Violent Video Games [Manoflooks vs. {BHC}Warman888]

[Manoflooks]

Note:Both me and Warman take the same stance that violent video games do not cause violence, but for the sake of the debate I will be debating that video games do cause violence.


I, believe that, based on evidence and common sense, that violent video games, such as GTA, do cause real violence. How could a game that fully encompasses the murder of innocent civilians and portrays violence and destruction as "cool" not cause people to change their mindset about such activities?

[Manoflooks]

That entire link is to prove that it is true...

Myth 1. Violent video game research has yielded very mixed results.
Facts: Some studies have yielded nonsignificant video game effects, just as some smoking studies failed to find a significant link to lung cancer. But when one combines all relevant empirical studies using meta-analytic techniques, five separate effects emerge with considerable consistency. Violent video games are significantly associated with: increased aggressive behavior, thoughts, and affect; increased physiological arousal; and decreased prosocial (helping) behavior. Average effect sizes for experimental studies (which help establish causality) and correlational studies (which allow examination of serious violent behavior) appear comparable (Anderson & Bushman, 2001).
Myth 6. There are no studies linking violent video game play to serious aggression.
Facts: High levels of violent video game exposure have been linked to delinquency, fighting at school and during free play periods, and violent criminal behavior (e.g., self-reported assault, robbery).
Myth 7. Violent video games affect only a small fraction of players.
Facts: Though there are good theoretical reasons to expect some populations to be more susceptible to violent video game effects than others, the research literature has not yet substantiated this. That is, there is not consistent evidence for the claim that younger children are more negatively affected than adolescents or young adults or that males are more affected than females. There is some evidence that highly aggressive individuals are more affected than nonaggressive individuals, but this finding does not consistently occur. Even nonaggressive individuals are consistently affected by brief exposures. Further research will likely find some significant moderators of violent video game effects, because the much larger research literature on television violence has found such effects and the underlying processes are the same. However, even that larger literature has not identified a sizeable population that is totally immune to negative effects of media violence.
Myth 8. Unrealistic video game violence is completely safe for adolescents and older youths.
Facts: Cartoonish and fantasy violence is often perceived (incorrectly) by parents and public policy makers as safe even for children. However, experimental studies with college students have consistently found increased aggression after exposure to clearly unrealistic and fantasy violent video games. Indeed, at least one recent study found significant increases in aggression by college students after playing E-rated (suitable for everyone) violent video games.'
Myth 9. The effects of violent video games are trivially small.
Facts: Meta-analyses reveal that violent video game effect sizes are larger than the effect of second hand tobacco smoke on lung cancer, the effect of lead exposure to I.Q. scores in children, and calcium intake on bone mass. Furthermore, the fact that so many youths are exposed to such high levels of video game violence further increases the societal costs of this risk factor (Rosenthal, 1986).
Most such models take a social cognitive view of human aggression, integrating social learning theory, advances in cognitive psychology, script theory, developmental theories, and biological influences. Using such general models, media violence scholars now have a clear picture of how media violence increases aggression in short and long term contexts. Immediately after exposure to media violence, there is an increase in aggressive behavior tendencies because of several factors. 1. Aggressive thoughts increase, which in turn increase the likelihood that a mild or ambiguous provocation will be interpreted in a hostile fashion. 2. Aggressive affect increases. 3. General arousal (e.g., heart rate) increases, which tends to increase the dominant behavioral tendency. 4. Direct imitation of recently observed aggressive behaviors sometimes occurs.
Repeated media violence exposure increases aggression across the lifespan because of several related factors. 1. It creates more positive attitudes, beliefs, and expectations regarding use of aggressive solutions. 2. It creates aggressive behavioral scripts and makes them more cognitively accessible. 3. It decreases the accessibility of nonviolent scripts. 4. It decreases the normal negative emotional reactions to conflict, aggression, and violence.

Just what I think is the most important.

Why on earth would you post that link? Did you read it first?


Yes, I know all about the Columbine shootings, and all the other school shootings. But the video games were certainly a factor in the deadly equation.


I can also talk about a number of instances video games cause violence.


There are a number of incidents where the parents took away the game or console, and the child went on to shoot the parents. The game, or the games they played most, were almost always violent.



Warman conceded, debate over.

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2008...ot_dad_ov.html

Now, obviously he had some mental problems, due to being homestuck.And the dad was an idiot for putting the gun with the game. He was obviously influenced by the game, and its violence, although addiction was certainly a factor as well.

[ELITEOFKINGWARMAN8]

Good Job with this debate !

[Manoflooks]

It was fun indeed.

[ELITEOFKINGWARMAN8]

I, believe that video games do not cause violent behavior. Common sense. Anyone logical person knows it is a game, and you should not attempt it in real life. If we are to start restrciting violence in games, then how about books,movies, and even cartoons! When you watch a cartoon, depending on what it is, they sometimes are hitting each other and so on. Yet this is "kid stuff". But if Violence cause in video games, even in ones like Pokemon, a outrage is going on.

[Manoflooks]

I, believe that video games do not cause violent behavior. Common sense. Anyone logical person knows it is a game, and you should not attempt it in real life. If we are to start restrciting violence in games, then how about books,movies, and even cartoons! When you watch a cartoon, depending on what it is, they sometimes are hitting each other and so on. Yet this is "kid stuff". But if Violence cause in video games, even in ones like Pokemon, a outrage is going on.

You seem to be confusing the term of violence with the term generally accepted for it in video games. Cartoon violence is just that: cartoon. Seriously, from watching Spongbob hit squidward with a giant inflatable hammer, do you ever get the urge to go hit a talking blue squid, or even a regular human? Violence in video games that people have a problem with is the games like GTA, Turok, and all the others that have people going up and running people through with chainsaws, shooting pedestrians in the street, and having drive-bys. People find this fun in the game, and, even if subconsciously, they think this might be fun to try in real life. And sometimes, they do.


Another reason in the desentisitization of people and kids. As Dracula(user, above)stated, people dont feel quite the same emotion looking at gore and carnage and massacres. This can serve to make people not appreciate what a human life means and, in effect, make them hurt or kill someone because they don't think it will be that bad(subconsciously).

[ELITEOFKINGWARMAN8]

You seem to be confusing the term of violence with the term generally accepted for it in video games. Cartoon violence is just that: cartoon. Seriously, from watching Spongbob hit squidward with a giant inflatable hammer, do you ever get the urge to go hit a talking blue squid, or even a regular human? Violence in video games that people have a problem with is the games like GTA, Turok, and all the others that have people going up and running people through with chainsaws, shooting pedestrians in the street, and having drive-bys. People find this fun in the game, and, even if subconsciously, they think this might be fun to try in real life. And sometimes, they do.


Another reason in the desentisitization of people and kids. As Dracula(user, above)stated, people dont feel quite the same emotion looking at gore and carnage and massacres. This can serve to make people not appreciate what a human life means and, in effect, make them hurt or kill someone because they don't think it will be that bad(subconsciously).

But we are talking about young children here. What is the age range for that show? About 6-10, maybe up to 11 or 12 at the most for the prime demographic? A lot of children between 5 or 6 up to about 8 might think it is funny, to hit someone on purpose. What if they see SpongeBob do that on many occsions? They may not hit "Johnny" with a hammer, but may rough around with him more then he should.

s Dracula(user, above)stated, people dont feel quite the same emotion looking at gore and carnage and massacres.

Because it is a video game! Video games are not real. What take place in them does not occur in the real life scene. A lot of kids already know this. All of adults know this. In real life, if you saw a massarce and/or gore, what you would do? How will you react? Maybe throw up? Be scared? Sure you would. But would you feel like that in a video game? No, most people do not.

http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/c...goldstein.html

A website you should visit.

[Manoflooks]

But we are talking about young children here. What is the age range for that show? About 6-10, maybe up to 11 or 12 at the most for the prime demographic? A lot of children between 5 or 6 up to about 8 might think it is funny, to hit someone on purpose. What if they see SpongeBob do that on many occsions? They may not hit "Johnny" with a hammer, but may rough around with him more then he should.

And I have no problem with that. They're kids, theyre supposed to wrestle and play around and have some fun hitting each other. Violence is, as I said, meaning shooting, killing, severely injuring. No one ever got hurt from wrestling for fun(not seriously or purposely anyway)

Because it is a video game! Video games are not real. What take place in them does not occur in the real life scene. A lot of kids already know this. All of adults know this. In real life, if you saw a massarce and/or gore, what you would do? How will you react? Maybe throw up? Be scared? Sure you would. But would you feel like that in a video game? No, most people do not.

http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/c...goldstein.html

A website you should visit.

What I meant was that it desentitizes people to that kind of stuff happening in real life. From playing gory games that show people getting cut in half, and shooting people from behind randomly, people don't feel quite as strongly as they would otherwise. Which can have serious repercussions.

On the website, I don't really trust it. It says that no tests can really prove it "

In laboratory experiments, no one plays. Being required to play a violent video game on demand is no one’s idea of an entertainment experience. It is like being forced to listen to someone else’s favorite music; it sounds like noise.
Almost no studies of violent video games have considered how and why people play them, or why people play at all. Experimental research does not recognize the fact that video game players freely engage in play, and are always free to stop. They enter an imaginary world with a playful frame of mind, something entirely missing from laboratory studies of violent video games. One of the pleasures of play is this very suspension of reality. Laboratory experiments cannot tell us what the effects of playing video games are, because there is no sense in which participants in these studies "play."

yet, later on it goes on to cite some laboratory tests that prove video games dont cause violence. It doesnt seem to be out to prove that video games dont cause violence, rather that some of the tests are not really working.


You should read this. It has a lot of good sources too.

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1723










@ Dracula

Rule # 8. Only the combatants are allowed to post in the debate thread. All commentary, and any other comments by non-combatants , go in the appropriate parallel Commentary Thread which will be opened by the local moderators and can be found in the Commentary sub-forum.

[ELITEOFKINGWARMAN8]

And I have no problem with that. They're kids, theyre supposed to wrestle and play around and have some fun hitting each other. Violence is, as I said, meaning shooting, killing, severely injuring. No one ever got hurt from wrestling for fun(not seriously or purposely anyway)

There are cases, though rare, however, where young kids actually will go into a school with a handgun and kill a fellow student by accident or at home because the kid thinks it is cool to have a gun.

Is it from Video Games? No. Hell, When I was young, I used to like guns to. But I know better then to touch one, or my Grandfather an/or Uncle and/or Father would smack me outside my head ().



Good link, but I already know more then enough about Columbine, Red Lake, VT Tech, Amish School Shooting (in my homestate of PA), Heath High school and others.

These Kids (or the Adult in the case of the Amish shooting) were mentally ill already. Violent Games may not help, sure. But it doesn't cause them to go killing 13 kills or 32 kids,etc....



Here is a good link you should read also.

http://www.apa.org/science/psa/sb-anderson.html