Why violent video games should NOT be banned.

[HotFezz8]

Remember that high ranking buddhist fella a few weeks back who said that playing violent video games is a great way to relieve stress and anger? That could be a good argument. Also, you could argue that intelligent, mature adults have every right to play violent video games if they want to.

how about adding on the right of people to have free speech (Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Humans Rights Act) and include the notion that to ban a game is a form of censure. This would (logically) lead to banning films based on teh same concepts, books, magazines, then onto mentioning/discussing this topic being a criminal offence, and then we are in Nazi Germany.

You could act that whilst certain concepts and principles are taboo (incest, bestiality etc) this could be reflected by poor sales for games where you play that sort of character. Manhunt, as i recall didn't sell nearly as well as Call of Duty 4, where the violence could be justified.

Therefore self regulation is probably the best way to enforce laws/regulations, not just banning games wholesale. I don't know what its like in a country that bans games (i don't live in North Korea) but pirate videos are certainly illegal here, and they are almost as easy to get hold of as the legal copys. prohibition didn't work with alcohol, it doesn't appear to be working with films, and i severly doubt it would work with games.

Besides which any publicity is good publicity. banning a game alsmost instantly makes it much more famous, which means more people will get it to see waht the fuss is about or so they can feel naughty and dangerous. In a way this might almost encourage the gaming industry to make even more violent games to increase sales figures, thus making violent games more socially acceptable, making it more likely to make ALL games more violent.

 

[Audun]

People can distinguish between fantisy and fiction? You wouldnt ban a book that describes murder, or other violent acts, would you?

Mein Kempf(or however its spelt)

and the bible

 

[SomethingUnrelated]

Errr....

THEY'RE FUN!

And isn't that what gaming is all about? Entertainment? Violent games provide entertainment for the majority of the gaming community.

 

[TPiddy]

Parents are only more outraged by video games because video games are the new babysitter. In the 90's it was TV and people were outraged by what was on TV. Now it's video games, and parents are outraged that the thing they use to escape from their kids might be raising their kids better than they are.

 

[Naheal]

All forms of media that have any form of violence should be indefinitely banned. Violent forms of media encourage people to emulate what is being portrayed on the TV screen. Not only that, but must ban all forms of media that speak out against any major political figure or a policy. No rational person would ever disagree with this because someone who disagrees with ideals like this are truly against society as a whole and need to be removed from society before they cause any further damage to our youth.

 

[HotFezz8]

go to the library...

boo to you! did you never ask for help? go stick your head back in your tax book.

 

[mikecoulter]

Games are art. Have you seen violent art? It's crazy some stuff I've seen. So why should games be any different from viewing art? Or watching a violent film?

 

[UnravThreads]

People can distinguish between fantisy and fiction? You wouldnt ban a book that describes murder, or other violent acts, would you?

Mein Kempf(or however its spelt)

That isn't banned, you can get it wherever you want to. Might get some odd looks from the cashier but otherwise it's fine. Don't read it though, I did and it's boring and really badly written.

It is actually a banned (or restricted) book in certain countries, mainly Eastern Europe IIRC. I've got a copy on my book shelf and I agree, it's pretty dull.

I think the issue isn't that these games exist, it's mainly that parents ignore the rating system. An 18 rated game (I'm using UK classification here - BBFC) is rated by the same organisation as an 18 rated film. Most parents wouldn't buy Little Jimmy, say, Total Recall, yet they'd get him GTA IV? I don't see the logic. Is it because GTA IV is fictiona- Wait, so's Total Recall. Is it because GTA IV's violence is less realistic? I'd say they're probably on the same level.

The few cases of violence/crimes inspired by games are likely to be carried out by those who are quite likely to already have instabilities, and the game is just a catalyst. Should they be banned due to this? No, they shouldn't! Many medicines have rare side effects, and they're not banned, for example. Aren't shows like WCW/WWE responsible for more injuries/deaths than games? They're still shown on TV, although I've not seen any games for quite a while...

 

[1066]

A number of reasons:

1) Virtually all games are rated these days. That means that the onus, as with movies and most forms of entertainment, is on parents and shopkeepers to restrict children access. Further, modern consoles have parental locks preventing high-rated games from even being played.

With that said, it is parental complacency that lets children play violent games, at least in their own home, and not the fault of the game-makers and industry. (Although I am all for younger children not playing mature titles)


2) Violent games have a remarkable cathartic potential. I speak from experience in that games allow for a lot of stress relief with minimal danger. Similar, more traditional, stress relief might include sports, martial arts or even just exercise. Considering the increased aggression due to built up stress there is a definite risk of injury to oneself and others in those. (Personal experience: torn knuckles on a punching bag as well as any number of minor bruises, scrapes, cuts, etc, on the part of others involved. Thankfully, nothing serious.)


3) This has been used before on other things, but banning violent games (movies, etc) in general justifies violence. What I mean there is that the act of banning games or violent media is denying that people are, and can be, violent themselves. If the games are to blame, then it is not the fault of the offender and, so, the offender stops being at fault and is only a victim.

Frankly, that's bull.

Violence in any media is, at worst, a symptom of violent urges and, in mentally stable people, serve as catharsis or escapism to allow them to function well in the world. It's up to parents and individuals to decide what's crossed the lines and where to balk (IE: Certain games I refuse to play on this principle include Postal and Manhunt, but that's personal choice).

 

[Woodsey]

Since when did teachers judge essays by how long they are?

Don't fill the pages full of shit for the sake of it. Much better to have short but punchier points.

OT: They provide a recreational and non-harmful output for anger (which could lead to violence), help you relax, engage the mind and provide compelling stories and characters.

EDIT: Oh, and make sure you discuss the number of murder/assault cases which are [bold]supposedly[/bold] game-related, compared to the number of gamers there are. And make sure you mention mis-information provided by the likes of FOX News, that lead to ignorant decisions.

 

[squid5580]

Easy you start banning games and where does it end? Books? Movies? People being arrested for having an opinion?

 

[Pingieking]

People can distinguish between fantisy and fiction? You wouldnt ban a book that describes murder, or other violent acts, would you?

Mein Kempf(or however its spelt)

I'm pretty sure that Mein Kempf is banned for hate speech rather than violence. There are some pretty violent books out there that sell just fine.

The free speech concept is probably your best weapon. Society already has mechanisms that prevent non-adults from accessing adult content. The rest is up to the individual and their legal guardians to take responsibility for their actions and be informed enough to read a ratings tag. As long as the game developers don't break hate speech laws (or other similar laws), then everything else should be fair game (no pun intended).

Easy you start banning games and where does it end? Books? Movies? People being arrested for having an opinion?

I would stay away from those kind of arguements. "Slippery slope" arguments are generally not overly valid, and makes you sound a bit fanatical. They also have a bad habit of begging the question or ignoring the topic of debate.

 

[CerealKiller]

Violent games are real stress-relievers.I remember when i was playing COD4,a few rounds and my mind was at ease (except a few times that my connection was acting weird xD).

I first played MK (the first one) when i was 6-7 years old (can't remember exactly).Pretty young someone would say BUT...i haven't killed anyone!At least not yet!! lmao

Violent games should ONLY be forbidden to mentally ill people who have trouble seperating the real thing from a bunch of pixels.The irony is that,those who can't tell the difference seem to be the ones condemning those videogames..! xD

The fantasy that children who play those games will turn out serial killers is just that,a fantasy,a myth.
In the other hand,oppress repeatedly a child (especially in our days and in our societies where stress flows in very high levels) and the results can't be good.


That's all i have to say.

 

[Quad08]

Modern consoles have parental locks preventing high-rated games from even being played.

Exactly. Parents responsibility to ensure that there children play appropriate games. Course the parents will rarely be blamed, they make up a majority of voters and, to quote a angry parent "You can't tell me how to raise my kids!" So, the politicians blame violent video games. Putting emphasis on "violent" video games really helps get people angry as well.

 

[Versago]

The problem doesn't nessesarily lie with the violent video games (Grand Theft Auto being a great example of violent gaming).
All media are like that nowadays - Gaming is just one of them. Film (SAW), television (Harpers Island) and even music to an extent (Florence + the machine, 'Kiss with a fist'). There is no reason why gaming should be singled out as the main culprit.

In addition, i'd try to incorperate a quote from English comedian Russell Howard: He did a joke about how stupid it was that in Enland adverts for junk food are being moved past a watershed to combat childhood obesity.
What he said resonates the point that parents can't blame the fast food industry for their inability to raise their child to be healthy.
'They should ban the Adverts!'
"No, ban your fanny until you can look after what plops out of it!"

Its a sweary one, and more professional quotes may be better, but its definatly incorperatable.

 

[Koeryn]

I need some help here. I have a paper due at the end of the month in my ENGL 1020 class. It is an argument essay. My topic is why violent video games should NOT be banned. I am a passionate gamer and I strongly disagree with banning video games. I need evidence against banning them and I need evidence as to why people want to ban them. I already have my rough draft started. This thing needs to be about 6-8 pages long. So please, any help will do. I would like to get this thing knocked out in the next week or so.

Thanks

There are a lot of arguments that follow what you're looking at. I think my favorite is that racing games are the ones that make people more violent, according to a recent study. Essentially, during a test, gamers were pitted against each other in three game types: FPS, Racing, and I don't remember the third. And then interviewed/brain scanned/whatever after words.

FPS rated the least violent attitudes post-game, where racing games rated the highest. Kinda funny.

 

[MGlBlaze]

The problem doesn't nessesarily lie with the violent video games (Grand Theft Auto being a great example of violent gaming).
All media are like that nowadays - Gaming is just one of them. Film (SAW), television (Harpers Island) and even music to an extent (Florence + the machine, 'Kiss with a fist'). There is no reason why gaming should be singled out as the main culprit.

In addition, i'd try to incorperate a quote from English comedian Russell Howard: He did a joke about how stupid it was that in Enland adverts for junk food are being moved past a watershed to combat childhood obesity.
What he said resonates the point that parents can't blame the fast food industry for their inability to raise their child to be healthy.
'They should ban the Adverts!'
"No, ban your fanny until you can look after what plops out of it!"

Its a sweary one, and more professional quotes may be better, but its definatly incorperatable.

Very well said.

Games aren't to blame, and I find it incredibly petty that Gaming seems to invariably be the cause of all things wrong in the world. I'm not saying that some people aren't effected by these things, but such people I would also expect to have intelligence and common sense rivaling that of, say, an amoeba.

There is nothing wrong with violent games; at the end of the day, if anything bad happens, it is the fault of the people who play them for allowing it to influence them, and it is the fault of the parents who were so inept as to be unable to teach their child to distinguish between reality and fantasy, and things that you shouldn't do in a real-life environment.

Arguably all the censorship is HARMFUL, given that it means context is taken away, and people may be introduced to it later when they didn't have the chance to learn earlier the differences. Not to mention it is merely hiding (and even nurturing) the lax parenting and other social dysfunctions that go into things happening.

Not to mention it prevents people with half a brain experiencing the game for all the designers intended it to be.

Also, some people clearly don't know that children of parents who were fat during birth are genetically predisposed to gain weight even with a perfectly healthy diet and exercise regiment; yet another reason that particular side is the fault of parents, albeit in a different way.

There are a lot of arguments that follow what you're looking at. I think my favorite is that racing games are the ones that make people more violent, according to a recent study. Essentially, during a test, gamers were pitted against each other in three game types: FPS, Racing, and I don't remember the third. And then interviewed/brain scanned/whatever after words.

FPS rated the least violent attitudes post-game, where racing games rated the highest. Kinda funny.

And let's not forget this old favourite of mine, a graph of crime-rates, including the release dates of some games that everyone agrees are pretty violent;
http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2008/04/gaming-real-vio/

Of course, this isn't saying that games are REDUCING crime rates, but it is fairly interesting to see how people (I use 'people' very loosely here given my opinion of such creatures) are freaking out about games when, overall, they are very clearly not causing any real problems.

 

[funguy2121]

Ray Bradbury's Farenheit 451 would make for great quote material. Also, look at Tipper Gore's and Joe Lieberman's work with the Christian right to censor music, esp. hip hop, in the early nineties.

Personally, I'd argue that all the rape, murder and glorification of drugs (which are fun, mind you) in movies, music and literature has proven that the banning of any art form or entertainment medium is ultimately a fruitless pursuit. Then I'd cap it off with the supreme court hearings on pornography and obscenity in the 70's. Surely, if wank material can be protected under amendment numero uno, then so can Leon Kennedy and Gay Tony.

Sorry, I didn't provide sources. Wikipedia it, then check references.

 

[moose49408]

I have no quantitative scientific basis for my stance on this, (then again neither do my opponents!) but simply from analyzing and observing, this is the conclusion on this topic that I have reached. Humans, by our very nature, are violent beings. From the Middle Ages, to the Renascence, to modern times, we've always been savages at heart. People who want to ban violent games are simply trying to deny that. They refuse to see themselves for what they really are, so they look to gaming for an easy scapegoat, just as people throughout history have done the same with pretty much every form of media (paintings, sculptures, books, movies, anything that we use to express ourselves.)

Now, as for why games shouldn't be banned, once you accept that our violent nature is a fact of life, the next logical question would be, "how do I keep myself from going all gta-protagonist on my neighbors the next time their idiotic seven year old destroys my lawn?" one obvious answer is to find a way to take those aggressions and urges in a way that is either constructive or doesn't actually harm anyone. if used properly, gaming is an excellent stress release, which can be used to satiate our violent urges. Gaming does not put violent ideas in our heads, it simply brings them to our conscious minds, where they can be alleviated. Those who cannot do this: supposed violent gamers who cannot separate the game from reality, were not well adjusted to begin with. Had gaming not been there to set them off, sooner or later, something else would have.

 

[maeson]

Computer games are going through the same gauntlet as comic books did in USA way WAY back. Parents were at an uproar about children being corrupted by pictures of violence, even if it was batman punching some humorous minion muppet in the face with a "OOOMPH" spread across the sheet.
Comic books weren't banned, and no one bothers about them now. Same is with video games. They are a medium. Even if killing an enemy is part of the game, it is just that, a game.

Oh, and who said violent games can't teach you. Anyone ever heard of a game called "Math Invaders"? Think "System Shock" with "Doom" graphics, run through your calculator.