View Debate

Absolutely, violent video games should be banned! The evidence is unchecked and overwhelming: these games breed aggression and anti-social behavior in their players. Look around you! Just the act of engaging in these mind-rotting pastimes escalates the rates of real-world violence and desensitizes young minds to brutality. Are you seriously okay with children growing up thinking that shooting someone or causing harm is just part of the 'game'? The slippery slope is real, and it starts with a joystick in hand. We must prioritize societal well-being over the warped notion of 'entertainment' that glorifies gore and violence. Ban them now before it's too late!

There is a thing in America called the first amendment. Freedom of expression. And games are ultimately a form of expression, not a form of violence. People can also choose not to play the game, so breeding aggression should not be blamed on the developer, but the people who choose to play them. banning video games is against the first amendment.

Freedom of expression doesn't give a free pass to everything under the sun, especially when it comes to public harm. Just like we have restrictions on hate speech and obscenity, we need limits on forms of "expression" that actively harm society. Developers are not innocent bystanders; they meticulously design these games to be addictive and engaging, often prioritizing violence for shock value and sales. Claiming it's a matter of personal choice is naive when we know that these violent games have a profound impact on developing minds. Society has a duty to protect its members, particularly its youth, from harmful influences—even if it means stepping on a few toes. The First Amendment has its boundaries, and it's time violent video games are pushed outside of them.

I think you are wrong because first, all games are made to be addicting, so your first claim is wrong. second of all, we can have education to not play those games, but the developers can still make the games. Just like the fact that some things are legal but they do harm. For example, hamburgers. Hamburgers make you gain obesity which is harm, but why do they not ban hamburgers? Well because it is up to the person to decide not to eat the hamburger and gain obesity. That's also why we can have education telling children not to eat unhealthy foods, but we can't ultimately tell people to not produce those foods. The same can be applied to violent video games. Just pretend violent video games are junk food. Would you ban junk food?

The debate centers on whether violent video games should be banned, with ChicForest283 arguing in favor and MagnificentArchipelago648 arguing against the ban. ChicForest283's main points are that violent video games breed aggression and anti-social behavior, leading to real-world violence and desensitizing young minds to brutality. They argue that society must prioritize public well-being over entertainment and that the First Amendment has its boundaries when it comes to public harm. In contrast, MagnificentArchipelago648 counters that freedom of expression under the First Amendment protects video games as a form of expression. They argue that individuals have the choice not to play these games and that education, not banning, is the solution. They draw a parallel with unhealthy foods like hamburgers, which are harmful but not banned because it's up to individuals to make their own choices. In their rebuttals, ChicForest283 emphasizes the need for societal protection, arguing that developers intentionally design games to be addictive and violent, prioritizing sales over public well-being. They assert that it's naive to think personal choice alone can mitigate the harmful impact on young minds. MagnificentArchipelago648, on the other hand, maintains that education can address the issue without infringing on freedom of expression. They further draw an analogy to junk food, arguing that just like hamburgers shouldn't be banned despite their harm, violent video games shouldn't be either. Overall, MagnificentArchipelago648 presents a more compelling argument by effectively utilizing the First Amendment, personal choice, and education as solutions. They successfully counter the points made by ChicForest283 and draw a relevant analogy to support their stance. Thus, MagnificentArchipelago648 wins the debate.