Debates of all sorts discussion

Should we make it even harder to buy violent video games?

I get tired of people using video games, music, and movies as scapegoats. Even if a video game, song, or particular movie "triggered" something, then surely that individual was not "stable" to begin with?

A lot of people also don't question parenting. It's always "let's rummage and see what music and videos games they played" etc. But not the people who raised the kid? Sure, bad parenting can sometimes be obvious. But even the I'm-not-abusive-but-I'm-a-crappy-parent parent can impact a child.

Something I like to refer to:
The Columbine shootings shook a lot of people up, and the people covering the massacre wanted to point fingers. They wanted immediate answers. For some reason, they decided to link it to the music of Marilyn Manson. As it turns out, the shooters didn't really listen to his music. And they weren't involved with a trenchcoat mafia. But let's blame the weirdo rockstar because people will believe it and latch onto it ..

I agree, besides not all video games are just violent killing, some have amazing story lines (rpg's... I'm a nerd shut up :P) and the violence, the violence is what brings me there and the story line is what keeps me coming back for more. Now everyone isn't like me and some basically do just like the killing portion but not all games are like that. I love video games they're an underdog of culture that is really under appreciated go play any good rpg and you'll see that clearly.

(nah, don't worry. I fancy rpgs when I can find some that works with my OS and that I can really get into)

One of my friends fancies the Legend of Zelda games, saying that she likes to take a break from her studying to play those games. Apparently they make her feel a little less stress out. Any thoughts about that?

Note: I'm not a hard-core gamer. No console games .. if any, PC.

Legend of Zelda is a fun game... and yes I agree it's a pretty good stress reliever.

I don't play video games in general (Guitar Hero with my friend when I'm for some reason still at her house at 2 am being the almost sole exception :P) but honestly, video games (or music, or movies) don't affect your psyche that much. They won't give you much original ideas; like Tenebris said, if it 'causes' something, the seed was already there.

I've actually taken battles I've fought in video games and tweaked them then wrote about them lol.

I think it's kind of illogical when people blame violent video games for actual violence. People say things like, "Oh, this kid shot twenty people because he was into playing violent video games." More likely, the kid was attracted to playing those games because (s)he had a violent nature.

Cody wrote: "Should we make it even harder to buy violent video games?"

I think video games are fun. Violent ones I don't care for, but to waste lots of money to blow zombies' brains and watch the guts fly is retarded. Maybe its because I'm a girl...

And media, music, video games, etc can be sources for violnce. Like my sisters and I watch this show called Merlin (Its awesome and anyone who bashes is insane) and it has swords and such in it. My brother watched a few episodes with me and now he loves to use his plastic golf club as a sword. He calls himself Arthur lol ((Arthur is the main charrie with the sword.))

But hey, its not my fault. Its Merlin's lolol. *sarcasm


If the kid doesn't have the maturity to handle the game, dont buy it for him/her.

Kids can mimic what they see, but usually it happens with younger kids. Up until the age of 25, our brains are constantly developing. The older, the less guidance, the more choices, the more mature, etc. When I was a kid, I always watched semi-violent cartoons and my parents would constantly remind me that hurting others for humor is not right. If you never showed a child that, then they might grow up thinking that hurt = humor. Studies have shown that our modern-day abusers and bullies feel power and rewarding feelings in a certain part of their brain when they hurt others or see others hurt. Sick, right?

It's all up to the individual. I think restricting games just because of the content is silly. We should probably have another debate about movie ratings .. because I think those can be a bit off, too.

Nope .. I know some girls who really dig that kind of thing when it comes to games.

I have no time for games, but some games look really interesting.

Tenebris In Lux wrote: "Kids can mimic what they see, but usually it happens with younger kids. Up until the age of 25, our brains are constantly developing. The older, the less guidance, the more choices, the more matu..."

I was aiming more for the teenagers. I dont know any person over the age of 25 who plays violent video games.

I know people in their mid 30s or 40s who love games like Call of Duty.

Oh. Well, I don't.

Oh and personally I'm just against cencorship. And I also really get sick of people who say video games are all shooting things and nothing else. Play Elder Scrolls 4: Oblivion for an hour and tell me that. That game has a huge complex story line with humdreds of sub plots.

The games, obviously, are not innocent of the blame. But getting rid of violent video games will not decrease violence. Look at this: in the 16-15-1700's we had much, much more violence and no video games :P

All the games do is help influence the mind, they don't create a mind.

I pledge for a censorship debate topic!! :-P

That would be interesting!

Whoop!

Mello wrote: "The games, obviously, are not innocent of the blame. But getting rid of violent video games will not decrease violence. Look at this: in the 16-15-1700's we had much, much more violence and no vide..."

One could argue that video games help us get out our violent instincts through simulation, which is why there was more violence before video games were invented. :]

Anyway, I understand how a lot of video games glorify violence. But I still think someone would have to be a rather unstable person to begin with if video games make them eager to legitimately kill people. I mean, I personally could play all the violent video games in the world but I know I would never kill another person.

Although, I don't really play "hard core" games (basically it's things like LoZ, Final Fantasy, Kingdom Hearts, the occasional Onimusha), play I don't really think playing a violent video game will make you violent. If you're already violent to begin with, playing games that glorifies violence might cause you to be MORE violent, possibly, but I don't think banning violent video games will change anything.

Heck, I first played Onimusha when I was...eight? Nine? I'm not at all violent.

Although, I kind of disagree with games that involve past wars; especially ones where you can choose to play at the enemy of your own nation and kill your country's soldiers. But that's a different matter.

Brigid *Flying Kick-a-pow!* wrote: "Mello wrote: "The games, obviously, are not innocent of the blame. But getting rid of violent video games will not decrease violence. Look at this: in the 16-15-1700's we had much, much more violen..."

Hm, that too.

...I'm not here posting am I? Wait what is this? 2 years certainly go by quick don't they, guess what I just did for Clare 111 class. I wrote a paper on violent video games, I also did a speech on video games in general for my public speaking class but I can't show that here. But maybe you should read this position paper if you're interested in this topic? Yes I think you should.

I take the position that violent video games cause no harm and they should not be banned. It is thought that violent video games cause children to become more violent as they play them thus leading to increased physical violence but this is simply not the case. When the average mentally sound child plays violent video games there is no support that shows that they will become a physically violent person. There is some support that there would be an increase in short term aggression but there is no support that any long term actual physical violent effects take place. Unstable children who engage in violent video games may become violent but these are extreme cases and should not affect whether they are banned or not as it is very rare. "Violent video games are like peanut butter," says Christopher J. Ferguson, of Texas A&M International University. "They are harmless for the vast majority of kids but are harmful to a small minority with pre-existing personality or mental health problems."
Ferguson says in another article he wrote titled: Video Games: the Latest Scapegoat for Violence:
“I actually do research on violent video games. I certainly don't speak for others in the field, some of whom I know will disagree with my perspective, but I do speak from a familiarity with the research and the literature. One meta-analysis of video-game studies, conducted this year by John Sherry, of Michigan State University, found little support for the belief that playing violent games causes aggression. Recently I completed my own meta-analytic review (published in the journal Aggression and Violent Behavior) of 25 violent-game studies and found that publication bias and the use of poor and unstandardized measures of aggression were significant problems for this area of research.”
Video games are a scapegoat that people are using to blame for violence because they cannot find another reason. Studies that tell of video games causing violence are works of bias and bad standards. This is caused because of a political environment that wants a culprit in cases like school shootings which leads to phony science done in a way to make it seem real.
So to put my argument in a form of syllogism to make it easy to understand.
Violent video games when played by the average mentally sound child cause no harm, put no one at the risk of harm, nor do they intend to cause harm
Things that cause no harm, put no one at risk of harm, nor intend to cause harm should not be banned
Violent video games when played by the average mentally sound child should not be banned
I see no problem with that syllogism logically so I will continue to counter the counter views on the truth statements.
Former FBI profiler Mary Ellen O'Toole told to CBS News at one point that "It's my experience that video games do not cause violence...It's important that I point out that as a threat assessment and as a former FBI profiler, we don't see these as the cause violence,...We see them as sources of fueling ideation that's already there." This quote by O'Toole tells of how video games are really irrelevant to criminal activity, completely harmless when played by the mentally sound individual but could possibly spark something when played by the already disturbed mind. From a legal perspective this is not enough in the question of whether or not something should or shouldn't be banned.
A study titled “VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES AND AGGRESSION Causal Relationship or Byproduct of Family Violence and Intrinsic Violence Motivation?” which compared other possible effects on what may make someone violent to video games said this” Results indicated a positive predictive relationship, R = .47 (R2 = .22), which was statistically significant, F(10, 411) = 11.62, p ≤ .001. Male gender (–b = 1.62) and exposure to physical abuse (β = .22) were significant predictors of violent criminal behavior, as was trait aggression (β = .25) and the perception of parental affection (β = .11). The interaction between trait aggression and video game exposure was also a significant predictor (β = .19), whereas direct exposure to violent video games itself was not”
The most relevant point that the counter side to my arguments bring up that can be factually shown is that they do cause short term aggression. This I agree with, it was shown well in 2010 when Brad Bushman ran a meta-analysis called "VVG Effects on Aggression, Empathy, and Prosocial Behavior in Western and Eastern Countries: A Meta-Analytic Review." on some 130,000 participants that concluded that there is indeed a link between video games and aggression. However short term aggression does not cause harm. In any way shape or form. Short term aggression is meaningless unless the person physically hurts something, and if that does happen it is the person's fault, not the video game's.
I would also like to argue that video games are actually a beneficial part of society, there is a possible correlation that Ferguson points out between violence and video games, but the opposite of what you might think. He says they may actually decrease violence. Child violence is currently at the lowest levels it has been in 40 years Ferguson says, and video games are becoming more and more violent. Violent video games may actually be giving otherwise violent children another outlet and actually stopping violence.
Through the research I've done, I would say that I can see no reason why violent video games should be banned. Video games are merely being used as a scapegoat to take the blame, just as Marilyn Manson's music was used several years ago. In the words of Ferguson in his Video Games: the Latest Scapegoat for Violence:
“...Nervous people like reassurance. We would like to think that such events can be explained, predicted, and prevented. We like scientists and politicians who stand up and claim to have the answers so that we can fix the problem.
The difficulty is that this often leads to a witch hunt or moral panic, wherein explanations rely on weak social science or what is politically expedient. In past centuries, a variety of art forms have taken the blame for society's problems. From literature to religious texts, to jazz, rock 'n' roll, and rap, to television, movies, and comic books, people have viewed various media as being responsible for personal failings, as if such media were like the serpent in the Garden of Eden, leading us astray from our natural goodness. Increasingly, in the past two decades, video games have been the scapegoat du jour. The video-game platform is the newest kid on the media block and, as such, is subject to a particularly high dose of suspicion and scrutiny. I think that this is wrong and, indeed, dangerous.”
Thus through all my evidence presented I do believe my argument is a sound one, both logically and factually.