My Paper - Violent Video Games and Children

[PhoenixOfPanem]

Video games – we all know about them, whether it's that harmless card game your grandma plays, the one in which you shoot as many people as possible, or that sandbox building-mining game. It has been demonstrated by many studies that violent video games can make people more aggressive, violent, and generally dangerous. Now, I'm not saying that any video game involving any type of harm is going to make you a crazy mass murderer, but some people do become killers because of these games.

In fact, these video games are a lot like mass murder: you go in with a gun and shoot as many people as you can. The difference is this: in the video game, you are rewarded for killing; while in real life you are put in jail. Young, irrationally thinking adolescent gamers may not realize the consequences of real-life Call of Duty, so they could easily go out and shoot people in real life.

The shooters at Columbine, Sandy Hook, and other tragic homicides and killings all played video games of this type. After playing many hours of Call of Duty to "train" for his "mission,"Anders Breivik, a Norwegian, went out and killed 77 people. The aforementioned mission was, in fact, to kill as many people in real life as he could. It was also recently discovered that Adam Lanza admired Breivik and tried to top his kill count when Lanza killed 27 people, including 20 children, at Sandy Hook.

Video games like Grand Theft Auto and other first-person shooter games affect teenagers more than adults, partly due to the adolescent brain's developing prefrontal cortex (the part that enables them to make wise decisions) and therefore the adolescent's self-control. Because of this, teenagers are more prone to making rash decisions – such as taking a gun and shooting as many people as possible – in real life, because they've been conditioned to do so through these video games.

In these games, if you kill someone, you don't go to jail, you don't die, you don't get fined – you get extra points! Is this the message we want to send our children – that killing is good? Because it will translate into real life, and then we've been raising mass murderers on shoot-'em-up video games! When the children who played these games yesterday shoot and kill people today, who or what takes the blame? Is it the parents, for having the gun that the child used? A law preventing kids from taking their parents' guns cannot be enforced within the privacy of one's home– that would be grounds for violation of the Fourth Amendment, so it's up to the responsible adults to keep the guns from the kids. Is it the gun control laws, for having loopholes? Every law has loopholes, and you can't close them all. Or could it be the murder games they play, the graphics disturbingly similar to reality... ?

People may dismiss this issue because they aren't mass murderers: "I play Call of Duty, and I've never had an urge to go out and shoot people!" They may never have had homicidal tendencies, but they are one person in the sea of video-game players, some of whom have turned up in the news as the most recent mass murderers. What a violent video game or gun control law would do is keep those kids from committing homicide.

I recently watched a video of someone playing Call of Duty. It involved the player working in a team of terrorists and shooting as many people as possible in an airport. It was, of course, all animated, but there was still much blood and gore whenever someone died. The aim of this particular mission was to kill as many people as possible, as most of the missions' goals were. I, like many others, find playing a game that rewards the player for murder to be despicable and sickening. Why play a game that rewards you for killing? Might it be "because it's fun," as I have heard my peers explain? Or because these games groom them for The End Game... ?
Chris Christie even made this statement pertaining to violent video games, "You cannot tell me that a kid sitting in a basement for hours playing Call of Duty and killing people over and over and over again does not desensitize that child to the real-life effects of violence." Some people I know were perfectly nice... and then they started playing violent video games. Now they're easier to provoke and more aggressive. There is a clear link here - children and teenagers and murderers have proved it time and time again. But somehow, people just don't see it.

Some of my peers frequently discuss the video games they play. I have overheard quite a few conversations about Call of Duty and other shooter games. I became curious about these games and decided to do some research. I used a well-known media review website, Common Sense Media, which gives all Call of Duty games a rating of NOT FOR KIDS, due to graphic violence, uncensored language, and other mature elements. After all, the Entertainment Software Rating Board rated Call of Duty as "M [mature] for Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Strong Language, Suggestive Themes, and Use of Drugs." A rating of M from the ESRB means that the content is generally suitable for ages 17 and up, because of graphic violence and/or sexual content. The kids I heard discussing this game were between ages 11 to 13, which is nowhere near ages 17 and up.

Most soldiers in the American military during the Civil War and World War II didn't actually shoot at the enemy. They just couldn't bring themselves to kill at close range, where they could see the enemy soldier, look them in the eye, and shoot them and kill them. But by the Vietnam War, over 90% of troops could be counted on to kill in close quarters. How did the military make this happen, you
ask? The secret to their success... was simulations of actual battles. The military now trains their soldiers using violent video games. Now children – some even as young as eight years old – spend hours in similar battle simulators. Most of these kids will not become mass murderers, but combine emotionally troubled children with battle simulations that train them to kill and it's fairly simple: real-life homicides can happen. And nobody wants real-life homicides, now do we?

I've heard the statistics and comments – "I play Call of Duty and I've never had the urge to run out and murder everyone!" Though most gamers won't ever become homicidal, that statistic provides no relief for the families of gun violence victims. Our media has become more and more violent over the years. The most recent mass murderers have played violent video games. We raise our kids on these battle simulators. It's time we stop training our kids to kill people!

(If you recognize the paper and think you know me, please don't post it publicly - PM me. And disagreements... how about they go here?)
That's my paper, any comments or edits I should make before submitting it? (It's for a contest, otherwise I wouldn't ask for help.)

[Ungatt Trunn II]

Where's the data? You've basically said "video games are bad because I've seen this and these people say that" but unless I'm missing something you don't have any specific studies cited or objective facts.

It has been demonstrated by many studies that violent video games can make people more aggressive, violent, and generally dangerous

What studies?

The difference is this: in the video game, you are rewarded for killing; while in real life you are put in jail.

Actually the difference is one is real and one is fake. 

It was also recently discovered that Adam Lanza admired Breivik and tried to top his kill count when Lanza killed 27 people, including 20 children, at Sandy Hook.

Is this really relevant to the topic of video games?

In these games, if you kill someone, you don't go to jail, you don't die, you don't get fined – you get extra points!

In the modern GTA games, you do go to jail, die, AND get fined. Unless you are referring to the games they made in the 90's, in which case there are kinda points but you still go to jail, die and get fined.



And some other stuff too. Good luck on the paper

[Shadow]

Ungatt beat me to it. Basically every paragraph needs citations, some of them need multiple citations. Never, ever, ever, ever utter the words "studies show" without subsequently referencing at least one, and preferably several, studies that show what you are claiming.

The reference to Brevik is a non-sequitur, but is actually the point you could legitimately be arguing - that media coverage makes mass-murderers into celebrities and inspires copy-cat nobodies who want the attention. Again, citation needed, but you'll find that there actually is an intellectually honest discussion about this online, whereas the link between violence and video games does not (at least, not in the affirmative).

The most recent mass murderers have played violent video games.

This is an example of a logical fallacy: specifically, that correlation implies causation. The quintessential example is that both Hitler and Stalin had mustaches - does it therefore follow that mustaches predispose one to mass-murder?

[PhoenixOfPanem]

Thanks guys. I'll fix it up.

[Gen. Volkov]

Video games – we all know about them, whether it's that harmless card game your grandma plays, the one in which you shoot as many people as possible, or that sandbox building-mining game. 1. It has been demonstrated by many studies that violent video games can make people more aggressive, violent, and generally dangerous. Now, I'm not saying that any video game involving any type of harm is going to make you a crazy mass murderer, 2. but some people do become killers because of these games.

1. As both Ungatt and Shadow said, you need to specify the studies.

2. Which people? Show your evidence. Who has played violent video games and gone on to become a mass-murderer.

In fact, these video games are a lot like mass murder: you go in with a gun and shoot as many people as you can. The difference is this: in the video game, you are rewarded for killing; while in real life you are put in jail. Young, irrationally thinking adolescent gamers may not realize the consequences of real-life Call of Duty, so they could easily go out and shoot people in real life.

You need to give a reason why a game about military operations is equivalent to a civilian mass-murderer. There are very important differences between the two.

The shooters at Columbine, Sandy Hook, and other tragic homicides and killings all played video games of this type. After playing many hours of Call of Duty to "train" for his "mission,"Anders Breivik, a Norwegian, went out and killed 77 people. The aforementioned mission was, in fact, to kill as many people in real life as he could. It was also recently discovered that Adam Lanza admired Breivik and tried to top his kill count when Lanza killed 27 people, including 20 children, at Sandy Hook.

You need to cite your sources for all of this information. Where is your evidence that all the killers involved in these tragedies played violent video games? How do you know Anders played Call of Duty? Also, as Shadow said, the point about Lanza and Brevik is a completely different point and needs it's own section, and it needs a citation.

Video games like Grand Theft Auto and other first-person shooter games affect teenagers more than adults, partly due to the adolescent brain's developing prefrontal cortex (the part that enables them to make wise decisions) and therefore the adolescent's self-control. Because of this, teenagers are more prone to making rash decisions – such as taking a gun and shooting as many people as possible – in real life, because they've been conditioned to do so through these video games.

Again, you need a source for this information, furthermore, not all the shooters were teenagers. Breivik, which you mention, was in his early 30s and the Sandy Hook shooter, Lanza, was 20 years old, and the Aurora shooter was 25 years old. The argument here is weak at best, and much better explained by mental illness.

In these games, if you kill someone, you don't go to jail, you don't die, you don't get fined – you get extra points! Is this the message we want to send our children – that killing is good? Because it will translate into real life, and then we've been raising mass murderers on shoot-'em-up video games! When the children who played these games yesterday shoot and kill people today, who or what takes the blame? Is it the parents, for having the gun that the child used? A law preventing kids from taking their parents' guns cannot be enforced within the privacy of one's home– that would be grounds for violation of the Fourth Amendment, so it's up to the responsible adults to keep the guns from the kids. Is it the gun control laws, for having loopholes? Every law has loopholes, and you can't close them all. Or could it be the murder games they play, the graphics disturbingly similar to reality... ?

All of this is speculation, and to be taken seriously, you need some sort of citation for the majority of the statements in this paragraph.

People may dismiss this issue because they aren't mass murderers: "I play Call of Duty, and I've never had an urge to go out and shoot people!" They may never have had homicidal tendencies, but they are one person in the sea of video-game players, some of whom have turned up in the news as the most recent mass murderers. What a violent video game or gun control law would do is keep those kids from committing homicide.

This is a logical fallacy, basically saying that if some people who played violent video games became mass murderers, all people who play violent video games will become mass murderers. The truth is, a very tiny proportion of the people who play violent video games become mass murderers. As you say, there is a veritable sea of gamers out there. There is no evidence that preventing people from playing violent video games would prevent homicide. A gun control law is another debate entirely, and should be removed from this essay.

I recently watched a video of someone playing Call of Duty. It involved the player working in a team of terrorists and shooting as many people as possible in an airport. It was, of course, all animated, but there was still much blood and gore whenever someone died. The aim of this particular mission was to kill as many people as possible, as most of the missions' goals were. I, like many others, find playing a game that rewards the player for murder to be despicable and sickening. Why play a game that rewards you for killing? Might it be "because it's fun," as I have heard my peers explain? Or because these games groom them for The End Game... ?
Chris Christie even made this statement pertaining to violent video games, "You cannot tell me that a kid sitting in a basement for hours playing Call of Duty and killing people over and over and over again does not desensitize that child to the real-life effects of violence." Some people I know were perfectly nice... and then they started playing violent video games. Now they're easier to provoke and more aggressive. There is a clear link here - children and teenagers and murderers have proved it time and time again. But somehow, people just don't see it.

You need to give evidence that your opinion of violent video games is shared by "many others". You also need to give evidence that violent video games make people more aggressive. Personal anecdotes are not good writing, they only work in politics. You need to demonstrate an actual link, not just say there is one. Chris Christie is a politician, not a scientist or even a psychologist, his opinion is not relevant to a serious essay, and should not be included.

Some of my peers frequently discuss the video games they play. I have overheard quite a few conversations about Call of Duty and other shooter games. I became curious about these games and decided to do some research. I used a well-known media review website, Common Sense Media, which gives all Call of Duty games a rating of NOT FOR KIDS, due to graphic violence, uncensored language, and other mature elements. After all, the Entertainment Software Rating Board rated Call of Duty as "M [mature] for Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Strong Language, Suggestive Themes, and Use of Drugs." A rating of M from the ESRB means that the content is generally suitable for ages 17 and up, because of graphic violence and/or sexual content. The kids I heard discussing this game were between ages 11 to 13, which is nowhere near ages 17 and up.

Relevance? The stores aren't selling M rated games to kids, they are selling the M rated games to their parents or guardians, who have full legal rights to choose what games their kids will or will not be allowed to play. You need a point for this paragraph, otherwise it should be removed.

Most soldiers in the American military during the Civil War and World War II didn't actually shoot at the enemy. They just couldn't bring themselves to kill at close range, where they could see the enemy soldier, look them in the eye, and shoot them and kill them. But by the Vietnam War, over 90% of troops could be counted on to kill in close quarters. How did the military make this happen, you
ask? The secret to their success... was simulations of actual battles. The military now trains their soldiers using violent video games. Now children – some even as young as eight years old – spend hours in similar battle simulators. Most of these kids will not become mass murderers, but combine emotionally troubled children with battle simulations that train them to kill and it's fairly simple: real-life homicides can happen. And nobody wants real-life homicides, now do we?

The opening set of statements is flat out false, and you need to specify that the ones actually in combat did not do so, because the support wing of the military is always bigger than the part that does the actual fighting, so most soldiers never fire their weapon in combat, period. You need a source or citation for this, any which way. (Though you won't find it because it simply is not true) Also, the "simulations of battles" the Army uses are called "combat exercises" and involve actually going to a place and engaging in nonlethal combat (paintballs instead of bullets) with other real people, in a real life setting. It's a pretty far cry from "video games". You still need to provide a citation for your closing assertion.

I've heard the statistics and comments – "I play Call of Duty and I've never had the urge to run out and murder everyone!" Though most gamers won't ever become homicidal, that statistic provides no relief for the families of gun violence victims. Our media has become more and more violent over the years. The most recent mass murderers have played violent video games. We raise our kids on these battle simulators. It's time we stop training our kids to kill people!

The bolded sentence is emotion, not logic. Most people won't ever die in a plane crash, but some do, and their families will never be the same. Should we stop flying planes? Ditto cars, boats, etc. That fact is that only a very tiny proportion of gamers become mass murderers, and it's always a result of mental illness. You also have to account for the fact that mass murders happened before video games were ever invented. In fact, homicide is as old as humans, so attributing it to something that only appeared 40 years ago is pretty weak.

[PhoenixOfPanem]

Thanks to all who gave me feedback. The paper has been handed in (with very helpful edits that no peer edits pointed out, as they all agree with me) and your edits greatly improved the quality of my paper.
Can this thread now be deleted?

[Kilkenne]

Threads exist forever if you post them, more or less. They're not deleted unless they are particularly offensive. While your stance on this issue is ridiculous, it is not offensive.

[Shadow]

basically what kilk said

[Firetooth]

So where are all those studies showing a causal relationship between playing video games & how violent an individual is?

[Holby]

So where are all those studies showing a causal relationship between playing video games & how violent an individual is?

Yeah.

[windhound]

I found one!
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/04/19/as-video-game-sales-climb-year-over-year-violent-crime-continues-to-fall/

"In 2010, Dr. Fergusson and Dr. Stephanie M. Rueda published another study in which they took a sample of 103 young adults and had them solve a "frustration task." Separating the participants into four groups, the researches had one group play no video game, one play a non-violent video game, one play as good guys in a violent game, and one play as bad guys in a violent game.

They found that the games had no impact on aggressive behavior whatsoever, and that the group which played no game at all was the most aggressive after the task, whereas the group that played the violent games were the least hostile and depressed."

Oh.  Nevermind ^_^

But yeah...  I guess that's a paper driven by your audience.
People who believe videogames are terrible influences aren't the type to be swayed by things as meaningless as facts and statistics -- they know they're right, even though 183 million Americans play video games.  If you properly appeal to their emotions and confirmation bias the paper could be well received. 
Good luck with the contest.

[PhoenixOfPanem]

All my peers have the stance I presented. I would get a terrible grade. Personally I am neutral on the issue, but clearly I don't want a bad grade because of my opinions on the issue.

[Raggon]

Wait... they would fail you if they didn't agree with what you said?

[Death]

That is so weak. If someone gives you a poor grade not because of the merit of your work, but because the sourced information and backed up claims you make disagree with their position that is an issue you should take up. You shouldn't just roll over like a little punk. If someone is doing something wrong the only way anything can be fixed is by someone nutting up at some point and standing up for themselves.

That said though, as far as putting words together to make sentences and stuff you did fine. I just can't really condone knowingly lying outright just to get a better grade out of fear of challenging the ignorant stance others might hold. As long as you aren't going into journalism or anything it should be fine though. It's just pretty unethical.

[Genevieve]

Wouldn't you get a terrible grade for making outrageous claims with no sources? Are you home schooled?