View Debate

Violent video games should be banned because they deeply affect our emotional well-being! Seeing all the chaos, blood, and fighting can make people numb to real-life violence. It seriously concerns me how these games might teach children that aggression is just a game. We need to stop this emotional desensitization before it makes our communities more dangerous.

Violent video games should not be banned because they can improve kids reaction time and hand eye coordination. Also, what defines as violent and banned? does banned means that it is illegal and punishable with jail time or just fined or restricted from being sold? In addition, violent is not a firm descriptor. Is any game with blood violent? Then are games that include simulating medical situations violent? Children can often let out pent up anger through shooting games as well. Who are we to negate them this outlet?

Banning violent video games protects our emotional and mental health. Improved reaction time is not worth the risk of desensitization to violence. We can find other, non-violent ways for kids to develop skills and release anger. While defining "violent" can be complex, we should prioritise safety over ambiguous lines. Making these games restricted from being sold can be a reasonable middle ground, ensuring children aren't exposed to potentially harmful content.

Well, why should we ban them? Parents can restrict what they buy for their kids and if adults want to play a violent video game, they should. Violent video games do not necessarily desensitize people to violence as long as you moderate your time playing. Restricting games from being sold is almost out of the question because of the amount of jobs that will be lost and the effects on the gaming industry. several multi million game companies will be out of a source of income. In addition, how will you enforce this? are you planning to ban games in the entire world? how will you filter for games that are violent?

The debate on banning violent video games sees EnigmaticLake398 arguing in favor of the ban while IllustriousMeadow280 opposes it. EnigmaticLake398 presents a passionate argument focusing on the potential emotional desensitization caused by violent video games, highlighting the dangers of children being exposed to such content and the need for community safety. However, their arguments lack depth and fail to address some practical aspects and counterarguments effectively. On the other hand, IllustriousMeadow280 provides a more comprehensive and logically structured argument against the ban. They address the potential benefits of violent video games, such as improving reaction time and providing an outlet for anger. They also challenge the feasibility of enforcing such a ban, the economic impact on the gaming industry, and question the practicality of defining and filtering violent content. Ultimately, IllustriousMeadow280's points are more compelling and grounded in practical considerations, giving them the edge in this debate. Therefore, they are declared the winner.