I'm saying at that age videogames can be harmful to impressionable children and that it is up to parents to decide whether or not to allow kids to play videogames and if so, which ones. So in a way videogames do have the potential to cause harm but equally as much as other forms of entertainment, like watching the news or an action film.

You seem to be overlooking the suggestion that video games are more likely to spark obsession in the audience than action films. I mean this in the sense that a video game does not need to have an exceptionally interesting plot or likeable characters to cause addiction. It just needs to get its work:reward ratio right and people will want to come back to it. Perhaps video-games are just a bit more stimulating in this way because of the active role the audience plays in them. Sure people can binge watch Breaking Bad for embarrassing lengths of time, but Breaking Bad is a realistic, intelligently (and darkly) humorous, exciting and in some ways even charming (we all love and care about Walter White) piece of entertainment. Comparatively Diabolo 3 is probably just as if not more addictive even though the characters are much less relatable, I imagine the plot is negligible if even existent and the excitement consists of worrying about loot. I hope I have made my point in enough words for Ele this time.

Now, your comparison to movies and TV has other problems. Although I am not able to freely read more than a page of it to check its reliability and logic, this study concludes that watching violent video games has less of an effect than playing them implying that watching action movies would most likely be less dangerous (it obviously depends on the program and the video game) for a kid than playing video games. ->The study.

Now, admittedly the study doesn't sound unquestionable in its methods, so I will leave it to you to find evidence on the contrary.

Ah I understand what you're looking for. I was under the impression it was the argument geared towards those stupid "GTA V caused this kid to shoot up a school."

I wasn't really talking about watching someone play, I was focusing on the gore and killing that supposedly motivates kids to do bad things. Moving on from that I do agree that video games are a lot more likely to cause addiction compared to movies. This is because you're an active player with you're own story, customization and identity, not to mention you can always keep playing the same video game and discover new things and keep yourself entertained. You can play video games much more than you can watch TV. The only problem with being obsessed with video games is that it's unhealthy and abnormal to sit in one spot for eight hours per day with no real life social interaction or movement. If you compare it to being obsessed with sports you're going out meeting new people and getting exercise which is why being in love with sports isn't considered weird. Honestly I would consider myself a victim of video game obsession, granted I've kicked it now that I'm in college and have had a few serious relationships but I'm one of the lucky few. Some of my friends who were just as hardcore as me if not less end up prioritizing video games over most other things. Honestly the only friends they have are the real life people they play video games with. It can be a destructive addiction because you just end up picking video games over many things that are more important in the long run. If you're a casual gamer with enough self control to not get addicted and be able to balance a healthy physical, social and intellectual life then knock yourself out, otherwise steer clear.

This thread was created to answer the question stated because of stuff IRL, I would explain it but it is pretty boring and off topic. The question/title of an essay/debate I need to be able to think about is "are video games harming society" but the context the people I need to get to think about it are interpreting it as tends to only be in terms of school shooting. And yes, school shootings are probably the biggest contributors to the stigma the mass media has for violent video games so attacking this area of the topic should certainly be a priority. But, as you realised, I am looking for more than that because the topic is much wider and subtler than simply blame placement for tragedies.

Nevertheless, addiction to violent video games is more likely to lead to violent behaviour than mild interest in violent video games. Compared to simply watching violence (as you do in action movies) and being aware of it (as you are while watching the news) is unlikely to have as bigger psychological effect on someone because that person is unlikely to re-watch that movie or that news broadcast several times. Repetition and obsession are very powerful psychologically which is why I didn't want people to overlook this aspect of video game's nature. As well as this, actively taking part in the violence (according to the supposedly credible study) is more likely to result in violent behaviour than simply watching violence. Therefore these things are as relevant to school shooting blaming as they are to the wider context of this issue.

Well if the said person only enjoys violent video games for the sake of violence then odds are video games aren't the root cause of whatever that person is going to do. There's no one size fits all answer to this, the closest you can get to a conclusion is that it depends on the person. One could even argue that violent video games are an outlet for anger and stress and the release of those negative emotions ends up leaving gamers in a positive mood. I can think of hundreds of times where I just finished an intense game of CSS and beat the guy who was shit talking me and I can think of another few hundred times where I was mad about something in real life and used video games to take my mind off of it which in turn helped me not do anything stupid and made me relax. It depends on why the gamer is playing video games because sometimes it's a great escape from reality, sometimes its for competitiveness and other reasons, once again all down to the individual.

That has been covered, even if it only makes unstable people violent, it is still dangerous. Anyway, the study I linked also concluded that for normal kids they increase violent behaviour. There are plenty of problems with the reliability of the study you could argue. I would advise you do that if you want to prove that violent video games don't necessarily cause violent behaviour. Ignoring that study will not help progress this discussion.

In case you didn't see the study the first time I posted it.

This study was conducted about children who watch violent video games, actively play in violent video games and actively play nonviolent games. I was talking about television compared to playing video games. With linked source that I ignored because it wasn't a study that pertained to the argument I was making because it only covers playing and watching video games. Not to mention the study doesn't provide a baseline, they don't account for aggressiveness that would've occurred before they even began playing video games. This study is for seeing which had the greatest effect, actively playing a violent game, watching a violent game or playing a nonviolent game.

This entire paragraph is just flat out wrong. This has absolutely nothing to do with actions movies or watching any television programs. The study is based on watching other kids play video games. Not to mention the study didn't include a watching nonviolent video games section which would've really defined the difference between watching and playing. Once again this is not the correct study you would want for this argument. Another thing is their sample size is 56 children, in only two different grades, from the same school in the Netherlands, so the scope is small and prone for error. Really at least read the study that you are linking and telling me to read.

tl;dr you're study doesn't pertain, read it yourself first. Study is flawed, sample size is too small, study focuses on difference between watching people play and actively playing. I would advise that if you want to prove anything ever you read your sources and find the appropriate source for the argument. Also study doesn't account for risk factors including existing psychological conditions and environmental factors. Ignoring your own study won't help your argument or the progress of this discussion.

I can't see anything incorrect about the paragraph you quoted. It cost £6 to view the entire study, so I couldn't freely view it. I don't know why that point needed to be put in bold... I didn't lie about the studies conclusion and I am pretty sure that watching violence (in action movies) can be likened to watching violent video games, this study simply controlled the variable which is the degree of violence in the media being tested. That makes scientific sense and a test comparing assorted action movies with video games would most likely be even more unreliable. The study I linked was the study I was talking about. I feel like there were problems with your comparison other than those mentioned in other paragraphs. The fact that you had not yet covered such studies was a problem. This problem has now thankfully been solved.



Thank you for doing as I suggested. It helps the thread last longer which, with the current level of activity it has been seeing, is a good thing. I feel like I might have accidentally offended you at some point (judging by the aggression of your last post). If I did then I apologise, it was not my intention.

As someone who doesn't accept the philosophical idea of morals or good and bad I am unlikely to hold any actual opinions on a topic as unspecific or indefinite as this. You yourself pointed out that there is no definite answer to something like this. However for discussions to survive we still need to strive for one so to ignore a study which has so many things to criticise in it seems silly to me when we sail on the brink of running out of interesting stuff to talk about.

As for you advice, I didn't want to prove anything in particular.I just wanted you to have something to disprove. The study was the best I could find for a comparison between watching violence (like in movies and TV), and playing violent games in the amount of time I had that day. In my opinion it was therefore appropriate and relevant enough to require being disproved for your argument to work. The kids in the study were supposedly average and normal (the sort of people you claimed were not effected by video games) so it was important that it did not focus on already unstable individuals because then it would be easily sidestepped by your "normal people are not at risk from video game violence" argument and would not require more in depth analysis of the study I wanted you to look into.

You missed the unreliable method of data collection used, but other than that I think you got everything.

There are other lines of discussion to continue with but I will cover those later.

I agree that we do need evidence to back up our arguments but you're very hypocritical about it. You linked a "study" where you read only the abstract and then criticized me for not reading the whole thing. You honestly can't use that study as evidence as you have read one paragraph from it. It's really unfair of you to shut down my whole argument solely because you linked an abstract from an article that had nothing to do with what I was arguing. Also the study says absolutely nothing about the children's backgrounds, that was one of the short comings. Anyways here is how you download the PDF to read the study.

It is my job to keep threads alive, if I feel like their is not enough content to dicuss for the thread to stay interesting I need to think up new arguments to discuss or find sources to discuss. I don't want to help anyone's argument (unless they are getting picked on to an excessive degree in which case I tend to favour the underdog), I just want people to continue to make arguments. I don't really care about evidence unless we treat our opinion as if it is proven fact, I don't feel like either of us where doing that. The link was cannon-fodder thread fuel.

As I said, I can view the first page of the article and read it, I new it was comparing watching violent to playing violent and playing non-violent. The other pages just appeared as blurry. Are they just slow to load or something like that? I can't work out how to view them. I assumes it was because I needed to pay the £6 they asked for, sorry.

How does it being about watching violent video games and playing violent video games make it irrelevant? I am not following you on this, I never questioned this aspect of the study (since that is the entirety of the study). I said they were normal because the results would have been an average of the 57 kids tested which usually (with that many repeats) irons out the anomalies a bit. As you pointed out, background checks would have improved reliability.


I didn't shut down your argument, I said it had limitations. If we accepted every decent well thought through argument without scepticism then discussion threads would only be about 5 posts long. I don't want that to happen.

What did I use the article as evidence of? The possibility of people being wrong is almost inevitable, it doesn't need proof.

Please tell me which of my claims are unsupported. I need you to be more specific with your criticism, otherwise I have no idea what I am doing wrong.

Unpleasantness aside, I am genuinely sorry about thinking the study cost money to view, that was stupid of me.

Please get back to the other aspects of how gaming and TV have the same effect in your next post (presumably after covering this beef with me). After that I will be deleting any posts only focussing on this beef since such things belong in PM. Feel free to PM me.