Ban on violent video games debate

Pro: Gui Chevalier and Andee Price

Con: James Bowsher and Nik Borisov

Andee Price: Columbine teen shooters played violent video games. Watching video games turns into action. Rise in porn addiction, domestic violence and physical abuse. Desensitized morals. In video games you are taking part in actively killing something. 

James Bowsher: There are no video games without violence, in the sims you can slap your wife. There is not necessarily a connection between video games and Columbine.

Video games are strategic. Educational games have violence. There is no substantial evidence that there is substantial harm caused from video games.

Gui Chevalier: There are games that have no violence such as the wii fit. (Boxing?) There are actual results in the brains amygdala. Kids insert themselves in the games. So that the child is literally immersed in the game. A ban on violent video games for children under the age of 18 lets a child's mind develop properly.

Nik Borisov: There is correlation but not causation. There is an old way of thinking that new video games are bad. ESRB already has a rating system. Games can have therapeutic benefits. If the violence and the facts matched up there would be murder on a mass scale. It is better in games than to do it in real life. Brain activity of course there is brain activity, there is emotions that go into the game, it gives you the ability to experience of actions rather than face the consequences. The con side wants to take power away from the parent and gives it to the government.

-Matt Porter