The topic for this debate is "Playing "M" Rated Video Games Has a Direct Negative Impact on Minors"

Heike will be arguing the pro position.
FSBlueApocalypse will argue the con position and will open the debate.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

There is a 10,000 character limit per post.

Any character count in excess of 10,000 will be deleted prior to the judging process.

Editing is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images and must have no more than 3 references.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post. Each individual post may contain up to 10 sentences of external source material, totaled from all external sources.

Links to multiple pages within a single domain count as 1 reference but there is a maximum of 3 individual links per reference, then further links from that domain count as a new reference. Excess quotes and excess links will be removed before judging.

The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.

When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.

This Is The Time Limit Policy:
Each debater must post within 24 hours of the timestamp on the last post. If your opponent is late, you may post immediately without waiting for an announcement of turn forfeiture. If you are late, you may post late, unless your opponent has already posted.

Each debater is entitled to one extension of 24 hours. The request should be posted in this thread and is automatically granted- the 24 hour extension begins at the expiration of the previous deadline, not at the time of the extension request.

In the unlikely event that tardiness results in simultaneous posting by both debaters, the late post will be deleted unless it appears in its proper order in the thread.

Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.



[edit on 11/9/2008 by semperfortis]

[edit on 11/12/2008 by semperfortis]

Video games have come a long way since Pong. The first video game consoles could put a dozen or so pixels on screen at any given time. Current video game consoles can create living breathing worlds with seemingly endless boundaries, as seen in games such as Grand Theft Auto IV and Far Cry 2. As technology progressed, games moved from simple ideas such as Pong and Pac-Man, games took players to far off worlds of fantasy and Science Fiction. In addition, as a result of new technology, games were able to show off things much more complex than before. Perhaps the biggest controversy to hit the industry was a triple whammy of new, and at the time ultra violent games. The early 90’s saw the release of classic PC First Person Shooters ,Doom and Quake, along with the classic arcade fighter, Mortal Kombat. These three games, more than any other led to the creation of the modern video games rating system that is in effect today. While there is one rating higher than M, AO(Adults Only), it is seen as an equivalent kiss of death as an NC-17 rating is for a film, and as such no mainstream game has been released with that rating.
First, allow me to define what constitutes getting an M rated game. The M(Mature 17+) rating can be given out for any of the following reasons, high amount of sexual content, gore, high amount of violence, adult themes, language, etc. These games aren’t designed for younger children to play, and studies have shown almost all don’t. However, one group does stand out, boys in the range from 13-17.
What games is this group most likely playing? A particular favorite is First Person Shooters(from here on out referred to as either FPS or FPS’) such as Halo or Call of Duty. Action games such as God of War and Devil May Cry. In addition, the mother of all controversial series, the Grand Theft Auto series is a favorite. If news reports are to be believed, these games are transforming your 14 year old into a carjacking killer with no sense of remorse.

Sadly sensationalist media has blown this idea that children are being corrupted by video games has been blown out of proportion. Of the several news reports I can think of include Fox News outright lying about the content in the game, Mass Effect. In the game, if a player forms a relationship with a specific female character in the game the ending of that relationship will be them having sex. The scene showing this was done very tastefully and the most you see if one second of a CGI butt cheek. Fox News’ description was that the player could choose to have sex with anyone in the game at their choosing and fully control the actions of the character during sex.
In addition, news reports would have you believe that kids are becoming addicted to video games and that they are basing crimes of missions. However, I ask you this, how many times do you hear of these reports documented on the news? Already there have been cries to take Grand Theft Auto 4 off store shelves because a group of teens were reportedly going to base a robbery off a mission. I ask you this, Grand Theft Auto 4 has sold almost ten million copies since its release in April. If it truly was a tool to turn people into violence, shouldn’t more people already be turning into criminals?

Simply put, almost every major study done on the subject has shown that minors are not directly affected by playing M rated video games.

Member Quit Fight Club

[edit on 11/12/2008 by semperfortis]

In the finest tradition of Fight Club

Fighter FSBlueApocalypse did not want to win in such a manner.

Fighter Heike is stepping in to complete the debate..

I am impressed yet once again with the professionalism and pride in Fight Club!!!

Way to go

Semper

With respect to added Desensitizing to video games, studies have been published numerous times on the subject in by organizations such as the Harvard School of Medicine and the New England Journal of Medicine that have cited there is no concern able link between violent video games and aggressive behavior. In addition, studies that have claimed to find links have been criticized for their methodology. They often take events out of context and just expose the violence itself. Imagine being presented the opening scene of “Saving Private Ryan” with no context to it. It is the same idea with video game violence.

In addition, with the US military, video games are only part of a much larger program for recruits. In addition, many of those “Video games” involve far more than a mouse and keyboard or a gamepad. In fact, America’s Army, a FPS that the Army has admitted is blatant propaganda to try and get recruits for the Army has been consistently one of the 10 most played games online in the United States every year since its release since 2002. Now, why then are we still seeing severe troop shortages if so many players are being exposed to this.

Fair enough that it is a T(Teen) rated game. Let’s go with something meatier, the undisputed king of First Person Shooters since its release last October, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. Throwing out the PC demographic which is almost entirely older gamers, let’s look at the console side. If you know someone with a Xbox 360 or a Playstation 3 this game is most likely in their collection. It’s no secret if you log into a game, you’ll run into at least one or two players who are obviously 13 and just learned about swearing. Now, let’s compare a 14 year old playing this game to getting the same kind of desensitization of a soldier preparing for the battlefield. A soldier would be learning how to use combat tactics such as taking cover and camouflaging. That 14 year old boy is just having fun running around and shooting at anything that moves.

The military is going to have clearly defined goals by making its soldiers play video games. Not only does it desensitize them, it allows snipers to gain greater appreciation for the affects of trajectory and the earth’s rotation affect on a bullet, among other reasons mentioned earlier. That is how they achieve their desensitizing of their recruits through video games. On the other hand, most underage who play the games view it as simply recreation.
With your point about children being able to tell fantasy from reality, most studies on video games with minors show that it isn’t until they are 13 or 14 until they begin to play most violent, M rated video games. In addition, many states have been enacting laws that children must have a parent present when purchasing a M rated game.

In addition, youth crime is at all time lows across many of the parts of the country. While yes, some school shootings have been committed by people who played various violent games, once again this is an example of sensationalist media looking for a scape goat for the crimes.

In addition, I must say, from someone who’s played the Grand Theft Auto series since I was 13, those same drunk driving photos make me cringe. There is still a clear barrier between the virtual world and the real thing.

Also, I fail to see the comparison of a child who has seen the horrors of war with their own to eyes to someone who plays a game for a hour or two a day. Of course a child who is soaked in that atmosphere is going to become desensitized. But to bring their plight on the same level as some 15 year old playing Call of Duty on his daddy’s plasma screen TV? I won’t even bother.

I'm gonna need my 24 hour extension

In closing, first I would like to thank Heike for taking up this debate voluntarily. Also thanks to the judges for taking their time reading this.

The purpose of this debate was whether or not M rated video games have a direct negative effect on minors. To do that, it has to be shown that the games are causing the various negative affects Heike is arguing they do. However, as I feel I have demonstrated, that video games are simply not the cause of their behaviors. They are simply a medium for those teens to focus other issues in their lives.

As video game consoles and PCs become more powerful, developers will always push the boundaries. For every controversy that M rated games attract, they also bring works of art such as Shadow of the Colossus and Metal Gear Solid 4.

Video games are the newest form of mass media entertainment. They've gone from being considered novelty items sold as Toys R' Us to soon being the biggest part of the entertainment industry. Many in older generations can not understand the beauty and power they allow to the player. As such, they are going through the same witch hunting phase that movies, rock music, and other forms of entertainment have all gone through.

As numerous studies have shown, the links between video games and negative behavior disappears once greater controls have been put in place. Just as everyone thought we were going to spend all our time in the movie theaters or how Elvis was going to make this country spend its time on lovers lane, the taboo will eventually pass.

M rated games such as Bioshock and Metal Gear Solid have sweeping story lines that make profound comments on humanity in a way that could only be done with the medium.

My opponent and the electronic entertainment industry would like for you believe that video games are just the next “thing” for parents and adults to get worked up about, no more dangerous than rock ‘n’ roll, western movies, or Saturday morning cartoons. This, too, shall pass, and in another 20 years or so we’ll all be laughing about the video game controversy just like we now laugh about the terrible “consequences” of watching Elvis bump and grind or listening to the Beatles.
 
Unfortunately, the video game industry is protecting their annual multi billion dollar sales, not your kids. They really don’t care what the games are doing to young people, just as long as people keep buying them. And, like the pharmaceutical companies and the food companies have done before them, they will try to hide the effects and negative consequences from the public for as long as they can. Twenty years from now I think it is more likely that people will be looking back at their teenaged obsession with video games in the way that adults today look back on their teen drinking, smoking, and drug use. Probably today’s teenagers will survive and eventually “snap out of it,” but in the future they may be saying to themselves “Why did I do it? Why I couldn’t I see what I was doing to myself, and what it cost me?”
 
In America today, video game sales are at an all-time high. Childhood obesity is at an all-time high. Childhood physical fitness is at an all-time low. Children are suffering from health problems that we expect to find in sedentary adults. Children and teenagers who play video games, especially "M" rated video games, are displaying social maladjustment, poor grades, school absenteeism, obsessive-compulsive behaviors similar to addiction, and are showing changes in brain function and response.

Study after study has proven that children who are exposed to violence and sexual content in movies and television shows become desensitized to both - despite the entertainment industry’s efforts to deny the information - and new studies are beginning to demonstrate that video games which are violent, bloody and gory, and/or contain sexual content have the same effects.

In a video game, children can be whoever they want to be. They can become powerful heroes who mow down the bad guys and eliminate all of their problems with cool high-tech weapons. In a video game, they can escape their bodies, their acne, their environment, and all of their problems. Video games, especially games that allow them to engage in behaviors which they are not mature enough to engage in in real life, can be seductive, addictive, and make reality seem dull, boring, and filled only with frustration and problems by comparison. We are actively fighting - although perhaps not entirely winning - a war on drugs, and doing everything we can to keep from losing our children to that escape route. But we haven’t yet realized that the children who are sitting in front of the game console and the computer are becoming lost to a virtual reality of violence and sex, trading away their innocence and childhood for the CGI worlds that let them be someone they can’t - and shouldn’t - yet be in reality.

The pale-skinned, obese teenager with the dark bags under his eyes and wrist braces for carpal tunnel who can’t climb a flight of stairs without getting short of breath, has few if any real friends, no activities, poor grades and poorer study habits will be the first to tell you that his beloved video games are certainly not having any negative impact on him. After all, he hasn’t hurt anyone, stolen any cars, or been in any trouble. What negative impact?

Now it's all up to the Judges

Semper

We have a WINNER!!!!!

It’s just a game judgment 1

Heike vs. FSBlueApocalypse.

Interesting debate and one that had many angles to approach from. Heike subbing in didn't seem to slow down her down. FSB had an advantage of an extra time to research his side but it appeared he didn't use it to full affect.

Heike approached it from a very clinical standpoint, which was to be expected given her position. I thought she used her sources in a more efficient manner and used the comparisons to the pharmaceutical and tobacco industries well.

FSB had some holes he could have worked at but seemed to focus on his own side rather than picking apart his opponents. This is generally a good approach in a debate of this nature but it didn't work out for him this time. I think further use of his character limit and the Socratic questions may have helped him but he inexplicably didn't go that route. There were also some studies that he could have used to further his side. The recent one about video games improving doctors hand eye coordination comes to mind.

I also thought that heike did a better job of sticking to the actual subject matter. FSB tried to move the debate in a direction that would have benefited his side but heike remained focused on the core issue and won points for that.

Overall, Heike is the winner.

As an aside, I think in the future, FSB should try to utilize the tools given to him in the debates. Better use of external material and the Socratic questions would go along way to strengthening his positions. I hope to see him continue debating, he seems like a solid fighter.

I have to say this was a very interesting and well fought debate. Both fighters put on a great argument for their case and one that was very much drawn upon generational lines and personal experience.

A couple of things that I must note right off the bat.

Many studies were referenced throughout the course of the debate. This phenomenon is relatively new, as such the studies into the "long term" effects of minors playing "M" rated video games are by definition impossible to quantify. There are obviously many studies from qualified sources on the subject but their validity is hard to gage, and they are often contradictory. This shows me that behavioral science has yet to get a firm grip and understanding of the subject. Thus for the purposes of judging this debate I will choose to disregard them entirely and consider the debate a "push" at the referenced study level.

There was an overt attempt of misdirection from the debate topic from both sides.

FSBA attempted throughout the debate to equate and define "negative impact" as "criminal behavior."

Heike attempted to introduce and associate the general pitfalls of teens playing ANY video game to enhance her position on what is a much narrower topic.

FSBA's first two post were intellectually strong but lacked the necessary citations to back up what were valid opinions.

I did not agree with Heike's declaration that deck was stacked against her and saw it as an obvious and transparent attempt to position herself as the underdog within the debate. The simple fact is that games like movies have an age rating for a reason, and the debate was about minors engaging in an activity that has already been determined inappropriate for their age. Thus the cards were in fact stacked against FSBA and not Heike at the outset of the debate.

However, as the debate developed, Heike gained the upper hand. She exposed FSBA's false logic that one can assume that minors who are negatively affected by playing M rated video games do so as a direct substitute for real life delinquent behavior or a pre-existing phycological condition.

Yet Heike never managed to put FSBA away.

Whilst FSBA kept driving the point that M rated video games are this generation's witch hunt equivalent of Rock n' Roll and violent movies, Heike kept coming back with pleas of, as FSBA put it, "for the children." This further reenforced FSBA's point that her argument was based on a generational gap.

Heike's closing statement demonstrated this tendency to side step the narrow nature of the debate topic:

The pale-skinned, obese teenager with the dark bags under his eyes and wrist braces for carpal tunnel who can’t climb a flight of stairs without getting short of breath, has few if any real friends, no activities, poor grades and poorer study habits will be the first to tell you that his beloved video games are certainly not having any negative impact on him. After all, he hasn’t hurt anyone, stolen any cars, or been in any trouble. What negative impact?

In the end, I believe Heike was unconvincing in showing direct causality between M rated video games and negative behavior in minors.

FSBA needs to improve his technique and provide more citations. His intellectual argument was strong enough to overcome these shortcomings in this debate because of his personal experience and familiarity with the topic. He might not be this fortunate next time.

I make FSBA the winner.

Heike is the winner of this one.

Regardless of who’s right, Heike seemed more convincing in citation, rebuttal and detail, whereas FSBlue came across as an expert in PC-gaming but a rather lazy debater in his first two posts. Lazy because of the first source cited, which linked to a gamers-blog on PC World (as if that’s any credible source for his position) and his later sources did not pick out the relevant snippets as external-source-quotes. This diminished the otherwise interesting and consideration worthy ideas he did bring up. Heike led the debate the entire way and argued with quick-witted logic and a subtle irony. A pleasure to read. While FSBlue showed that playing M-rated video-games does not necessarily lead to crime, Heike convinced of its negative impacts.

Heike by split decision...

CONGRATULATIONS to both Fighters!!!

Semper

Thank you to all the judges and readers, to FSBlueApocalypse for letting me pick up the other side of this, and to Semperfortis for setting it up for us.

My first win!

And, FSB, well fought .. you had me scrambling at times. And although I still freely admit that even "mature" games are not turning all or even most of our kids into criminals, I really do believe that they are having negative effects that we aren't really seeing yet .. but will in the future.