|
|
| | |
| |
 |
| Summary: Should we ban or restrict the use of violent video games? |
|
|
| |
Author:Avital Sterngold ( Israel )
Avital is an alumna of the Israel Schools Debating Team and was the coordinator for the London Debate Challenge at the English-Speaking Union in London. |
Created: Wednesday, April 19, 2006
Last Modified:
|
| |
The debate about violent video games such as Mortal Kombat, Wolfenstein 3D and Doom has received a lot of attention since 1999 when two students of Columbine High School, Colorado, shot and killed 13 fellow pupils and finally themselves. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold enjoyed the bloody video game Doom and, according to many, were inspired by it. The debate over the destructive influence of video games even arrived at the US senate in 2000, when several researchers showed concern about the effect of violent video games on young people.
While we can learn much from existing research on other media types, research focusing on violent video games is very limited. Two studies by the psychologists Craig Anderson and Karen Dill, dealing with the effects of violent video games both in the laboratory and in real life are considered extremely important in the field.
Rating systems, adopted globally by the video game industry in 1994, established the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB), a comprehensive labelling system that rates over 1,000 games per year and has now rated more than 8,000 games in total. Less than 1 per cent of all games released in the UK have been rated as suitable only for people 18 years or over.
Laws banning or restricting the sale of violent video games and enforcing rating upon them have been introduced by several US states (Washington, Indiana and St. Louis among them). An estimated 145 million Americans are video game users and $6.9 billion has been invested in sales in 2002. In Europe, Germany has also moved towards a ban on violent video games after 16 people were killed in an Erfurt School in 2002. |
 |
|
|
| Both experimental and non-experimental research have shown that violent video games damage young people playing them in both the short and long term, leading to criminal and anti-social behaviour. Exposure to violent video games causes aggressive thoughts and feelings. It also creates unwanted psychological arousal and belief in a ‘scary world’, especially among young children. This is particularly significant as video game graphics develop to become ever more realistic. The effects of violent video games are even worse than those of films and TV because of the interactive element that exists in video games. In addition, most video games are played alone, whereas cinema and television are usually a social experience, allowing social pressures to filter the experience of violence upon the viewer. |
|
Many researchers (Ask, 1999; Funk, 1993, 1995; Provenzo, 1991) conclude that there is no causal link between violent video games and aggressive behaviour. Other influences, such as social environment, family background and peer pressure cause aggressive behaviour. Additionally, even if video games might create violent thoughts, according to researchers there is no reason for these thoughts to display themselves in action more than the aggressive thoughts caused by frustration in non-violent video games, or by the fast pace of action films (rather than their content). The small number of people who would be affected by such aggressive thoughts are people who probably already are habitually violent. |
 |
|
|
| Violent video games do not only affect individuals but also society as a whole. The sole purpose of a player in these games is to be an aggressor. The heartlessness in these games and joy of killing innocent people create a desensitization and disinhibition to violence that can ultimately lead to a more violent society. They are also a very selfish, lonely form of entertainment which undermines the structure of an ordered, interdependent society. |
|
Society has decided to embrace violent video games, which as a result are very profitable. These games are written for adults, rather than children, and the ratings system warns of any violent content. In a modern world, the role of protecting young people should lie with responsible parents who know their kids best and take an active interest in their leisure time, discouraging or barring them from unsuitable activities. In this case, there is not enough justification for governments to intervene in people's leisure time. |
|
|
|
| The primary role of a government is to protect its citizens from damaging themselves and society as a whole. There is accordingly a great deal of precedent for a law restricting the use of violent video games. It is considered acceptable for governments to restrict the sale of dangerous things such as alcohol and tobacco to minors or even to enforce movie ratings or the use of seatbelts. |
|
Not only is it wrong for the government to take censorship-like steps against violent video games but it is also impossible to do so effectively. Violent video games will still be available on the internet and, in fact, by restricting the sale of violent video games the government will push would-be users to illegal downloading programmes (through file-sharing systems such as Kazaa) and therefore to an increasingly prevalent black market. |
|
|
|
| Parents are unaware of how violent the video games are. Parents often use video games as a way to keep their children entertained while they are busy minding their own business. This means that there is no real parental supervision on the games. |
|
Most games are bought by parents or with their consent. According to industry statistics, 9 out of every 10 video games are sold to adults. Moreover, there is little evidence to say that parents don’t know what they are buying because a very descriptive labelling system exists for violent video games since the establishment of the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) in 1994. |
|
|
|
| Modern video games cannot be fairly compared to traditional childhood play. Computer gaming is a largely solo experience, with none of the team play involved in games of war, cowboys, etc. Playing alone also makes it easier for the boundaries between fantasy and reality to become blurred, especially with the highly realistic graphics possible with modern technology. In any case, civilisation is about taming our base instincts, not celebrating the worst parts of human nature. |
|
Video games are a useful outlet for childhood aggression. Play violence has always been a natural part of growing up, especially for boys. In the past it was considered normal for young people to act out violent fantasies in harmless way, for example with toy guns in games of cops and robbers, cowboys and indians, war, pirates, etc. These games were often inspired by films, television or comic books and magazines, just as computer games commonly are today. Now that these traditional activities are frowned upon and "enlightened" parents prevent children from having toy guns, aggressive play has simply moved indoors, on to the computer screen instead. Suppressing these natural instincts is not only pointless, it is probably more dangerous to remove yet another harmless outlet for aggression from the young. |
|
|
|
| | This house would ban violent video games
That the sale of violent video games to children should be restricted
This house would ban the advertisement of violent video games
|
| View the full discussion |
Author | Post |
|---|
roomseven
Member
|
Posted: Mon Sep 7, 2009 06:48 pm |
|
| i agree the parents should take action for their kids
|
roomseven
Member
|
Posted: Mon Sep 7, 2009 06:40 pm |
|
|
|
fluffmanphill
Member
|
Posted: Mon Sep 7, 2009 12:12 am |
|
| Dam straight
|
|
| Login to leave a quick reply or View the full discussion |
|
|
|
