences. "If you shoot somebody in one of these games, you don't go to jail, you don't get penalized in some way — you get extra points!"

Video games do not cause violence` Hello once more, Before getting on to rebutting the points stated previously, I would like to add my arguments to the mix. In this instance, I am often addressing more violent video games, as they are included in the topic and pose the greatest threat and significance to my debate. First, let's look at some actual, hard evidence. There has been a task force report released by the American Psychological Association on August the 13th, 2015, stating that there is a "definite link to increases aggression in children who play violent video games." This statement clearly speaks volumes for itself. Not much else has been concluded, but there is a lot more research to be done and knowledge to be gained. Source: http://www.apa.org... Another argument to the negative affects of video games is that they cause desensitization to individuals. Multiple studies have proved that those who regularly play violent video games experience a reduction in emotion-related physiological reactivity to real violence. They come to accept violence rather than be overly repulsed or reactive to it. Surely, this highlights the negative and violent affects of certain video games. Even if you choose not to accept violent video games are the sole cause of violent behavior, it is clear that it is a large factor. Along with the increased aggression produced in people who play video games, players often watch their character perform violent acts with little or no punishment for them. If anything, violent video games could easily be considered something that nurtures violent and possibly harmful impulses. It has actually been shown by the FBI that many perpetrators of mass shootings played violent video games often. Is it a mere coincidence, or could violent video games have induced those horrible acts of violence? Would all of those offender's behaviors been affected by symptoms shown in some of the arguments above? Another point is that violent video games are more harmful than television shows, comics and other things of the like as they depict you; or a virtual version of you, performing those violent acts. It makes it all too easy to picture oneself doing violent things is if one has already done them in an alternate reality, with no punishment (referring to earlier argument mentioned). Yet one more argument to point out is that video games often promote violence as a suitable resolution to various conflicts. Rather than simulating talking problems out in a civilized manner, the cause and effect flow on from an altercation is usually violence or warfare of some sort. What is this teaching the players, if not violence? I will further these points in the later rounds, as well as rebut the opposing arguments. To my opponent, good luck in your rebuttals and the rest of the debate. Thank you.

Violence in video games does not significantly contribute to real world violence. Thank you Wylted for your arguments. I'll go ahead and attack each of my opponent's claims.Trained to KillHere, my opponent basically explains the arguments that he will run during the debate. He brings up two points:1. Kids are desensitized by playing video games.2. This desensitization contributes to violence.By the end of this debate, I aim to prove both of these things untrue. Not Born to KillFor this point, my opponent explains that humans do not like killing. He gives an example of the kill rates before and after the beginning of training soldiers with killing simulations he claims that are similar to some of the video games played today. Here is why this argument doesn't hold up. Firstly, we have to realize that these killing simulations are not as similar to the popular video games children play as my opponent makes them out to be. Shooting targets while listening to "kill kill kill" over and over in one's head is more likely to result in acts of violence than popular video games such as Call of Duty and Grand Theft Auto. Gilsdorf explains, "They offer a hunt/shoot/kill scenario as a way to solve problems (1)." So we see that today's violent video games provide a scenario that involves thinking and problem solving rather than just repetitive killing. Another thing to look at is the various factors involved in this killing simulation besides violence. Ultimately, a system that rewards points will lead to some degree of competition. This is part of what may have caused the added motivation from the soldiers to kill. It may seem a bit extreme to suggest that competition leads to violence (or in the case of the military, murder). Psychology Today explains, "Competition among men leads to a high level of violence (murder, assault, and battery) among them (2)." Essentially, men are motivated to be more violent due to various sources of competition (such as women or sports). Killing simulations that promote competition can have the same effect. So, it may not necessarily be the violence in the simulations that made the kill rates go up; it could be the competitive factor.Desensitize MeMy opponent begins by explaining that video games desensitize individuals. However, from a psychological standpoint, this is not necessarily the case. A study was conducted by Reyerson University. Two large groups (active gamers and non-gamers) were shown various images with good, bad, and neutral connotations. Many of these images could be considered violent. It was hypothesized that the gamers would be less sensitive to the bad pictures, especially the violent ones. However, it turned out that both groups had similar reactions. Bowen notes at the end of the experiment, "The findings indicate that long-term emotional memory is not affected by chronic exposure violent video games (3)." My opponent's next point brings up various figures of authority who support the idea that video games significantly contribute to real world violence. This is a common logical fallacy known as appeal to authority. Just because someone important believes something, doesn't mean that the belief is correct. This point ultimately falls because no evidence is provided as to *why* these people support con's stance.Looking at my opponent's last point, we can see a study is cited that is rather similar to mine above. There are a couple problems with this study:1. The sample size is very small. 30 people (probably 15 gamers and 15 non gamers) is not enough to measure whether or not video games desensitize (or cause violence).2. This study involves a large amount of competition. This is what really makes this study invalid. The competition is what could really be promoting the regular gamers to push the button. When constantly being exposed to competition via video games, one is more likely to show aggression, as I have proven in my constructive. So, rather than the aggression being caused by video game violence / desensitization, it is caused by the regular competition provided by video games.Dr. BruceMy opponent addresses some claims made by Dr. Bruce Perry; I'll go ahead and cover each the claims that are relevant to this debate.1. Desensitization causes violence (desensitization comes from video games). I'll begin by cross applying my point that explains how video games do not result in desensitization. What I'm going to focus on is the claim that desensitization causes violence. Let's take a look at exactly what desensitization is. It can be defined as, "the potential for reduced responsiveness to actual violence caused by exposure to violence in the media." So, desensitization (if indeed caused by video games) results in reduced responsiveness to actual violence, not violent crimes themselves. For this point to stand, my opponent must prove that (a) video games actually desensitize individuals and (b) desensitization significantly contributes to violence.2. Video games help kids become efficient killers.Now, I would agree to an extent that video games are a way of teaching kids how to handle various combat situations. However, this does not mean that such a game will give kids the desire to use an actual gun. I'd like to bring up my point about releasing aggression from my constructive: "Logically, if violence in video games makes inmates less violent, they won't have an opposite affect when it comes to kids." If children are interested it weapons and violence, it is much better to allow them to play video games than to let them store up such aggressive feelings up to the point where they can gain access to a real weapon. My first source continues, "If some of these men are hopelessly mentally ill, then we need to do all we can to prevent their access to real guns. But sane or depressed, many men feel powerless. Many feel angry. Many feel disengaged. They just want a stake in the action. Video games might be the best outlet they’ve got (1)."My opponent ends this point by explaining that video games are effective in teaching by showing an example of a man who saved lives using a technique he learned in a video game. The problem with this point is that it actually has nothing to do with video games teaching violent practices. The given video game in this example has promoted something useful, as opposed to violence. Fact or FictionThis last point does nothing to further my opponent's case. My opponent explains that a large amount of people cannot tell the difference between reality and fantasy saying that, "These people are at particular risk of going too far after being pushed (by video games)." I have proved through my rebuttal that video games don't actually give this extra push; rather, they can discourage it in some cases (through aggression release).To sum everything up...The violence in video games isn't what actually causes violence. What really causes violence is various factors such as delinquent peers, depression, abusive family, and (as I have stressed on in my rebuttal) competition. Video games can give already aggressive individuals a way to release their aggression. Surprisingly, video games don't actually cause desensitization; moreover, desensitization hasn't been proven to cause violence.For these reasons, I am pro.(1) http://cognoscenti.wbur.org... (2) http://www.psychologytoday.com... (3) http://www.newswise.com...(4) Freedman, J.L. (2003). Media Violence and its effect on aggression: assessing the scientific evidence. Canada: University of Toronto Press Incorporated.

violent video games should be banned You have referenced a study from 2007 which showed that violent video games don't have negative affects but since that study violent video games have become bloodier and more realistic. I read an article and the author quoted "Video games may not be the root of school shootings, fights or any other violent acts from teens or children but they are contributing to the mindset that these actions are okay". There are many video games rated mature that underaged children play which causes aggression.

video game violence First and foremost, it's necessary to recognize that saying video games may increase the violent tendencies in some does not in any way mean to suggest that if you play violent video games you will invariably become a violent person. However, this does not mean that most will be unaffected, either. Even if only subtley, violent video games do in fact increase violent tendencies. Studies have shown that not only do violent video games produce an increased amount of emotional arousal, even when compared to similarly exciting but less violent video games, but that they also result in a decrease in brain activity in areas involving self control. One must also consider how younger children are much more easily influenced. Repetition is a key step in learning, and children are exposed again and again to violent actions with little or no consequences. Again, while not always, this does have potential to increase their own violent behavior--maybe not beating up any kid that looks at them, but possibly being more aggressive or reckless. And I do not disagree that a lot of this is dependent on young children playing games suited for an older audience, something that would not occur with more strict parental regulation. But seriously, let's be realistic--parents simply do not regulate things like video games to the extent they should.

Violent video games lead to violent behaivior Depending on age the answer differs. Little kids can be influenced by anything. There is a reason video games have ratings. (EC, E, E10+, T, M) CNN reports "A new study suggests virtual violence in these games may make kids more aggressive in real life." Violent Video Games can influence people to be violent.

Video Games are a primary source of violence Pro has conceded and claimed forfeiture throughout the rest of the debate;therefore, the winner of this debate is obvious here. But, I'm not going to sit here. I still haven't even provided all of the professional evidence that I know that exist. I will continue my rebuts in Round 4. Countering: "Violence and Aggression are closely akin" I can forsee Pro's struggle through this debate, as most of his rebuts and arguments are based off of studies that either shows insignificant results, have been debunked/outdated by new and recent studies, or it's not even related to video games. For example, Pro cites a website that shows a procedure called EEG (ElectroEncephaloGram). Now, this study is claimed by Pro that EEG scans shows levels of aggression and impulsivity. But, according to Pro's own and ONLY cited source, EEG is "used to evaluate several types of BRAIN DISORDERS. Aggression does not mean you have a mental disorder. We have all felt aggression before. It does not take a genius scientist, or a 3-year psychological study to figure that out. It's just common sense. About my father, I'm using him as a source to contradict your affirmations. Of course, Pro completely overlooked my other points that clearly disproves his rebuts. My other sources are reliable sources that completely throws your assertions off. Just because I'm using YouTube videos as a source, that doesn't mean that it is not reliable. That's just another one of Pro's biased affirms. Especially, if you have tons and tons of videos who say the EXACT SAME THING ON THE EXACT SAME TOPIC, you can obviously see a pattern here. Pro states that all of his cases are linked together when obviously they aren't. 1. Just because they said that these actions can cause them to have violent behavior, doesn't mean it's long-term. You see, you're looking at the words, "behavior" and "personality." Aggression does sometimes lead to violence, but that is not the case for EVERYONE. People can control their emotions, some people can't. In terms of video game aggression, aggression shown in video games are FOR THE MOMENT like I said before. Do you remember that time that you got so angry after playing Call of Duty, that you were angry for 15 days? Do you remember that time that you absolutely raged at your console/PC for 10 hours? Yes, that doesn't seem right doesn't it? The only time someone is able to be that angry for that long is if they can't control their anger and/or if they have some sort of MENTAL ILLNESS. This goes back to me talking about mental instability doesn't it? 2. I've clearly said that Bandura's study is based on children of 3-6 YEARS OLD. Doesn't anyone see that using 3-6 year old children is not a valid to study to use against a community that mostly consist of ages of 12+? 3-6 year olds are in the early stage of comprehending language and they are unable to cause an extreme level of violence unless taught to them. This study that you use uses dolls to see if children imitates aggression. Gamers don't IMITATE AGGRESSION. That aggression comes from the player him or herself. So, that in itself, clearly falsifies the validity of your study to this debate topic. Also, the study of Bandura WAS CONDUCTED IN 1961. Video games were created back in the 70's by Physicist William Higinbotham. How can you conduct a study upon something that didn't even exist at that time period? 3. I already disproved #3. Okay, YouTube celebrities? Really? The YouTube channels that I've cited HAVE AN AVERAGE SUBSCRIBER COUNT OF 123,404 subscribers. 123,000 subscribers would be considered average in the YouTube community, probably below average by some. Yes, I actually calculated that with my super awesome TI-84 Plus C Silver Edition. Thank you very much. (I've discovered that the links are not working. They just go to the website itself which is odd. I'll try to reclarify the links again later.) Pro is saying that I have to use evidence for every single rebut I state, otherwise, it is not a contention, yet he hasn't even done that himself for some of his arguments; common sense can be most definitely used as evidence. Evidence is not just described by statistical facts posted by a website you found on the internet. So, that argument is self-defeating. Also, Pro has clearly used the 2 terms, "Autism" and "Ageism" imprecisely. He's saying that just because I'm contradicting the study based on 3-6 year olds, I'm practicing Ageism....... I don't need to explain how that is totally erreneous and has the word, "fallacy" written all over it. Autism is "a mental condition, present from early childhood, characterized by difficulty in communicating and forming relationships with other people and in using language and abstract concepts." IQ test scores does not measure these variables. Plus, due to your usage of the word, "may", you're basing your affirm off of hypothetics instead of imitating a real-life scenario. 12 years is not early childhood. 12 years is considered the early stage of being a teenager according to this website. http://www.cdc.gov... (Maybe, It'll work if I don't put the links in parentheses) Pro says that I resort to Semantics which, I'm using the most common definition of words and using general common sense. Also, I'm using the recent studies. So, this statement you made does two things. It makes you sound even more conceded. Two, it goes against what you refuted again which was assertions without evidence isn't a contention. You did not provide any evidence, so AGAIN, this assertion is self-defeating. Man, I'm running out. Effects of video games on violence are psychologically proven Again, Pro neglects my other points that I've made and just come down to the conclusion that neither his case or my mine is proven, YET HE SAID THAT HIS CASE SOLID AND AFFIRMED FROM PREVIOUS ROUNDS. Another assertion controverted and self-defeated. That just comes to show that he admits defeat beside the fact that he claims forfeiture. Finally, on to my new case that I'm about to present. (Mind you, do not count this as an argument as this case contradicts Pro's sources of studies.) Lawrence Kutner and Cheryl K. Olson, co-writers of a book named, "Grand Theft Childhood", states that there is no link between aggression and violent video games.The book consists of a study that "was funded 1.5 million dollars from the United States Department of Justice and studies on teenagers from real families in real situation." Of course, in the source material, they discuss about violence declining similar to like I affirmed in previous rounds. This is the MOST IN-DEPTH STUDY EVER DONE. So, sit back, go grab some popcorn, and watch me bury these false claims that the politicians keep spewing out. On Page 7, you can see that these authors expose the fallacy of the Anderson and Bushman case by saying, "That logic is highly strained. It doesn’t differentiate between aggression and violence. It assumes that the subjects in these experiments—usually college students who participate to earn some spending money or to get extra credit for a class--cannot tell fantasy from reality, and don’t know that "punishing" a person with a mild electric shock or a 9mm pistol will lead to different outcomes.""Teenage murderers and rapists may have played Mature-rated video games but, as you'll see in Chapter 4, so have most of the law-abiding boys on your local middle-school soccer team." (Pg. 8) "Criminals are also much more likely to have past exposure to other factors, such as poverty, alcoholism, family violence or parental neglect, that are known contributors to violent behavior." (Pg. 8) "Some researchers use “aggression” and “violence” almost interchangeably, implying that one inevitably leads to the other. That’s simply not true. A common definition of aggression as used by psychologists is, “behavior leading to self-assertion; it may arise from innate drives and/or a response to frustration, and may be manifested by destructive and attacking behavior, by hostility and obstructionism, or by self expressive drive to mastery.”25 As you can see, some behaviors can be aggressive but not violent." (Pg. 15) The authors also touch on Bandura's case and says, "One problem with this study is that there's not much you can do with a big inflatable Bobo doll other than punch it and watch it bounce back!" (Pg. 15) Most people outside of research associate aggression with physically trying to hurt someone. Whether the noise blast corresponds with anything like that is very debatable. My guess is that it's actually a better measure of competitiveness, which is right in the name: the Taylor Competitive Reaction Time test. In my opinion, it's a far cry from beating someone to death, or even spanking or slapping someone, because it's not that aversive. (This quote was from Mr. Ferguson refuting the aggression studies.) (Pg. 16) "According to the Surgeon General's 2001 report on youth violence,28 most children who are aggressive or engage in antisocial behavior do not grow up to be violent adolescents or adults—and most violent adolescents were not notably aggressive as children." (Pg. 17) "The results demonstrated that some people increase, some decrease and the majority saw no change in anger ratings. Unlike past research, we also demonstrate that these changes are mediated by the player’s feelings immediately prior to game play and a labile temperament—one predisposed to aggression….29" (Pg. 17) Over and over again. You can go read it yourself that is if you even feel like reading it. http://www.grandtheftchildhood.com... I will post the links to sources that I can't get to in the comment section. It's late, I'm kind of tired, and I'm nearly out of characters again. Don't you see that these claims that video games cause violence is fallacious, absurd, and just simply doesn't make any sense?

Violent video games lead to violent behaivior There are two problems with studies on this subject. The first is that they assume correlation implies causation. Maybe people become more aggressive from playing violent video games. Maybe violent video games are more enjoyable to more aggressive people. Or maybe there is a third factor that causes both. The second problem is that they only measure in short-term lengths. It's one thing to have volunteers play Call of Duty and then measure their activity. It's another thing to say that these games have a long-term, psychological effect on the actions of those people who play them. To quote the study Violent Video Games and Real-World Violence: Rhetoric Versus Data, "finding that a young man who committed a violent crime also played a popular video game, such as Call of Duty, Halo, or Grand Theft Auto, is as pointless as pointing out that the criminal also wore socks." If anything, these games provide catharsis. One of the major theories for the evolutionary need for imagination is catharsis. If an individual has pent up anger, fictional acts of aggression have proved to relieve said anger. How much more so could these games release the anger? Thanks, its time for your argument.

Violent video games are real danger to young minds. Paul Boxer. "It's up to parents to enforce a ban on violent video games." NJ.com. July 1st, 2011: "As policy statements from organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association have made clear, violent media represents a real and compelling risk to the behavioral and mental health of children and adolescents. In fact, research studies have yielded the conclusion that the effect of violent media consumption on aggressive behavior is in the same ballpark statistically as the effect of smoking on lung cancer, the effect of lead exposure on children’s intellectual development and the effect of asbestos on laryngeal cancer."

Should Video Games be less Violent Not all video games are violent. And even if those video games are violent, those are not bad for you. According to American Psychologist journal, playing video games may improve learning, health and social skills and strengthen a range of cognitive abilities. The researchers behind the study also said the children"s creativity was also added by video game play even if it is violent. However, the study would be false if a child is playing violent games in computer or mobile. Also, according to the study, although the game is violent (for example, shooting games), it boosts up a player"s scope to think about objects in three dimensions just as well as academic courses built to enhance the same skills would. (Natural World News) An Oxford study suggests that playing violent video games is "no more likely to ruin young child"s behavior than those considered not harmful." Rather than their content, the research found out that the time young people spend playing games (more than three hours) has an effect on their behavior or their performance in school, even if slightly. (Telegraph UK) And, video games are not as harmful as parents" think it is. AP Study Notes presented details how violent video games aid children and economy. Violent video games give healthy and safe opportunities for children to analyze rules and aftereffects of violent doings. It also allows young people to experiment with issues such as war, violence, and death without experiencing it live. By allowing adolescent boys to play these games, it lowers the chance of causing physical harm and it also grants them of displaying assault and such without doing it in the real world. A 2007 study finds out that 45% of boys played these kind of games because "it helps me get my anger out" and 62% played it because "it helps me relax." Violent video games, according to ProCon.org, do not cause low levels of empathy for children. And, if you are to banning violent video games will never be able to do that because of the following: "The Joint State Government Commission (2008): Video games are protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, and laws imposing restrictions on their sales must withstand "strict scrutiny," an exacting legal test that virtually guarantees invalidation. The courts have found that the social science research on the dangers age-appropriate games pose for children is insufficient to support statutory restrictions on free expression and that the existence of an effective voluptuary rating system makes penalties unnecessary (p. 2). Western culture has frequently dwelt on violence from its origins in Homer"s epic poetry and Greek drama down to such later media as the novel and the opera. Movies, popular music, and television all deal routinely with depictions of violent acts. If measures are taken to address the effects of violent media, it is important that no particular form of media is unfairly discriminated against (p. 1)." ProCon also states that a relationship between violent video games and a player"s behavior is not proven.

Video Games do not increase or perpetuate juvenile violence So this may be short, but I am hoping to get at what voters should consider when looking at this debate. 1. Causation vs Correlation. In my opponents first argument, he stated that video games had some correlation with violent attacks, yet there is nothing that proves that video games were the CAUSE of such violent attacks. I'd like to bring up the quote from my opponent's 60 minutes evidence," who had played Grand Theft Auto day and night for months." Now, we look to my American Psychological Association evidence that states that children who showed aggression after exposure to video games expressed said characteristics beforehand. My opponent's quote illustrates my point. Video Games do not increase any violence, as it does not create any new violent characteristics, as my opponent is arguing. That point is mute because we see that there is no link between correlation and causation. 2. Crime My FBI evidence states that while video game sales had quadrupled in the 13 years between 1995 and 2008, the arrest rate for juvenile murders has fallen 71.9%, while all juvenile violent crimes have declined 49.3%. The statistics clearly point to the Pro argument. This point ties together with correlation and causation, as we see that the point of causation is refuted by statistics. 3. Overall benefit My Journal of Adolescent Health evidence shows that 45% of boys stated they play video games because it helps get their anger out, and 62% stated because it helps them relax. It also allows children to explore real life situations like war and violence without true consequence. So overall, the statistics I bring up clearly show that the Pro side is right today.

Open Challenge - 4 Topics <Psychology> Let’s say your 6 year old kid said he would beat you up if you did not pull over and buy him ice cream, the parents would not stop, why? Because, even with the child’s aggression, the parent know that there will be no backup to his claims. Now if you replaced the 6 year old child with a pro wrestler, then you may be more inclined to pull your car over. If you cannot realistically threaten others, than acting aggressive will not help. Playing Grand Theft Auto all day may lead to you wanting to crash more digital cars, or beat up more fantasy people(In the near future), the advisability of your agression will not change. We can connect this to a non-human example, which is always helpful when looking into psychology because if an idea only works on humans, than it is more likely that the idea does not have interpretation. Let us take a moose, or 3 straight hours you show the moose a video of moose fighting. Afterwards your moose will not rush out to find a rival to duel, why? The reason, is that the moose chances of victory do not increase, so why should it’s actions change? Obviously the topic at hand is much more complex, but it gives us a foothold on why violent video games should not have a lasting impact on the aggression of humans. Humans do not play games because the game is violent, instead they play the game for the challenge. Following that idea, it is more logical to assume that changing the difficulty of the game would have a much greater effect that changing the level of violence. <Difficulty> Andrew K. Przybylski of Rochester University released a report on the supposed link between violent video games and aggression. His report consisted of a series of 7 studies, I will explain them here(1). In study one Przybylsk let 99 players play two different games. One game was non-violent, and had relatively easy controls. The other game was violent, and had significantly more complex controls. Przybylsk and his team then asked each participant to rank 3 things, level of violence of the game, difficulty the participant had with the controls, and the aggression afterwards. As expected, difficulty with controls had a much stronger correlation with aggression than violence. In study two, two versions of the game Half-Life two were created. One was violent the other was not, both games had the same atmosphere and difficulty. When testing the participants, frustration with the difficulty of the level was a much better indicator of aggression that the violence of the game. Study three is similar to study two, but the difficulty of the controls of the game was changed. The game in question is tetris, a non-violent game, those participants with more difficult controls were more likely to have aggressive compulsions. Study four changed a few variable over study three, but reached the same conclusion. Competence was inversely proportional to aggression In study five 112 participants were given one of two complex games, one that was violent, the other was non-violent. Half the participants were given 10 minutes of practice time. As expected considering the results of the previous studies, those participants without practice time showed more violent tendencies, the violence of the game showed no correlation. Study six asked participants to dunk their arm in ice cold water, then play tetris. The game was set at various difficulties. The patients were then asked the current participant how long the next participant should put their arm into the water. The harder the game’s difficulty, the longer the current patient suggested the next subject put their hand in the water. In study 7 the researchers interviewed gamers on the games they play, and their aggressive tendencies. The difficulty of the game was a held a stronger correlation to aggression that the rating of the game. In conclusion, it is evident that, instead of the violence of the video game, the difficulty of the game is a much better indicator of the aggression of the player. Losing the game tends to provoke rage, it does not matter the violence of the game. <Empathy> In a study lead by Dr. Gregor Szycik(2), the researchers lead a study on the long term effects of video games on humans. This is important, as a vast majorities of other studies on this topic focused on short term effects. A group of gamers who played first person shooter for a minimum of two hours a day were compared to a group of people with no experience of violent video games. Each gamer refrained from playing the game for 3 hours, though most waited longer. The participants were asked a series of physiological questions, and were then showed pictures that were meant to provoke an emotional response. MRI scans were conducted on the brain during this time. The questionnaire reported no difference in aggression and empathy in gamers to non-gamers, and that finding was backed up by brain scans <Time> A study lead by Oxford University(3) found that the time playing video games lead to lower academic scores for children, but that change was incredibly minor. The study found that students who played video games generally had lower grades, the important thing, is that they found no correlation between the rating of the game. This is important, as it suggests that addiction to game would have a negative social effect while violence would have a negligible social effect. If you look at a more extreme case, you can look at Adam Lanza. He is, of course, the infamous Sandy Hook shooter, and was obviously mentally unstable. Many people were ready for the FBI to release document about how violent video games had effected Adam’s mental state, but they got a disappointing surprise. The game that effected Adam the most, was not violent, it was “Dance Dance Revolution”, a single player arcade game. Adam put an excessive amount of time into the game, suggesting that his disconnect from society was the real reason for his deteriorating mental state. This disconnect is important, as the Oxford study found that multiplayer games may increase a child’s ability to be social. <Third Variable> Previous studies on violence in video games have been criticized for not recording the atmosphere of the game. Controls, difficulty, and competition have all been shown to affect aggression, yet many studies neglect this. The importance of the studies I have linked is that many include a third variable, whether it be time or difficulty. This is extremely important, as the studies have found a much strong correlation with that third variable. Many first person shooters are mechanically hard and competitive, and that may be the real reason that some study have found a correlation between videogames and violence. In many of these studies, this correlation has been minimal enough that in no way would it constitute a negative social outcome. <Conclusion> In conclusion, it is evident that violent video games do not have an affect on society that can be deemed to be negative. The ever expanding library of rage quit videos on youtube also prove my point. The common denominator of the aggression in all of these videos is not violence of the video games, it is losing. It is clearly evident that addiction to game has a greater negative effect of society over violent video games. Correlation does not equal causation, and it is evident that any correlation that may be found would be the result of not examining every factor of the games being studied. Being competitive, or being a bit impatient cannot possibly be considered a negative social outcome. The average COD gamer is not going out punching people, or being overly aggressive because of the game.In fact, the most popular violent video games are multiplayer, so social interaction may be increasing. Many may consider online conversation “not real”, and it is obvious that too much time online can have a negative effect, but video games can build important social bonds for many people, myself included. In no way is society as a whole being affected by this, crime rates have continued to drop(4), as video game sales have continued to rise. I may be pushing it to say that the drop in juvenile crime may be the result of videogames, in fact I highly doubt it. But it is only logical to assume that the relatively cheap distractions may have played a role in that decrease. If violent video games did have a negative impact on society, than the 70 million copies of GTA V that were sold in stores should have resulted in an increase in crime. But never, in all my time of playing violent video games, have I ever had the urge to blow up a car; many people can share that sentiment. <Sources> 1.http://selfdeterminationtheory.org... 2.https://blog.frontiersin.org... 3.http://www.ox.ac.uk... 4.https://upload.wikimedia.org...

Violent video games do not increase aggression. A 2005 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign study found: "Players were not statistically different from the non-playing control group in their beliefs on aggression after playing the game than they were before playing." He added: "Nor was game play a predictor of aggressive behaviors. Compared with the control group, the players neither increased their argumentative behaviors after game play nor were significantly more likely to argue with their friends and partners."[3]

Violent videogames cause violence in players The 2008 study Grand Theft Childhood reported that 60% of middle school boys that played at least one Mature-rated game hit or beat up someone, compared to 39% of boys that did not play Mature-rated games. Violent computer games have long been popular with teenagers, and with the improvement in technology, many violent games have become more realistic. Excessive violent gaming can become a serious problem because teenagers can develop antisocial behavior and become disconnected from reality, according to Laura Berk, professor of psychology at Illinois State University. According to Berk, teenagers who frequently play violent video games are more likely to become withdrawn. She states that addiction to violent games is a cause in itself. A 2010 BBC news report about the risk of computer addiction included an interview with a 19-year-old boy who skipped school and had angry outbursts if his parents tried to stop him from playing a violent video game. The American Psychiatric Association is calling for more research before placing computer games addiction as an international recognized mental health disorder Violence as Normality A research report in the May 2010 issue of "Psychological Bulletin" led by Iowa State University psychology professor Craig Anderson found that violent gaming can increase feelings of aggression and antisocial behavior in teenagers, regardless of their sex. Overexposure to violent images found in computer games can lead to the view that violence is a normal way of life. Berk also writes that the Columbine High School teenage murderers were obsessed with playing a violent video game. abcnews.go.com " Technology

Open Challenge - 4 Topics Thanks for accepting.DefinitionsThe definition of Children is fine as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child defines under 18 as the standard for being a child.With the ESRB scale, I don't think that's a great definition for violent video games for a couple reasons.1) It's not very universal. For instance I'm not from a country that uses the ESRB system.2) It's not a great definition. Other scales on ESRB (Notably AO and T contain differing amounts of violence to M but still contain violence.3) It seems to miss the point. While T might contain less graphic or more cartoony violence, frankly if I show than even less intense violence has negative social impacts then that just makes my argument all the more powerful.I think we will be fine without having a hard and fast definition of violent videogames, but at the same time I don't want to limit my options out the gate with a definition that I don't think works. if you feel they are necessary, I'd suggest the dictionary definitions of "Violent" and "Videogames".The ArgumentI will argue that Violent videogames have a negative social outcome on children.To some, they might make the argument of free will. That there is no way videogames can force people to commit acts of violence or act in any way they don't want. This is true. People still have agency and make their own choices.However it doesn't need to control their actions, it merely needs to influence them and this is something that we know can happen to people. People have their own free choice in what religion they pick (in most countries) and yet most people growing up in a Christian family in a Christian country will be Christian, most people growing up in a Hindu family in a Hindu country will be Hindu, etc, etc. Despite their free will to make a choice, people are quite obviously influenced by what's around them. Not only that but Classical Conditioning is a fairly well known example of the ability to manipulate people through rewarding or punishing behaviour [1]. Based on the famous example of Pavlov's dogs, we have even been able to (for example) train men to get erections to the sound of musical chimes [2]!That people can be influenced by the culture around them including media is fairly indisputable - and if not someone should notify every advertising agency in the world. That leaves the question - do video games in particular cause negative social outcomes in children?The EvidenceThe answer is an overwhelming yes. It doesn't turn people into homicidal maniacs. I play games myself and have since I was a child don't consider myself violent. The same is hopefully true with you. This isn't about anyone on an individual level. This is about people who play video games - as a collective, being on average more susceptible to negative social outcomes like violence.http://journals.sagepub.com......The above is a meta-analysis of violence in video games.This is very important because a meta-analysis is a study of studies [3], combining the results of a mass of studies to give an overall view of the status of the scientific evidence. This avoids the problem with singular studies where it is possible to cherry pick the exceptions and present them as as the norm, or where there is a mixture of competing evidence and it is hard to say where the overall consensus lies.In this case the peer reviewed scientific meta-analysis finds: "Data from 98 independent studies with 36,965 participants revealed that for both violent video games and prosocial video games, there was a significant association with social outcomes. Whereas violent video games increase aggression and aggression-related variables and decrease prosocial outcomes, prosocial video games have the opposite effects. These effects were reliable across experimental, correlational, and longitudinal studies, indicating that video game exposure causally affects social outcomes and that there are both short- and long-term effects"To me, this is exactly what I would expect to see. People play violent videogames. There is a reward and sense of accomplishment when you absolutely smash the other team in Call of Duty and manage to win. It fits the logic of classical conditioning perfectly. People are trained to commit (virtual) violence and get rewarded. This primes them to act violently. ConclusionThis is not to condemn videogames. I believe that there are likely a host of similar results from other media - from watching a violent movie to watching one of the more violent sports (Even American Football perhaps). It simply means that the risks must be acknowledged and thought given to how this is dealt with. Perhaps the current model of game classification is perfectly fine.Regardless the fact of videogames increasing violence is a indisputable fact that is backed up by several dozen studies of tens of thousands of participants. These results are solid and whether we like it or not (I don't), we can't pretend they don't exist.On this basis I feel voters must vote Pro[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...[3] https://www.meta-analysis.com...

video game violence yes but children should be paying attention to the content avisory. that is why the ESRB made the rating system. if the children are playing games that do not fit there age group then they risk doingsuch things like being more emotional. plus some of the stuff that happens in he games happens in the real world.

Resolved: Violent video games cause increased aggressive behavior 1. Meta-analytic reviewsCon claims that meta-analytic reviews show that methodologically superior studies show that video games do cause violence. However, many meta-analysis studies which show that there is a link between video gaming and violence are plagued with publication bias and methodological problems, such as citing studies which were not published or selecting certain studies and ignoring others. (http://www2.psych.ubc.ca...) 2. Non-Laboratory resultsA survey is not a study: it can be affected by the personal biases of teachers and students. As the teachers knew which students whose violent behaviors they were rating, the survey that pro cited was not sufficiently blinded. (http://drdouglas.org...) Also, many experts, parents, and paediatricians agree that violent video games do not cause violence. (http://www.theguardian.com...) If the survey that pro cited were to be counted as valid evidence, then this should be too.One of the methodological flaws of using labratory results is that the violent clips and video game content are often served to the groups of youth outside of their contexts; the entire narrative of the violent work of fiction was not provided. This is different than in real life situations. (http://www.independent.co.uk...)3. Crime RatesPro claims that crime rates decreased in spite of violent media becoming more popular. I propose an alternative idea: violent media has nothing to do with crime rates. Studies have shown that the one thing that correlates with crime is gasoling lead levels. (http://www.ricknevin.com...)

Are Video Games the main cause for Violent Juvenile Crimes From what I have seen in that post you have utterly copied and pasted a whole entire website page which shows you are obviously avoiding the question, the question is " Are Video Games the main cause for Violent Juvenile Crimes " A causal link between violent video games and violent behavior has not been proven. Many studies suffer from design flaws and use unreliable measures of violence and aggression such as noise blast tests. Thoughts about aggression have been confused with aggressive behavior, and there is a lack of studies that follow children over long periods of time.

media violence is having a negative effect on today's youth. youths playing video games are still yet to mature. they still don't understand that watching movies or playing video games will tempt them in a way they don;t know.

Video Games do not increase or perpetuate juvenile violence First, according to uslegal.com, juvenile courts only cover persons under the age of 18, so we have to go off that age. The American Psychological Association states on June 7, 2010, that the only children who showed aggression after exposure to violent video games already displayed aggressive characteristics beforehand. This evidence indicates that video games do not increase violence, as stated in the resolution, as people who have violent characteristics in the first place are drawn to it. Therefore, per the resolution, we see that video games do not increase violence, nor perpetuate it. Regarding his 60 minutes evidence, this goes along with the above contention, that people with violent characteristics go the video games in the first place. The evidence says, "who had played Grand Theft Auto day and night for months." That quote alone shows the kind of mental state this person was in beforehand. Once again, this evidence is pointing to the Pro side, that video games do not increase or perpetuate violence. Regarding his desensitization of violence argument, Richard Rhodes of Rolling Stone found several flaws methodologically with over 200 studies regarding violent video games, and came to the conclusion that "The research no more supports the consensus on media violence than it supported the conclusions of the eugenics consensus eighty years ago that there are superior and inferior 'races,' with White Northern Europeans at the top." The studies that my opponent has been bringing up always mention some form of correlation between video games and violence, however, correlation does not necessary mean causation. According to british psychologist Guy Cumberbatch, "Finding that people who enjoy violent media may also be aggressive is tantamount to observing that those who play football also enjoy watching it on television. 'The correlational nature of this study means that causal statements are risky at best,' the authors admit. ...All in all, new evidence is exceptionally weak, and in its one-sided approach it has a depressingly familiar ring to it. ...Studies to date have been notably biased towards seeking evidence of harm. This 'blame game' may be fun for some researchers to play, and knee-jerk reactions such as the APA's press release may be media-friendly. But we deserve better." All in all, there is no link between correlation and causation. For the reasons I stated in opening, and the fact that there is no link between correlation and causation, I urge Pro vote.

Children See Violent Video Games Whilst it might be agreed that violent video games in the hands of a person who is old enough to see them and be able to understand the context in which the violence is being wrought is acceptable, this may not be true of younger people who acquire games. Games with violent content are often easily acquired by players too young to purchase them. They may also gain access to them at home from older siblings. Because children do not have fully developed mental faculties yet, and may not clearly separate fantasy from reality, exposure to violent games can have a large impact upon children. This has a greater impact than children seeing films that feature realistic violence because whilst a child might get bored with films owing to the lack of interaction with the medium, this is much less likely to be the case with, for example, a military shooting game, which a child might play over and over As such, all violent video games should be banned to prevent their acquisition by young children either by accident, or owing to parental ignorance.[1] [1] Anderson, Craig et al. The influence of media violence on youth. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2003, 4:81-110

Violent games lead to violent actions I love video games, but does the high violence sometimes you violent ? No that"s a load of nonsense of course it doesn"t. But that"s what some people actually believe, and today I"ll tell you why some people believe it and why some don"t. By the age of seven, Yes SEVEN! You can tell the difference from fantasy violence and real world violence and when you play and watch more violent content that skill grows greater and seriously who on earth will just start thinking they"re hitman and start running around doing flips off cars and shooting people. And I"m not just talking nonsense here is proof from an American newspaper article: Playing violent video games does not cause kids to commit mass shootings. Over 150 million Americans (and 71% of teens) play video games. There have been 71 mass shootings between 1982 and Aug. 2015, seven of which (9.8%) involved shooters age 18 or younger. Some people think that violent games lead to violent actions and this is why: their exposure to violent video games is linked to lower empathy and decreased kindness. Empathy, the ability to understand and enter into another's feelings is believed to inhibit aggressive behavior. In a study of 150 fourth and fifth graders by Jeanne Funk, PhD, Distinguished University Professor of Psychology at the University of Toledo, violent video games were the only type of media associated with lower empathy. I stand with video games for life.

Violent Video Games Although I agree that many video games are far too violent and can promote killing and stealing, there are other factors. One such is parental involvement. If you don't have a dad/mom around, their non-presence alone can push kids towards suicidal and even violent thoughts. An article I have read, called "Do Video Games Make Teens Violent" from NewsMic, says that spending too much time in violent video games can take away from time in positive environments. In conclusion, video games alone do not cause violence, but must have several other factors to cause any real harm.

is video games bad for kids The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, American Psychological Association, American Medical Association, American Academy of Family Physicians, and American Psychiatric Association, wrote in a July 26, 2000 "Joint Statement on the Impact of Entertainment Violence on Children" available at www.aap.org: "Children who see a lot of violence are more likely to view violence as an effective way of settling conflicts. Children exposed to violence are more likely to assume that acts of violence are acceptable behavior Viewing violence can lead to emotional desensitization towards violence in real life. It can decrease the likelihood that one will take action on behalf of a victim when violence occurs. Entertainment violence feeds a perception that the world is a violent and mean place. Viewing violence increases fear of becoming a victim of violence, with a resultant increase in self-protective behaviors and a mistrust of others. Viewing violence may lead to real life violence. Children exposed to violent programming at a young age have a higher tendency for violent and aggressive behavior later in life than children who are not so exposed. Although less research has been done on the impact of violent interactive entertainment (video games and other interactive media) on young people, preliminary studies indicate that the negative impact may be significantly more severe than that wrought by television, movies, or music." July 26, 2000- American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry American Academy of Family Physicians American Academy of Pediatrics American Medical Association American Psychiatric Association (APA) American Psychological Association Craig Anderson, PhD, Director of the Center for the Study of Violence, wrote in a 2009 article "FAQs on Violent Video Games and Other Media Violence," available on psychology.iastate.edu: "The results, overall, have been fairly consistent across types of studies (experimental, cross-sectional, and longitudinal) and across visual media type (television, films, video games). There is a significant relation between exposure to media violence and aggressive behavior. Exposing children and adolescents (or 'youth') to violent visual media increases the likelihood that they will engage in physical aggression against another person. By 'physical aggression' we mean behavior that is intended to harm another person physically, such as hitting with a fist or some object. A single brief exposure to violent media can increase aggression in the immediate situation. Repeated exposure leads to general increases in aggressiveness over time. This relation between media violence and aggressive behavior is causal." 2009- Craig Anderson, PhD David Greenfield, PhD, founder of The Center for Internet and Technology Addiction and Assistant Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Connecticut School of Medicine, said in a Sep. 20, 2013 panel discussion titled "Growing Up GTA" available at huffingtonpost.com: "My opinion on video game violence, which has a very powerful reward system wired into it, is that continued exposure desensitizes people to the experience of violence. But the other big issue, along with the reward structure, is that it teaches them a skill set that they might not otherwise develop, especially the first person shooter games. I have a real problem with giving people, in the name of entertainment, a technology that desensitizes violence, and then teaches you how to commit violence more accurately " and then elevating people's levels of dopamine" [T]hose studies have been absolutely supported. When you put people on a PET scanner or an functional MRI, their brain lights up like a Christmas tree when they're doing these games, especially when they hit the reward points that are designed by the gamers to" keep people gaming because that's how these games make their money. Nothing is engaged in at the levels that I see gaming at, as a form of entertainment or dopamine elevation, unless it's a narcotic like cocaine for instance. How could you be exposed to something this toxic and have it not affect you?" Sep. 20, 2013- David N. Greenfield, PhD Leland Yee, PhD, State Senator (D-CA) wrote in a June 22, 2009 amicus brief filed with the US Supreme Court for Video Software Dealers Association v. Schwarzenegger: "The interactive nature of video games is vastly different than passively listening to music, watching a movie, or reading a book. With interactive video games, the child becomes a part of the action which serves as a potent agent to facilitate violence and over time learns the destructive behavior. This immersion results in a more powerful experience and potentially dangerous learned behavior in children and youth... Just as the technology of video games improves at astonishing rates, so to does the body of research consistently demonstrate the harmful effects these violent interactive games have on minors. Over three thousand peer-reviewed studies, produced over a period of 30 years documenting the effects of screen violence (including violent video games), have now been published... These data suggest very strongly that participating in the playing of violent video games by children and youth increase aggressive thought and behavior; increase antisocial behavior and delinquency; engender poor school performance; desensitize the game player to violence." June 22, 2009- Leland Yee, PhD Brad Bushman, PhD, Professor of Communication and Psychology at The Ohio State University, stated the following in a Feb. 18, 2013 article titled "Why Do People Deny Violent Media Effects?" available at psychologytoday.com "People want to believe that if millions of people play violent video games and they don"t all become killers, then those games must be harmless. Unfortunately, that"s not true. We haven"t 'proven' video games directly cause violence because it can"t be proven. There is no way to ethically run experiments that see if some threshold of playing a violent game like Call of Duty may push a person into violence. But that doesn"t mean we are left without evidence. We know that video game violence is certainly correlated with violence " just like smoking is correlated with lung cancer. However, this does not mean that the research does not show causal effects; in fact it does, over and over again. We recently conducted a comprehensive review of 136 articles reporting 381 effects involving over 130,000 participants from around the world. These studies show that violent video games increase aggressive thoughts, angry feelings, physiological arousal (e.g., heart rate, blood pressure), and aggressive behavior. Violent games also decrease helping behavior and feelings of empathy for others. The effects occurred for males and females of all ages, regardless of what country they lived in. So the question then becomes why people and journalists repeatedly shrug off this compelling body of work." Feb. 18, 2013- Brad J. Bushman, PhD Pamela Eakes, Founder of Mothers Against Violence in America (MAVIA), wrote in an article titled "Do You Know What Video Games Your Children Are Playing?" on www.pbs.org (accessed Oct. 6, 2014): "Parents do know that children learn by observing, imitating what they observe, and acting on the world around them. According to child psychologist Michael Rich, children develop what psychologists call 'behavioral scripts.' They interpret their experiences and respond to others using those scripts. One can easily see how repeated exposure to violent behavioral scripts can lead to increased feelings of hostility, expectation that others will behave aggressively, desensitization to the pain of others, and an increased likelihood of interacting and responding to others with violence. Violent video games are an ideal environment in which to learn violence. Violent video games: Place the player in the role of th

Do games teach kids violence. My position is rather easy to prove – I need only make the case that video games teach children how to be violent, not that they actually induce violent behavior. Luckily the psychiatric community has done several experiments that speak for themselves. Lab experiments confirm what any gamer knows in his gut: playing games like “Call of Duty,” “Killzone 3” or “Battlefield 3” stirs the blood. In one recent study, Christopher Barlett, a psychologist at Iowa State University, led a research team that had 47 undergraduates play “Mortal Kombat: Deadly Alliance” for 15 minutes. Afterward, the team took various measures of arousal, both physical and psychological. It also tested whether the students would behave more aggressively, by having them dole out hot sauce to a fellow student who, they were told, did not like spicy food but had to swallow the sauce. Sure enough, compared with a group who had played a nonviolent video game, those who had been engaged in “Mortal Kombat” were more aggressive across the board. They gave their fellow students significantly bigger portions of the hot sauce. Source: http://www.nytimes.com...Children are highly impressionable and mimic role models."Video games are excellent teaching tools because they reward players for engaging in certain types of behavior," study author Dr. Bruce Bartholow, associate professor of psychology at the University of Missouri, said in a written statement. "Unfortunately, in many popular video games, the behavior is violence." Source: http://www.cbsnews.com...Decades of social science research reveals the strong influence of televised violence on the aggressive behavior of children and youth. There appears to be evidence that exposure to violent media increases feelings of hostility, thoughts about aggression, suspicions about the motives of others, and demonstrates violence as a method to deal with potential conflict situations; and perpetrators go unpunished in 73% of all violent scenes, and therefore teach that violence is an effective means of resolving conflict. Comprehensive analysis of violent interactive video game research suggests such exposure a.) increases aggressive behavior, b.) increases aggressive thoughts, c.) increases angry feelings, d.) decreases helpful behavior, and, e.) increases physiological arousal. Studies further suggest that videogames influence the learning processes in many ways more than in passively observing TV: a.) requiring identification of the participant with a violent character while playing video games, b.) actively participating increases learning, c.) rehearsing entire behavioral sequences rather than only a part of the sequence, facilitates learning, and d.) repetition increases learning. Source: http://videogames.procon.org...

Violent videos games lead to aggression in individuals I would like to include that I am not suggesting a correlation between video games and violent acts, such as murder. The supporting and dissenting evidence, regarding this subject, is lacking, so I will not make such an empty claim. Repeated and long terms exposure exposure to violent video games cause aggressive arousal by a number of physiological and hormonal cues. This effect does wear off after a period of time. These Salient cues, such as a provocation, can result in misattribution of arousal that was engendered by a violent video game. For example, an individual could anger at a salient provoking person, which in turn could increase the likelihood of an aggressive behavioral attack. As with the affect state, this arousal effect is not specific to violent video games, but could occur with any game that happens to be very exciting. [1] Long-term media violence effects on aggression result from the development, overlearning, and reinforcement of aggression related knowledge structures. Each time people are exposed to violent video games, they rehearse aggressive scripts that teach and reinforce vigilance for enemies (i.e., hostile perception bias), aggressive action against others, expectations that others will behave aggressively, positive attitudes toward use of violence, and beliefs that violent solutions are effective and appropriate. 1. http://www.apa.org...

Video games cause bad behavior. 1. Lengthy hours in front of gaming, could make it hard for kids to focus in school activities, psychologists said US researcher. 2. Most of the video games on the market today are frightening in what they contain. The level of violence and the subliminal messages that this gives our young adults is scary indeed. Our teenagers these days are surrounded by violent video games and newspapers/news articles that are full of how violent human beings are to each other daily.

Do violent computer games make young children violent citizens Teenagers who play violent video games over a number of years become more aggressive towards other people as a result, according to a new long-term study. Researchers said the study was the first to show a clear link between a sustained period of playing violent games and subsequent increases in hostile behaviour. Girls who play violent computer games during their school years were found to be affected just as much as boys. is clear that there is a long-term association between violent video games and aggression. This is an important and concerning finding, particularly in light of the hours that youth spend playing these games.'

Violent Video Games Cause Violent Behavior S1: First, the language argument that "Aggression doesn't equate Violence" without a basis disregards context. Your "refutation"(?) exceeds the source. You have to provide that it isn't specific to that definition not that a word has more than one definition in general. Bunk. To back this up from within the source: [[ Japanese children rated their own behavior in terms of physical aggression, such as hitting, kicking or getting into fights with other kids; the U.S. children rated themselves too, but the researchers took into account reports from their peers and teachers as well. ]] There is no reason it doesn't refer to violence. --- S2: Second is a misquote: [[ But Dr. Cheryl K. Olson, co-director of the Center for Mental Health and the Media at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, isn't convinced. "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. There are definitely games kids shouldn't be playing, she said, for example those where hunting down and killing people is the goal. 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. Further, she adds, playing games rated "M" for mature has become "normative behavior" for adolescents, especially boys. "It's just a routine part of what they do," she says. ]] First, it exceeds the claim that it effects children by entering into a different age bracket (adolescents) and second it's a generic counter-balance claim for any given newsource to prevent bias however she too states that certain games should not be used and then proposes that the proposition is loose, which is fine however it does not dismiss: [[ In every group, children who were exposed to more video game violence did become more aggressive over time than their peers who had less exposure. This was true even after the researchers took into account how aggressive the children were at the beginning of the study -- a strong predictor of future bad behavior. The findings are "pretty good evidence" that violent video games do indeed cause aggressive behavior, says Dr. L. Rowell Huesmann, director of the Research Center for Group Dynamics at the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research in Ann Arbor. There are two ways violent media can spur people to violent actions, said Huesmann, who has been studying violence in media and behavior for more than 30 years. First is imitation; children who watch violence in the media can internalize the message that the world is a hostile place, he explains, and that acting aggressively is an OK way to deal with it. Also, he says, kids can become desensitized to violence. "When you're exposed to violence day in and day out, it loses its emotional impact on you," Huesmann said. "Once you're emotionally numb to violence, it's much easier to engage in violence." ]] It doesn't even counter it. They are talking about two different age groups and I focusing on children. My opponents criticism holds no water. --- Q1: The second source is pretty much the same. [[ When asked if it was okay for a boy to strike a peer if that peer said something negative about him, for example, these kids were more likely to say yes. They also scored higher on measures of hostility, answering that they would to respond with aggressive action when provoked, even accidentally. The more long-term gamers were also more likely to fantasize about hitting someone they didn"t like. ]] Solves the "language" issue. --- Q2: [[ Working with 3,034 boys and girls in the third, fourth, seventh, and eighth grades in Singapore, Anderson and his colleagues asked the children three times over a period of two years detailed questions about their video game habits. ... "What this study does is show that it"s media violence exposure that is teaching children and adolescents to see the world in a more aggressive kind of way," says Anderson. "It shows very strongly that repeated exposure to violent video games can increase aggression by increasing aggressive thinking." Brain imaging studies also hint that exposure to violent gaming may actually temporarily change the brain. In a 2011 study, for example, after a week of daily video gaming, brain scans of a small group of volunteers showed less activity in the regions connected to emotions, attention, and inhibition of impulses compared to participants who played non-violent video games. The effect appeared to be reversible, but the results suggested that extended periods of play could lead to more stable changes in the brain. ]] --- Q3: Completely shows my opponent misquoted the segment chosen: [[ Previous studies have suggested that the short-term effects of spiking stress hormones"typical of the fight-or-flight response"can rev up players" sensitivity to slights or provocations, and that playing violent games can lead to longer-term suppression of empathy. Another recent study purported to find a link between violent video games and racism. 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. ]] This has nothing to do with with children, for one, and it has nothing to do with this study the article is on, for two, it looks at other studies which suggested something entirely different that wasn't even measured in the study cited. The "third" point has the same problem as the third point last time as it's an anti-bias point however if one reads it: [[ More recent research has not found that children who play VVG are more violent than other kids, nor harmed in any other identifiable fashion. A recent longitudinal study of my own, following 165 10- to 14-year-old boys and girls over a three-year period, now in press with Journal of Psychiatric Research, finds no long-term link between VVG and youth aggression or dating violence. ]] The age itself exceeds that of the scope of the study itself. The actual study, if read, shows as the article states: "That"s because children tend to act less aggressively as they get older, and learn more mature ways of dealing with conflicts than lashing out." However it is backed up with the above in segment Q2 which goes back and addresses the issue throughout the study and the rerouting of native behavior and behavioral choices. --- O1: I am no longer going to constantly "assert" the equivocation problem since it's been shown false twice now and it is clearly false in the third if one should read it. It does not even hide the term violence and it is extremely clear that it refers to at least violent behavior and fighting. As for the "source doesn't present evidence" the studies are cited and there is a link to one at the bottom. It isn't impossible to verify. That doesn't even make sense. I would understand if there were no citations, it wasn't reviewed, it didn't have scholarly status, and it was not from a reputable source but there's no value to your "questioning" as it is as sound as any source would get. You have to objectively prove why it's not a sound source not just inject why you don't like it. The standard for endorsement has nothing to do with the validity of the information. That is an outright Strawman (http://www.nizkor.org...) and means nothing. --- F1: "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. " I have to prove that VVGs cause aggression. This proves that VVGs cause aggression. You rejection based on the "amount" of aggression is ( http://rationalwiki.org... ) shifting goalposts. Instead of my source proving the point and being sufficient my opponent has decided that it's "not enough" and "doesn't work" based on absolutely no criteria. Furthermore the opponent doesn't explain why it's statistically insignificant or what "r=.20" actually means which misleads those who do not know to simply be swayed without an explanation which further makes for an actual Appeal to Authority: Self (http://www.nizkor.org...) as my opponent feels they are of sufficient standing to declare this as fact without backing. --- Overview: Pivot 1: My opponent commits Equivocation as a means of defense. Pivot 2: My opponent misquotes the sources, does not posit his own, and inters his own reasoning as a means of dissuading others regardless of his not being an Authority and his not having grounds or ignoring the content and context. Pivot 3: My opponent admits that at least one source did provide sufficient evidence that it does occur but then shifts the goalpost stating that it's occurrence was not sufficient to meet their criteria which was not revealed prior making it shifting of goal posts, a logical fallacy, and completely unfair. Conclusion: I was hoping I'd be reading things that backed VVGs rather than having to discuss basic language deciphering skills and listening to made up on the spot criteria. Note: I dropped the last two sources in agreement with my opponent because though they are actually signs of of the behavior in children and why they are so impressionable (and it does talk about video games in the last two sources) it's easier to continue without them.

Youths are impressionable It is absurd to think that something as transient as music or a game could affect a youths life to such an extent. We should stop looking for a scapegoat and give children support from the family in terms of love and proper role models and the government in terms of education. If children are affected by everything then how are children afected by music such as venetian snares whose music is breakcore. If children are affected by everything then can you imagine in 1992 when mortal kombat arrived. I dont remember trying to fireball my teacher or send electric through my mates head to make him explode. Another example is the ads, video games from japan such as samurai etc which are very famous for their violence However, the crime rate at that time was not increasing. In fact, it decreased Furthermore, violent video games aren't molding violent people, it is the violent and troubled people that are drawn to the games. If someone plays grand theft auto for hours then shoots a cop, that person would probably have hurt someone anyway. Is it worse because that person is a cop? No! A cop's life is worth no more then any other person out there, no matter what the circumstances. A small minority may be influenced by violence in video games but this does not warrant banning violent video games outright. It warrants better parenting and education and healthcare systems. Regarding the ( Grand Theft Auto ) argument and it relating to Columbine, the two teenagers were indeed fans of violent video-games, but GTA was not mentioned by the media, the game that was mentioned was DOOM 3, where the media claimed that it was there that the two teens created a level to imitate Columbine so they could plan their shooting, but this claim was later debunked when it was learned that they ( the two teens ) did not initially plan to go inside of the school.

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.

Video game violence does not contribute significantly to school shootings. "It has been proven that there is a casual link between predisposed kids that end up fulfilling their disposition via the cognitive deterioration of emotional tolerance by playing violent video games[1]. Case in point." [1]http://www.msnbc.msn.com...... I would like to add to Con's statement that it has also been proven that the amount of school shootings since 1993 have significantly decreased[2]. Let's look at what game genres that we have present today cause aggression in teens. According to con's earlier source[1], the main genre of video games that cause "the deterioration of emotional tolerance" are violent first-person shooters, such as ones mentioned like "Call of Duty" and "Medal of Honor: Frontline". It's relation with school shootings has a vital flaw, though. Throughout the period of time (from 1993 - 2001), when school shootings were at their peak in this statistic[2], the more violent genres of first-person shooters that caused aggression in teens[1] did not exist. At this point, it must be safe to assume that it was not the violent video games that heavily influenced the school shootings. [1] http://www.msnbc.msn.com... [2] http://youthviolence.edschool.virginia.edu...

Violent Video Games Cause Social Interaction Problems Video games of a violent nature tend to fail to offer many solutions to a problem. Most military shooters have no form of negotiation with enemies; players are asked to simply kill as many nameless terrorists as possible. Given this, social interaction problems can be caused because people are presented with problems and then told that they must be solved with violence instead of other methods. In other words, physical violence is portrayed as the first-choice (and often only-choice) solution to a conflict. This lack of portrayal of alternate solutions can stifle growth of other skills, especially amongst children and adolescents, specifically skills important to making friends and engaging in negotiation in times of conflict or pressure. Further, it encourages children to see people who oppose them as “others,” and thus presents them psychologically as enemies instead of as people who are simply different to the player and thus might have other grievances. This can lead to increases in aggression among players. This is especially true given the relatively simplistic portrayal of conflicts within areas such as the Middle East and Afghanistan.[1] [1] "Violent Video Games May Increase Aggression in Some But Not Others, Says New Research". apa.org. American Psychological Association. 27 September 2011.

Video Games are a primary source of violence (The words that’s in bold and in all caps means that I want you to see that and it’s crucial information. Don’t just come here and bring out this conviction that everything in all caps means yelling. Submitting into that conclusion is vacuous.) Violence and Aggression are closely akin Just because you acknowledged something to be true doesn’t really make it so. So, that comes to show that your affirmation is biased. You’re saying that just because you’re showing some sort of aggression that just means that you’re bound to go out and commit violence. I’m pretty sure you have heard of the term “hot head.” I’m pretty sure that the vast majority of these hot heads out here have not committed a single crime in their lives. My dad can sometimes be a hot head, and he has never done anything wrong. Since you claim that my source that I used is “biased”, let’s use another one. According to the Scholastic website, it says, “Violence is heterogeneous. Physical violence can be impulsive, reactive or defensive; or it can be predatory, remorseless aggression… “Aggression is NOT VIOLENCE. An aggressive person may not be violent. Aggression is a behavior characterized by verbal or physical attack, yet it may be appropriate and self-protective or destructive and violent.” (http://teacher.scholastic.com......) Also, just because I didn’t refute against a certain part of your rebuttals doesn’t mean that I’m not challenging you on it. It’s apparent that you didn’t take into consideration that I often run out of characters to type. I would also like to point out that the Bandura Ross & Ross case uses children of the age of 3 TO 6 YEARS OLD. THAT IS NOT A PROPER AGE GROUP TO USE AGAINST A COMMUNITY THAT MOSTLY CONSISTS OF AGES OF 12+. Therefore, your case is completely invalid. (http://www.simplypsychology.org...) Effects of video games on violence are psychologically proven From where? Of course, I use movies and other forms of entertainment to support my reasoning. You know why? It’s because they have the exact same entertainment value and influence aggression just like you claim video games do. Gaming is so popular; it’s basically renowned as a sport now. (http://en.wikipedia.org......). It’s also apparent that you did not read all of my arguments because I’m obviously refuting against you when I’m saying that your objection is erroneous. Anyway: According to Former FBI Profiler, Mary Ellen O’Toole, she states that “video games DO NOT cause violence.” She also says that “individuals who were already contemplating in acting out in a violent way, if they are also emerged 24/7 in violent videos to the exclusion of other activities; and they’re isolated and they’re actually using these videos as planning or collateral evidence in terms of how to do it better, what equipment to buy, how to select the victims, how to approach the crime scene”, etc. “If their use is educational material for the offender to do the crime better, that’s what we take into CONSIDERATION.” What she’s saying is these “researchers” and “professionals” don’t take in other factors into account. They just blatantly look at video games and don’t search for other factors like mental health, the significance or insignificance of parental guidance, his/her social environment, school/work, etc. Still quoting, “As a threat assessment and as a Former FBI Profiler, WE DO NOT SEE THESE AS THE CAUSE OF VIOLENCE. WE SEE THEM AS SOURCES OF FUELING IDEATION THAT’S ALREADY THERE.” That means that the individual who is convinced by violence didn’t submit to it because he played X, Y, and Z. He capitulated to the desire of violence on his/her accordance. I mean, what else is there for me to provide as evidence. The FBI contradicts this claim; millions of gamers all over the world discredit this claim, the SUPREME COURT points out that the research that supports the claim is “INCONSISTENT” and “FLAWED” says Chris Ferguson. Thank you Mr. Ferguson. Seriously, this fallacious claim doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. (https://www.youtube.com......) According to TomoNews US, a recent study conducted more than a month ago has displayed another factor that ignites aggression (NOT VIOLENCE). This factor has shown to be the controls of games, not the game itself. This study was conducted in the University of Oxford and the University of Rochester. They took the game Half-Life 2 and modified the entire game with the help of some programmers. They discarded the blood and gore and scrabbled the controls. Their results had shown that the players who were playing with the shooting and violence showed no aggression at all. Meanwhile, the players became easily aggressive because of the absurd controls even though there wasn’t any gore or shooting taking place at all. This relates to aggression being caused by competition. It occurs very frequently, and like I said, it’s human nature. When something doesn’t work, we get frustrated. When we’re trying to win at something, and something occurs that deters us from winning, of course, we will flip out. (https://www.youtube.com......) (http://venturebeat.com......) (https://www.youtube.com......) (Warning about the video: I’m not saying that gun laws should be blamed totally. It can be, but I really don’t care about it for right now. What everyone needs to realize is that parenting and/or mental instability is the #1 issue here.) (http://www.theesa.com......) You have also failed to glance at the similarities between these two forms of entertainment. THEY BOTH CONTAIN MATURE CONTENT SUCH AS GORE, SEX, AND PROFANTIY. THEY BOTH HAVE CONTENT RATINGS. Just because these two things have that one little difference, don’t just come out here and say, since they have a small difference, you can’t use it as a source. That ideology is absurd. The General Aggression Model has expounded the case of violence Okay, first of all, Aristotle’s theory of gravity has been proven wrong by Galileo. Second of all, just because I said it’s outdated that doesn’t mean that old principles should not be used. That just comes to show that you don’t even know what the word “outdated” means. Outdated, according to Webster, means “no longer of use or unacceptable.” (http://www.merriam-webster.com......). That means that when something is proven wrong, it is no longer of use and it’s obsolete. I will correct myself upon saying that the GAM is outdated even though I didn’t directly say it is. However, the G.A.M still doesn’t provide evidence that video games cause violent crimes. You see, according to Oxford, (Man, I love Oxford for bringing me so much evidence.) “briefly, the model shows how factors in the IMMEDIATE SITUATION (such as being insulted while in front of friends, and having just played a violent video game) combine with factors that people bring with them to the situation (such as positive attitudes towards using aggression, impulsive personality, and a habit of taking slights too personally) to produce an internal set of aggression-related thoughts and feelings that are likely to yield aggressive behavior.” That comes into showing that the aggression shown in video games is SHORT TERM like I said. (http://www.oxfordscholarship.com......) Children inevitably imitates aggression, resorting to violence without supervision Basically, what you’re saying is “Monkey see, monkey do.” Yes, children imitate things, but you still haven’t taken into account that the parent is the one responsible for teaching their child right from wrong. What do you think parents are there for? Just to sit there and watch the kids? Even though that’s what some parents do, that’s not what the duties of what the parents are held accountable for. This “study” that you used has nothing to do with video games at all. It sounds like this study was conducted by children by a very young age. You did not refute that parents are responsible for telling their children that it’s wrong to do this. It’s wrong to do that. So, what’s your point? I mean, I can’t refute everything while bring out a hundred sources at once. There’s a character limit on here you know. Crime rate interpretations by opponents of the resolution are fantasy What? I don’t get what you’re refuting against here. So, the information that I’ve clearly given that’s from the FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION and the BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS is “fantasy”? That’s just an excuse because the facts are there and it shows that the correlation between video games and violence is non-existent. If it was, then don’t you think crime rates would actually increase? But, it doesn’t. I mean, the graph you just showed me proves it. Look, the trends of video game sales and federal offenses are NEARLY PERPENDICULAR. It doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. Con's parental argument provides no guarantee This rebut is totally wrong because, according to an article at Vision.org, they say that Parental Guidance is a crucial factor in child development. Also, I have cited other sources earlier that say so. (http://www.vision.org......) Let's be mathematical here 70% of the world population are gamers. There are 7.2 billion people on Earth. So, that's 5.04 billion people. That's a lot isn't it? So, lets say there were 15 gamers were found committing violence. Okay, that just makes 0.000000003% of gamers affected by violence. Okay, let's make 100 gamers committing violence. Okay, good for you, you've discovered that 0.00000002% are affected. Don't you see that it is insufficient? How can you come in here and try to prove to me that WAY LESS THAN 1% of something is valid? How can you come in here and say that video games cause violence when it actually has declined? Trying to prove that less than 1% of something to me is like trying to prove that ants can beat humans. Don't forget that I'm not saying that video games don't cause violence at all Video games are just a small factor out of MANY others that contribute to violence. Mental state and the environment they're in contribute to violence the most.

Violent video games do not only affect individuals but also society as a whole. Violent video games do not only affect individuals but also society as a whole. The sole purpose of a player in these games is to be an aggressor. The heartlessness in these games and joy of killing innocent people create a desensitization and disinhibition to violence that can ultimately lead to a more violent society. They are also a very selfish, lonely form of entertainment which undermines the structure of an ordered, interdependent society.

There are far larger contributing factors to violent crime. There might be some cases of people mimicking violent scenes in video games, but even in these cases, the people obviously have psychological problems that are far deeper than anything that can be caused by a media they won't even have been introduced to until later in their life. There are so many more important factors in violent crime - poverty, drugs, political corruption leading to lawlessness etc. that video games are trivial.

Violent games should not be allowed for kids Instigator's Point: Children can be influenced by things much more easily and that consumption of violent video games causes violent behaviours.First: What causes violence in children?One research[1] concluded that violence in children is caused by two things:1: Being domestically abused (physically or sexually), which causes stress2: Not being able to express their emotions, which also causes stressPoint: Stress is one of the main things that causes violence. [2]Research has been conducted, and the most common result that people see from playing violent video games is the reduction of stress.[3] Violent video games, particularly in the first person shooter genre, has also said to improve eyesight. [4]But video games can still influence children to be more violent right?However, studies show that video games help control violence and keep it under control. Video games helped reduce aggressiveness and bully-like habits.[5]Finally, despite the fact technology is getting better, in the present day children can still draw the line between reality and fantasy. Graphics and visuals all may be getting better, but children can still see that, indeed, it is still a game. Quoted directly from this article[6], "As kids grow, most distinguish fantasy from reality." Assuming that we are talking about Rated M games (Rated M for Mature, can only be bought by adults), we are going to assume that the usage of the word children refers to that of children under the age of eighteen. Any child at least at the age of six should be able to identify the line between reality and a game. We can conclude that video games are not a major reason of violence in children.I await rebuttals from my opponent.[1]http://www.awareparenting.com...[2]http://www.springer.com...[3]http://www.tamiu.edu...[4]http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[5]http://www.sciencedaily.com...[6]http://abcnews.go.com...

Violent Video Games Lead to Real Violence (First Debate) Maybe you and the majority of people can cope with violent video games and are sensible enough to not recreate any of these acts in real life. However, there are people (people who do it for fun and mentally incapable people) who will simply get ideas from this violence and feel the need to do it in real life, to find out other people's reactions. Petty crime has increased after these violent video games, as these now provide new ways of doing crimes without getting caught - you can say almost like a "tutorial" as the levels can be replayed and as it gives advice.

Video Games increase child violence Now my argument: Example 1: A diagnostic study of more than 1,000 teenagers took place in Poland between 2011 and 2012, aimed at measuring the impact of computer games on young people. Researchers said the results showed that there was a strong link between young people who played games on a regular basis with an inability to control emotions, increased isolation from friends and higher incidences of aggression Source: (. http://www.irishtimes.com...) Example 2: In a study led by Gentile, Lynch, Lander & Walsh in 2004, the authors also stated that teens who play violent video games for extended periods of time: tend to be more aggressive, are more prone to confrontation with their teachers and increased incidences of fights with their peers. Source (. http://drdouglas.org...) Example 3: There is empherical data showing that video games increase violence among children in the book "Violent Video Game Effects On Children And Adolescents" Source: Polman, J. , Orobio de Castro, B. & Van Aken, M. (2008). Experimental study of the differential effects of playing versus watching violent video games on children's aggressive behavior. Aggressive Behavior, 34(3), 256-264. I feel that these examples show solid fact that there is a definite link to video games increasing violence among children. I look forward to your response.

Violent Video Games Cause Violent Behavior Aggression =/= ViolenceMy opponent's sole refutation to this point is that by claiming that aggression and violent behavior are not the same thing, I'm ignoring the context of the situation. He supports this by quoting one of his sources where kids rated their own behavior on how violent they were. There are numerous problems with this though,First, this is a highly silly argument. Just by saying one of his sources refers to "violent behavior" doesn't equate aggression and violence in any way. He still has yet to prove how aggression and violence are the same thing. My previous example of how I can be an aggressive person and still not do a single violent thing still holds. Second, this is a really, really, really, silly argument. Even if his study references some kids talking about their aggression as violent acts, it would be highly fallacious to then equate that into all references of aggression are of real-world violence. That's like saying because I'm a mass murderer and I'm wearing purple socks, then anyone wearing purple socks is a mass murderer. So just because one of his sources references some kids talking about their aggression in terms of physical violence, that doesn't mean all aggression is in terms of phsyical violence. And, this is devastating to my opponent's case because every single one of his sources talk about how video games are making kids more aggressive. But if that aggression isn't being actually being turned into actual physical violence, then it becomes impossible for him to actually affirm the resolution.Mis-Misquoting:Instead of responding to each accusation that I misquoted my opponent's sources, especially since each response would be the same essentially, I'll just condense it into one response: no I didn't. I copy/pasted the exact text the article had into the round. I'm not quoting entire paragraphs of text if I only plan to cite a few sentences because a) that's a waste of characters, b) you're already quoting the things that you say I need to be quoting, so there's no point, and c) it doesn't invalidate any of the accusations I've brought against you. For someone who's complaining about the direction this debate is headed, you're only furthering it in that direction when you had multiple different chances to respond in substance to the arguments I've leveled against you.Also, now that I'm re-reading through his defenses, I'm noticing something come up really often that I feel like needs to be addressed. And so it shall be:AND WHAT ABOUT THE KIDS!?!? THINK ABOUT THE KIDS!!Frankly, I don't know why my opponent thinks age range is all that relevant of a limiting factor. The resolution was never limited in any way to only children or only teenagers so the fact that he's trying to disqualify evidence based on it not talking about kids is really, really odd. And now for some math talk. For those of you who don't want to be bored by math goobley-gook, I'll bold where the tl;dr starts.STATS 101The problem with the one study my opponent cited is that it stated the relationship cited between playing violent video games and aggression is equal to r = .20. But what does that even mean? Well, as my math teacher always told me to do, figure out what the variable is.r represents the correlation coefficient, or how strong the relationship between two variables are (1). The number is measured between positive and negative one. The closer to negative one it is, the more negative the relationship is (i.e. more x correlates with less y) and the closer to positive one it is, the more positive the relationship is (i.e. more x correlates with more y). END OF EXTREMELY SHORT MATH SECTION Essentially, the stronger the correlation between aggression and violent video games was, the closer that number would be to one. The fact that it is very, very far away from one (as it's at .20) suggests that it has little to no impact.BUT EVEN IF the correlation coefficient does suggest a relationship between the two, there's still a bunch of problems that the studies don't resolve, which I will go into now.First, he can't just point to this and say that violent video games cause aggression and point to the correlation coefficient as evidence. This is textbook correlation-causation fallacy. Just because something correlates with another variable, does not mean one causes the other. The possibility of bias in the study or other variables influencing the results is still a viable possibility that would explain the correlation, thus making it fallacious to just point to it and say "violent video games cause aggression". There are multiple variables, that I brought up before and my opponent never responded to, that would influence the two, such as domestic violence, abuse, and mental illness among others. Second, even if he's somehow showing that violent video games do actually CAUSE aggression, not just correlate with it, then he still has to prove how being more aggressive makes people actually resort to physical, real-world violence, which is something that he has yet to ever try to prove. ========But let's take a step back here. Let's think about if I'm just a little deluded to my debating skills. What if my opponent is actually right that there is some kind of causal link between violent video games and aggression? And that aggression is the same thing as real-world violence? What if he's actually right?Even if, he'd still be wrong. Why? Let's think about it for a second.Well for one video games serve as a method to vent anger and stress, offering a non-violent outlet to any kind of aggression or tension-buildup. Gilsdorf explains it quite well when he states: "If some of these men are hopelessly mentally ill, then we need to do all we can to prevent their access to real guns. But sane or depressed, many men feel powerless. Many feel angry. Many feel disengaged. They just want a stake in the action. Video games might be the best outlet they’ve got." (2)Could playing violent video games actually help people relax? Make them less likely to commit other atrocities in real life, their anger fully expressed in the virtual world, making it unnecessary to surface in the real one? Empirics say yes. With 42% of the boys studied saying they play video games to release anger and 65% saying that playing games helps them relax (3), it's quite clear what effect violent video games have on people, if any. CONCLUSION- My opponent's only real defense was accusing me of misquoting his sources. With this addressed, the turns against his sources all stand as valid, giving me additional offense coming out of his very arguments. - All of my opponent's arguments revolve around the concept of showing how violent video games create more aggression in those who play them. The only problem with this is the only point that even comes close to doing so mathmatically admits to having little to no impact on behavior. And even if it did have some kind of correlation, a) he isn't proving causation at all, and his attempts to assert it are the correlation-causation fallacy, b) isn't showing how aggression and real-world violence are the same thing, c) ignores the argument coming out of his own sources that says if this is actually true, then there would be a crime trend to match it, and that crime rate trend does not exist (this is the Fergusen evidence coming out of his own Time source), d) he isn't showing why any of the alternative explanations for this rise in aggression aren't actually valid, meaning that they all stand as alternative explanatory variables (this is only further strengthened by the fact that the Fergusen evidence says that studies saying there's a relationship don't account for these alternative variables), e) he's not responding to the argument coming from his Time source saying that those who played violent video games were just as likely to show signs of empathy toward others as those who didn't play violent video games, which is a direct counter to his aggression point,and f) doesn't explain the evidence that actually shows how playing violent video games provides an outlet for things like anger and aggression, which would prevent real-world outbursts of violence. And this is especially crushing to my opponent since this analysis is back by empirics which confirm the point.And with that, I pass the floor back over to my opponent, and wish him luck with the rest of this debate! :)Sources:(1) - http://tinyurl.com...(2) - http://tinyurl.com...(3) - Cheryl Olson, Lawrence Kutner, Dorothy Warner, Jason Almerigi, Lee Baer, Armand Nicholi, and Eugene Beresin, "Factors Correlated with Violent Video Game Use by Adolescent Boys and Girls," Journal of Adolescent Health, July 2007

Violence in video games does not significantly contribute to real world violence. There is possibly some things I didn't bother to clarify enough in my arguments. Particularly how desensitization caused by violent video games leads to an increase in violence outside of a military setting. I'll get to that and we should be crystal clear after that. Another thing I'll be hitting on is a logical fallacy my opponent has been using, which is basically her entire argument. AFFIRMING A DISJUNCT My opponents logical fallacy is called affirming a disjunct. Affirming a disjunct would look like this: Either A or B since A it's not B. Or if I wanted to write a more easy to understand example, here it is: Me or Debatability are debating. Since Debatability is debating it must mean I'm not. Anyway I'm not the best at writing examples, so if you're confused read the link that I'm using as a citation to prove my opponent's logical fallacy. . http://www.fallacyfiles.org... Here is how my opponent has used this logical fallacy. "A common argument against violence in video games is that violence in video games cause aggression. This is actually not the case. Carol Pichefsky notes that aggression is not caused by violent video games; rather, it is caused by a competitive environment " This doesn't prove that violent video games don't significantly contribute to real world violence. It merely shows that competition contributes significantly to real world violence. Both desensitization and competition can contribute significantly to real world violence. This isn't one of those either or situations. Competition is a huge reason for violence. If this weren't the case than evolution would have never occurred. VIOLENCE RATES The chart my opponent provided isn't really well cited. I can't pull up what those numbers even mean is it a chart showing international or national video games sales and crime? It doesn't even matter. Violent video games can contribute significantly to real world violence, while the crime rate decreases. The chart really just boils down to correlation stats as opposed to causation stats. VIDEO GAME'S EFFECTS "Studies suggest that video games give individuals an outlets to release aggression; there was a study done on inmates. An observer notes "If you give them video games, they"ll be less likely to start fights. So once a week we"d hook up a bunch of TVs in a classroom so all of the murderers and rapists could play Halo. There"s nothing more interesting than seeing guys who have killed multiple people deathmatching each other"" The article referenced no such studies of inmates. The quote my opponent grabbed was on cited from an author of a cracked. com article. It's just a funny story a former prison guard was recounting. The article did cite a few articles that showed some positive effects of violent video games, but none showed a decrease in aggression or violence as a result of playing them. NOT BORN TO KILL "Killing simulations that promote competition can have the same effect. So, it may not necessarily be the violence in the simulations that made the kill rates go up; it could be the competitive factor. " You miss the point these are training exercises and according to the research you've provided aggression is only increased for a short period after the competitive endeavor. The competition on the shooting range is always going to be there regardless of whether the target is shaped like a human or like a dart board with the red circle in the middle. According to my opponents own research showing that aggression only increases for a short period of time after competition, we must assume something else is going on there. I say and the research suggests it's desensitization. It's easier to shoot a real person when you've simulated the event 100s of times and have gotten rid of that natural repulsion of doing so. DESENSITIZE ME My opponent brings up a study that. Contradicts mine and suggests that very little if any desensitization occurs. Let's examine this study closer. "The study involved 122 male and female undergraduate students who fell into two categories: 45 participants who had some video game experience within the last six months and 77 students who reported no video game exposure. " . http://www.newswise.com... The students were asked this question on a survey. (Probably more, but relevant to this debate) 1. Have you played a video game within the last 6 months? So how many of these students only played 1 game the previous 6 months? How many had had less than 3 total hours of videogaming those 6 months? How many of the non videogames players were exposed to a ton of other forms of violent media, such as slasher flicks? These types of studies need to have participants chosen more carefully. The study I showed uses people that play videogames a lot vs people that play rarely or if at all. It's a far better indicator of the effects of violent videogames. The study I've shown indicates that a lot of exposure to violent videogames makes it more likely that somebody will pull the trigger. "2. This study involves a large amount of competition. This is what really makes this study invalid. The competition is what could really be promoting the regular gamers to push the button. When constantly being exposed to competition via video games, one is more likely to show aggression, as I have proven in my constructive. So, rather than the aggression being caused by video game violence / desensitization, it is caused by the regular competition provided by video games. " The study I've shown though small indicates that exposure to a lot of videogames caused participants to be less concerned about the well being of their opponents. My opponents studies have shown that aggression is only temporarily increased due to exposure of competitive videogames. The study I linked to shows an increased willingness to pull the trigger. So something other than the temporary increase of aggression must be considered. That something is desensitization, as indicated by the decreased response to violent imagery. DR. BRUCE " So, desensitization (if indeed caused by video games) results in reduced responsiveness to actual violence, not violent crimes themselves. For this point to stand, my opponent must prove that (a) video games actually desensitize individuals and (b) desensitization significantly contributes to violence. " What desensitization does isn't necessarily cause people who aren't predisposed to violence to become violent. It actually contributes significantly to a culture of violence. Psychopaths are about 1% of the population and have a lack of concern for other individuals. They also make up over 30% of the prison population. . http://news.uchicago.edu... The 1% number is on the conservative end as well. Some psychologists have them at 4% of the population. These people will slice your throat and not feel an ounce of guilt about it the next day. Most of them probably won't do that, but they still account for a disproportionate amount if the violent crime taking place in the United States. Common sense tells you that with an increase in apathy about violence going on right in front of your face that more people inclined to commit violent acts will feel free to do so. We have what's called the bystander effect that occurs all the time and we keep seeing. New cases of it on television all the time. . http://m.psychologytoday.com... Bystander effect is actually where witnesses to a violent crime, do nothing to stop it or alert authorities to the situation. Sure some of this is caused by fear, but a large amount is caused by apathy. People just aren't bothered watching a man knock a woman's teeth out and take her purse. Psychopaths now feel safe committing violent acts in front of others due to the bystander effect. Another violent trend taking place across the United States is called "The Knockout Game". This is where a group of kids go around punching people as hard as they can in hopes of knocking them out. The targets are usually little old ladies or other defenseless people. . http://newyork.cbslocal.com... All it takes is one psychopath leading a bunch of desensitized teens just wanting to fit in, and committing the act of violence in front of a mixed crowd of desensitized and scared people. Half scared to step in the other half just isn't bothered by it. Desensitization creates a culture of violence. It makes people inclined to violence more likely to be violent and contributes by making violence less repulsive and by extension more acceptable. "The violence in video games isn't what actually causes violence. What really causes violence is various factors such as delinquent peers, depression, abusive family, and (as I have stressed on in my rebuttal) competition. Video games can give already aggressive individuals a way to release their aggression. Surprisingly, video games don't actually cause desensitization; moreover, desensitization hasn't been proven to cause violence. " Those things mentioned are certainly factors, but just as important a those things is the culture of violence caused by desensitization. I've already proven that violent simulations (aka videogames) contribute to more violence on the part of the government and. If we look at the numbers to see how many deaths the government participates in, we can see that is a huge number. I've also shown that the desensitization caused by violent video games contributes significantly in direct and indirect ways.

Violence in video games does not significantly contribute to real world violence. I'll do a couple short rebuttals and then move on to some voting issues.MY CASELogical Fallacy- Affirming a DisjunctMy opponent accuses me of using this logical fallacy throughout my case. The problem with this point is that in order for me to be using this fallacy, I would have to have no evidence which shows how video games do *not* cause violence. I have shown this in a couple places. First, lets look at my statistics point. There I illustrated that as video game sales have gone up, violence rates have gone down. This essentially makes mockery of the idea that violence in video games significantly contributes to violence. However, if you, as a reader, do not buy this point, I'll clarify for you a bit more in my next point. Second, look at my point which explains the aggression release coming from video games. This suggests that violence in video games can actually lower violence rates, which is supported by my statistics. Through these two points, I hope you will all see that I have not used this logical fallacy. Really, studies on video games alone have so many variables that could be causing violence. It is inaccurate to blame the violence variable for any aggression / legitimate crime that comes from gamers.Violence RatesMy opponent explains that even if violence goes down as video games sales go up, the violence in these games could still be significantly contributing to real world violence. I would agree with this. These statistics are mainly there to support my release of aggression point. This point also illustrates how unlikely it would be for violence in video games to actually be contributing to real world violence in a significant way. I don't think my chart covers the military kill rate (I will talk about this soon). Later on in the voting issues, I'll elaborate more on the idea of significance.Video Game's EffectsBasically, my opponent attacks my source, as opposed to my argument. I would agree that my source could be considered inaccurate; I'll go ahead and bring up a couple more points to further elaborate on the idea of violent video games being used to release aggression. My first source notes that 42% of boys play video games because it helps them release anger, and 65% of boys say these games help them relax (1). My Gilsdorf source elaborates, "If some of these men are hopelessly mentally ill, then we need to do all we can to prevent their access to real guns. But sane or depressed, many men feel powerless. Many feel angry. Many feel disengaged. They just want a stake in the action. Video games might be the best outlet they’ve got."OPPONENT'S CASENot Born to KillThe first thing to look at here is the difference between video games and these "killing sessions." My opponent essentially drops this argument. We have to realize that the video games kids are playing today are quite different from the simulations used in the army. Really, my opponent has only proved that military murder simulations increase violence in the military. This is not the topic we are currently debating. Even if these simulations could actually be compared to common video games today, these activities didn't make officers more willing to shoot because of desensitization (as a result of violence). The reason firing rates went up is because of the implementation of a method known as "point shooting." Point shooting was effective (even without a video simulation) because it was similar to real combat situations (3). Essentially, my opponent has yet to prove that these simulations are (a) similar to real video games and (b) the violence factor of this simulation actually causes violence.Desensitize MeMy opponent points out some flaws in my desensitization study. Here is why my study really is more accurate.1. My opponent's study has multiple variables since it involves the actual playing of a video game. Essentially, the competition factor is very present in this study. There is no way of knowing whether the violence, the desensitization, or the competition caused the willingness to push the button.2. The study basically admits that it shows a correlation, not a causation. Look at this quote directly from the study:"These relationships do not establish causality, as desensitized children with lower empathy may simply be more drawn to violent games, or a third factor, such as suboptimal parenting practices, may be responsible for this relationship. Potential mediating relationships should also be considered. For example, children who seek highly arousing experiences may be especially drawn to playing violent video games."and this quote: "Children’s estimated exposure to video game violence was not associated with aggression vignette responses."We can't look to a study with multiple variables that shows, at best, a correlation rather than a causation. My study further weakens this point by disproving the correlation between desensitization and violence in video games.My opponent also notes that while aggression is short lived, desensitization lasts a longer time. The thing is, since this study involves individuals actually playing some sort of a game. Obviously, spurts of aggression due to competition (or even violence) can be expected. Just remember, aggression is not the same thing as violence. Dr. BruceMy opponent brings up a new argument known as the "bystander" effect. He basically explains that this is caused by desensitization, and will ultimately contribute to real world violence. I'd like to make a couple points:1. The bystander effect is not a new thing. It has existed way before the time of violent video games. "In the famous 1964 “Kitty Genovese” incident, a young woman named Kitty Genovese was stabbed to death outside her home in Queens, New York. Many of Kitty’s neighbors heard her desperate screams for help, yet no one called the police until too late (4)." 2. Let's get to the real question, "What causes the effect?" The bystander effect is certainly not caused by desensitization. It is rather caused by a term known as "diffusion of responsibility." To clarify my source continues, "One reason that the bystander effect occurs is the social influence process known as “diffusion of responsibility”. Through numerous studies, psychologists have found that bystanders are less likely to intervene in emergency situations as the size of the group increases."We can safely conclude that violence in video games does not contribute to such a psychological phenomenon.CONCLUSIONLet me bring up a few points to summarize...1. My opponent has made no empirical claims. This is perhaps one of the most important points. He cannot prove video games significantly contribute to violence if he fails to provide any numbers which show "significance." Elaborating on what I said earlier on, all my opponent has shown is an increased kill rate in the military due to kill simulations. In reality, these simulations are not what promote the elevation of the kill rate, rather it is the new training methods (whether they involve videos or not).2. Video games don't cause desensitization. I have pointed out the various flaws in my opponents study. Essentially, there is no causation has been shown between desensitization and violence in video games.3. Other factors cause (at best) aggression. There are too many other variables in video games to pinpoint violence in video games as something that significantly contributes to real world violence.4. Video games can help release aggression. Hence, the lower violence rates. If you, as a reader, do not buy this argument, look to the fact that my opponent's case has not shown any significant contributions from violence in video games outside the military.5. Already violent people (or at least those who crave violent / arousing experiences) may play violent video games, hence the added violence from gamers. My opponent's desensitization study even suggests this... "Children who seek highly arousing experiences may be especially drawn to playing violent video games."For these reasons, vote pro!! Thanks to anyone who reads this :) (1) Cheryl Olson, Lawrence Kutner, Dorothy Warner, Jason Almerigi, Lee Baer, Armand Nicholi, and Eugene Beresin, "Factors Correlated with Violent Video Game Use by Adolescent Boys and Girls," Journal of Adolescent Health, July 2007(2) http://cognoscenti.wbur.org...(3) http://cdn.paladin-press.com...(4) http://heroicimagination.org...

Violent Video Games Lead to Real Violence (First Debate) I feel that violence in video games does not create the player to become a more violent person, nor does it lead to more crime in the world by its players. A study that Villanova and Rutgers University had published "found that when shooting game sales are at their highest, crime numbers tend to drop" (1). There was also a study done in 2010 that found that used 103 young adults to solve a frustration task in groups, with some playing video games and some not. They found "that the games had no impact on aggressive behavior whatsoever, and that the group which played no game at all was the most aggressive after the task, whereas the group that played the violent games were the least hostile and depressed" (2). Studies like this exemplify that well known saying, ""Correlation does not imply causation". (1) http://www.polygon.com... (2) http://www.forbes.com... (This is my first debate on this website so I might not do well/not know how to respond properly)

Violent or misleading video games or other media and content do not directly cause behavioral issues My opponent has forfeited. Full points now go to pro. However my arguments are extended and I am planning to argue in the last round, if my opponent returns.

Violent videogames cause violence in players Grand Theft Childhood was about the attacks on video games being incorrect/overstated. (http://www.amazon.com...) "Many violent games have become more realistic." I think that most people can still tell the difference. I would like to link to a brilliant video about how violent video games desensitizes us to violent video games, not real life violence. (http://www.escapistmagazine.com...) Addiction is not the same thing as violence. You can be addicted to anything non-violent video games, cheese, movies, books. To much of anything is a bad thing. I stated in my opening that aggression doesn't equal violence. I would like to do a full take down of this study, but I can not because my opponent has, again, not properly cited his sources. I therefore ask the voters to ignore this argument. Finally, on the assertion that the Columbine shooters played a lot of a (non-specified) violent video game. Here is some evidence that nullifies this point. "The overwhelming majority of kids who play do NOT commit antisocial acts. According to a 2001 U.S. Surgeon General's report, the strongest risk factors for school shootings centered on mental stability and the quality of home life, not media exposure." "Researchers find that people serving time for violent crimes typically consume less media before committing their crimes than the average person in the general population." (http://www.pbs.org...) Because my opponent failed to provide compelling arguments-and sources for those arguments he did make, while I did not I urge a Con vote.

Violent Video Games Hello and thank you for taking time to read this debate.For the purpose of clarification I will not state my intent to argue for the remainder of this debate. The Con will argue that the sale of violent video games to minors in the U.S. does not have a substantial effect on their actions and that there are other causes or reasons why young people commit violent acts.Here is my evidence.#1 - No connection between violence and games. Other causes like home life and and mental stability are the core.A PBS Report citing the findings of MIT Professor Henry Jenkins [1] "The overwhelming majority of kids who play do NOT commit antisocial acts. According to a 2001 U.S. Surgeon General's report, the strongest risk factors for school shootings centered on mental stability and the quality of home life, not media exposure. The moral panic over violent video games is doubly harmful. It has led adult authorities to be more suspicious and hostile to many kids who already feel cut off from the system. It also misdirects energy away from eliminating the actual causes of youth violence and allows problems to continue to fester." As we can see per the evidence there have been numerous studies AND in fact the surgeon general telling us that the exposure to violence based on video games is a factor that leads to violence. Compare this to my opponents evidence which is unobtainable so we cannot even test the validity of the entire study. As this is my opponents argument it is the only argument I need to win to win this debate but I will go ahead and provide more evidence bellow.#2 - Violent video games are in fact core to the development of children and their decision making skills.A PBS Report citing the findings of MIT Professor Henry Jenkins [1] "On April 19, 2002, U.S. District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh Sr. ruled that video games do not convey ideas and thus enjoy no constitutional protection. As evidence, Saint Louis County presented the judge with videotaped excerpts from four games, all within a narrow range of genres, and all the subject of previous controversy. Overturning a similar decision in Indianapolis, Federal Court of Appeals Judge Richard Posner noted: "Violence has always been and remains a central interest of humankind and a recurrent, even obsessive theme of culture both high and low. It engages the interest of children from an early age, as anyone familiar with the classic fairy tales collected by Grimm, Andersen, and Perrault are aware." Posner adds, "To shield children right up to the age of 18 from exposure to violent descriptions and images would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it." Many early games were little more than shooting galleries where players were encouraged to blast everything that moved. Many current games are designed to be ethical testing grounds. They allow players to navigate an expansive and open-ended world, make their own choices and witness their consequences. "This quote is long but meaningful as it holds multiple reasons as to why children have to be exposed to violent video games. As explained, the article cites a district judge who explains why we have to protect the rights of children in exposing them to violence and thus the consequences of actions. They become as Posner writes "The ethical testing grounds." and so should be accessible to children. To back up this claim the article cites Posner who justifies this exposure with reference to the violent nursery rythmes and fairytales we already tell our children. Thus if you find even the slightest moral, ethical or logical justification for exposing children to violence you vote con.#3 - Video games aren't desensitizing.A PBS Report citing the findings of MIT Professor Henry Jenkins [1] "Classic studies of play behavior among primates suggest that apes make basic distinctions between play fighting and actual combat. In some circumstances, they seem to take pleasure wrestling and tousling with each other. In others, they might rip each other apart in mortal combat. Game designer and play theorist Eric Zimmerman describes the ways we understand play as distinctive from reality as entering the "magic circle." The same action — say, sweeping a floor — may take on different meanings in play (as in playing house) than in reality (housework). Play allows kids to express feelings and impulses that have to be carefully held in check in their real-world interactions. Media reformers argue that playing violent video games can cause a lack of empathy for real-world victims. Yet, a child who responds to a video game the same way he or she responds to a real-world tragedy could be showing symptoms of being severely emotionally disturbed. "Despite what the pro tells you, video games aren't desensitizing. As the evidence above explains, video games aren't meant to stimulate real emotional responses and thus aren't meant to show that a kid is disturbed simply because he laughs at death in a simulation. In fact they act as a release to feelings that are normally oppressed in 'reality' culture today. This answers the pro's only claim to violence and is thus a reason to vote con.#4 - Studies that conclude that violence in video games lead to more violence in kids are biased.Staff of Science 2.0 Report on the findings of Professor Patrick Kierkegaard of the University of Essex. [2]"However, Kierkegaard explains, there is no obvious link between real-world violence statistics and the advent of video games. Despite several high profile incidents in US academic institutions, "Violent crime, particularly among the young, has decreased dramatically since the early 1990s," says Kierkegaard, "while video games have steadily increased in popularity and use. For example, in 2005, there were 1,360,088 violent crimes reported in the USA compared with 1,423,677 the year before. "With millions of sales of violent games, the world should be seeing an epidemic of violence," he says, "Instead, violence has declined." Research is inconclusive, emphasises Kierkegaard."The evidence goes a long way to win the con's because it states that really any study provided by the pro has no real world statistics to backup the nature of the findings and thus can only be limited to the theory which is invalid until there is evidence to support it.#5 - If your claim is true then why has the rise of video game sales been accompanied by a drop in violent crimes by children?Quote from Lawrence Kutner, PhD, and Cheryl K. Olson, ScD, co-founders of the Harvard Medical School Center for Mental Health [3]"It’s clear that the ‘big fears’ bandied about in the press - that violent video games make children significantly more violent in the real world; that children engage in the illegal, immoral, sexist and violent acts they see in some of these games - are not supported by the current research, at least in such a simplistic form. That should make sense to anyone who thinks about it. After all, millions of children and adults play these games, yet the world has not been reduced to chaos and anarchy."This statement and evidence is pretty damning to the case of my opponent because it poses a logical question that simply can't be answered by studies that are supposedly in support of the pro. This is because, as stated by the very qualified authors of my evidence, there has been no increase in violence even though violent video games are hot sellers. Thus there can be no conclusion for the pro because there is simply no real world proof.Thank you for your time and I look forward to my opponent's response!My Evidence (No abstract mining here)[1] - http://www.pbs.org...[2] - http://www.science20.com...[3] "Grand Theft Childhood: The Surprising Truth about Violent Video Games" by Lawrence Kutner, PhD, and Cheryl K. Olson, ScD, 2008.

Do Video Games Create Violence (Genius Hour) Video games do not cause children or any players to be violent, this is a myth. There are tons of studies that argue the case that video games are detrimental to our society but these studies only see and argue for one side of the spectrum.

Video Games cause violence The resolution: "Video games do not cause violence to a scale which is large enough to be worried about"In this debate, I will not argue that video games cause kids to get up and shoot/attack someone. Rather, I will argue that there is a correlation between violent behavior of any sort to violent video games. -------------------------A. Definitions and Clarifications1A - InformationThough my opponent would probably like me to argue that there is a definitive link between video games and murderous or extreme, I will instead focus on proving that there is a correlation between video games and worrisome violence as per my opponent's resolution. "Video Games DO NOT cause violence (Or at least not at a scale which is large enough to worry about. )"Thus, using these definitions, I will prove that Video Games have the potential and definitively have caused worrisome violence.1B - Assumption about the resolution"Video games" - I will assume that this is not in reference to all video games as my opponent failed to include "all" in his resolution of this indeed the case. Instead, I will assume that the resolution suggests that "Video games with violent themes or otherwise aggressive content in them do not cause violence", as it would be pointless to debate over whether games like Mario Kart or Angry Birds cause violence. That would be extremely redundant.1C - The Definition of ViolenceViolence is not limited to actions which result in the imminent harm of another person. vi·o·lence [vahy-uh-luhns] noun 1. swift and intense force: the violence of a storm. 2. rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment: to die by violence. 3. an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws: to take over agovernment by violence 4. a violent act or proceeding. 5. rough or immoderate vehemence, as of feeling or language: the violence of his hatred. B. ArgumentsB1 - Violent Video Games cause worrisome violence, and all violence is worrisomeMost especially in youth, the exertion of noticeable or otherwise untriggered violence is abnormal and signatory of deviation in the proper growth and functioning of their brain. If someone exhibits violent behaviour, then that should be inherently major enough for those who care about them to consider as "big enough to worry about". For that reason, I dismiss the "big enough to worry about" part of pro's resolution. In the linked video, you will see adolescents, children, and even adults exhibiting behavior that can be considered to be "violent" as a result of video gaming. B2 - Those who benefit from video games and never exhibit violence even though they play them are irrelevant to the resolutionMy opponent has presented me with the resolution that:"Video Games DO NOT cause violence (Or at least not at a scale which is large enough to worry about. )Scientests have found however there are many benifits to video games such as socialisation increased reflexes etc. "Whilst it is true that in certain cases video games can bring benefits like increased reflexes, the resolution is over whether violent video games are one of the many possible causes of violence, not whether video games cause violence in every instance. Comparison:"Being abused as a child most definitely is a contributing cause to future violence, but not in every instance. The fact that abuse as a child does not result in violence in every instance makes it no less of a cause for those who are violent as a result of it"This concept can be applied to video games. B3 - The APA attributes that video games have the potential to cause violence in some youthsYouth who are troubled or have anger issues have been widely attributed to being triggered into versions of violence by video games [3]Some people obviously experience benefits from playing video games (including myself) and have a sense of control, but for those who do not, video games pose as an extreme risk and inevitable cause/trigger of violence. The article in which I use as a source is actually in favour of the usage of video games amongst children, as am I. However, it also attributes that video games cause violence in some adolescents. Even if the benefits of video games outweigh the negatives, video games still can be attributed as a cause of violent behavior for a significant portion of people. The article contains a wide variety of content that is rightfully "in favour of video games", however, since violence is the only result of video games being discussed, their statements regarding it as an effect for some people prove it to be a cause. --References--[1] - (. http://dictionary.reference.com...)[2] - (. http://www.apa.org...) moreso about TV violence but also applicable to video games[3] - (. http://www.apa.org...)