Chissler vs Semperfortis
"The emergence of the digital ego has contributed to youth crime in North America".
Semper’s Reply #1
I don’t believe I have ever debated anyone and not had them try this trick. Perhaps however, this is the most flagrant display I have yet
My opponent has openly stated in his first reply that it has in fact contributed to youth crime.
Originally posted by semperfortis
I will concede from the beginning that there have been incidents that have occurred where a youth has committed crime due to or significantly effected
by some digital influence.
You presumed that we would agree that we're talking about overall trends, but I see one subject matter in play here.
As so many of the more recent debates have digressed into combat over who has the more accurate definition, I thought a reasonable defining of the
topic material was in order. Especially as it was my opponent who picked out and worded the topic. Was I wrong in assuming all of us want a reasonable
If my opponent is to argue that if he can prove one instance
where anything connected with the internet is directly related to any one
of criminal behavior, and thus prove his point, well how silly is that?
If that is my opponent’s contention, we may as well stop the debate here.
I can show you one instance where an apple was the cause of criminal behavior, a Barbie doll, piece of chalk, or the internet. Of course my opponent
can show you where a single incident of crime is the direct result of some form of digital influence.
I thought this was going to be a real debate over a real issue.
As I had hoped for such a debate, I will continue with my previous premise, which all of you can clearly see is not contradictory and I will dispense
with the arbitrary battle over definitions and provide for you at least one side of a good debate. It is my hope that my opponent will join me.
It is true that some statistics show a consistent drop in numbers. What my opponent fails to state is that a drop in numbers was unavoidable
given the huge increase throughout the 90's. What goes up must come down, at some point. So this could be correct, in a sense.
No it is more than correct “in a sense
, it is correct period.
What better place to start than the “Center on Criminal and Juvenile Justice”?
Here is a graph on youth crime in the 12 largest counties in California. This comparison has been proven to be directly reflective of the country as a
As you can clearly see I have completely debunked my opponents assertions in regards to Youth Crime Rates and his “HUGE INCREASE THROUGHOUT THE
Yet my opponent goes on to “cover his bases” by stating this.
A drop in statistics indicates one thing, fewer crimes being reported. It doesn't mean fewer crimes, it means fewer crimes reported. And
later in this reply I will examine how statistics can not always be considered accurate. But it should be emphasized that the digital ego can be
contributing to crime, even though statistics may show a decrease in reported crimes.
My opponent is apparently going to argue that only his statistics are correct and that any I post are merely indicative of “unreported” crimes,
well again, my opponent wishes to debate fantasy and not real life. This is simply another debate tactic so common and yet so transparent. As you will
see, I will post scientific statistical data to refute my opponent’s opinions.
We may always ASSUME
something is incorrect because it does not fit within our little world of accepted facts, but in so doing we turn from
fact and as my opponent is doing, make up excuses and his own numbers.
The graph I have provided you and the site provided, is a scientific work. It should not be “explained” away simply because it does not fit
But what my friend is failing to grasp is how impressionable the mind of a youth is, which is not my opinion, but is a fact. The human brain
is one of the slower maturing parts of our body. Teenagers make uninformed, abrupt, and careless decisions every day. They do today, just as they
have in the past.
I am going to address what I was referencing here in a moment, but first let me draw your attention to this little tidbit.
They do today, just as they have in the past
If my opponent is confident about this assertion, where is his argument? Has he not come out and supported my side of this debate?
If teens are doing just as they have in the past, as my esteemed opponent has stated, then how is it this new
digital ego is making any impact
I would present to all of you that apparently my opponent agrees with my side of the debate.
My opponent apparently has some problem with my statement here.
Originally posted by semperfortis
We will examine the “excuse” syndrome currently very active in our society; the phenomenon of refusing to take responsibility for our actions;
choosing instead to blame someone or something such as a Digital Ego.
Reading and rereading his post, I believe he thought I was referring to the child not taking responsibility. Perhaps I should not so readily assume my
thought process is going to be followed so allow me to explain to you what I meant my valued opponent.
Aunts, Uncles and other members of the family group. ETC
Those people that are directly responsible for the care and well being of the children we are discussing.
Those same caregivers that refuse to take responsibility for their failures in caring for the children and instead choose to sit back and blame the
internet, games or the digital ego. Failing that, I am sure they will turn their blame on the government. It can’t simply be their fault after all.
Apparently a renowned Senior Educational Psychologist with the West Sussex Youth Offending Team agrees with me:
Yet good parenting is one of the key ways to prevent serious problems, including youth crime.
You will notice that no where in that research does anyone blame a video game for bad parenting.
My opponent’s assertion that the maturity level of the human brain is in part responsible for criminal behavior in youths is completely supported by
me. In fact it goes a long way to proving my point.
If you look at my opponent’s own link and this one:
It is very clear and yet not once is the “digital ego”,
“internet” or any other subject related to the debate mentioned.
I ask my opponent this:
Are you arguing the “age of the brain” or the “digital ego” is to blame for youthful criminal behavior? Please clarify.
My opponent states that in 2003, 5570 young people were murdered. ETC.
But what do the numbers he is posting actually mean?
Offending rates for children under age 14 increased in the late 1980's and early 1990's, but fell to the lowest level recorded in 2003.
You will notice that as we move into the “Digital Age”, the offending rates for children fell to the lowest levels.
If the digital age has done anything, it has apparently helped to reduce crime. Notice my friends, not a single shock number, but accurate statistics
from a certified source.
As we progress I will show you where the Department of Justice, Department of Juvenile Justice and many other organizations contribute the vast
majority of violent crime committed by youthful offenders to the rise in drug use, drug sales and gangs.
My opponent would have you believe that violent video games are causing our young people to become foaming at the mouth zombies.
I would ask if any of you have watched an old Bug Bunny Cartoon, or Road Runner. Violent? Absolutely.
Is my opponent going to contend that the majority of youthful violence in the 50’s is because of Bugs Bunny or the Road Runner?
My opponent’s Brain Maturation and Online Gaming have been effectively debunked as root causes of violence in general and youthful violence
As for his contradiction assumption, I certainly hope that you the readers of this debate, can see thorough this and come to the same
conclusion I have; the only conclusion possible. That in order to win the debate, my opponent is willing to sacrifice research, dedicated opinions and
intellectual property in exchange for a trick of debate titling and semantics.
I came here to debate folks and I still think that debating the intent of the topic, using common sense and research is far better than winning by
using semantics and ignoring the topic all together.
So I will finish here by asking my opponent again his intentions.
Dear valued opponent,
Is it your intention to argue that any one single instance of youth violence that can be contributed to anything digital, to include the internet,
digital egos or games, is conclusive proof of your debate?
Are you going to continue to argue semantics and ignore the real debate?
I would appreciate it if you would advise me of your intentions.
As the debate title is this:
The emergence of the digital ego has contributed to youth crime in North America
And I have already effectively shown where, as of the emergence of the digital ego, crime rates among youths have actually decreased. Therefore the
digital ego has not impacted youth crime or contributed to it in any significant amount.