THBT Violent Video Games Ought to be Censored
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Burden of proof is shared
Pro: There is a moral obligation to censor most, if not all, violent video games
Con: There is no moral obligation to censor most, if not all, violent video games
Ought: Having a moral obligation. [Ex. People Ought to be Treated Fairly]
Violent: using or involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something
Censor: examine (a book, movie, etc.) officially and suppress unacceptable parts of it.
Video Game: a game played by electronically manipulating images produced by a computer program on a television screen or other display screen.
A) Violent video games (VVG's) are acceptable by Kant because the characters do not hold same value as human beings.
B) VVG's are acceptable under Aristotle's thinking, because games can force moral choices to make meaningful messages
C) Under utilitarianism,
Censor: examine (a book, movie, etc.) officially and suppress unacceptable parts of it.
Perhaps the most iconic fighting franchise of all time, Mortal Kombat never skimped on the blood and gore, whether it was Johnny Cage literally punching someone's head off or Sub-Zero ripping out his opponent's spine.Released in 1992 on the Sega CD, Night Trap used full-motion video to suggest violence and murder as vampire-like creatures known as Augers stalked teenage girls through a mansion.While racing titles are common in video games, ones that give you bonuses for running over pedestrians are not. That led some countries, including Germany, to censor Carmageddon. Pedestrians were replaced with zombies and robots. Brazil outright banned the title.This 2003 survival horror title, filled with gruesome executions, is considered one of the most graphic and violent video games ever. It was banned from sale in Australia.Manhunt also wound up at the center of the investigation of the murder of a 14-year-old in England.One of the first controversial games, this Atari 2600 game from 1982 featured a naked General Custer who rapes bound Native American women.
While the game sold more copies than others released by publisher Mystique, the controversy eventually led to it being removed from circulation.It should come as no surprise that the Grand Theft Auto series has been courting criticism since its very beginning. The games include violence, killing (even cops), drug use and torture.While GTA has become one of the most popular franchises in gaming with 15 titles thus far, that has not stopped some countries -- including Thailand and the United Arab Emirates -- from banning the series.As the name suggests, Postal follows a man with mental health problems as he kills civilians and law enforcement. The game was popular enough that sequels, spinoffs and a (terrible) film were all made.
Its sequel, Postal 2, was banned in New Zealand, Australia, Malaysia, Germany and Sweden.This game proved controversial, in part, as the first high-profile FPS released after the massacre at Columbine High School.Its portrayal of violence earned Kingpin: Life of Crime a mention in the US Senate. Some stores, including Toys R Us, refused to carry it.Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2This game drew heavy criticism for its "No Russian" mission, which allows you to take part in mass shooting attack at a Moscow airport and murder civilians. The mission was removed entirely from the game in Russia.While there are many violent survivor horror games, Rule of Rose came under fire due to the young age of the characters in the game.While it was released in the US on the Sony PlayStation 2, the game was canceled in the UK shortly before release.The sixth installment in the Silent Hill franchise was also the most graphic. Due to its content, which included torture, dismembered bodies and decapitations, the game was banned in Australia and Germany.
Dreams overall can have much more of an impact on our brains than we’d like to believe. Whether it is affecting our moods, relationships, or defining issues and problems in our lives, it is clear that dreams can affect our day-to-day actions without our knowledge. So next time you wake up in the middle of the night due to a crazy man chasing you down the street, remember to define the context of the chase and identify the man pursuing you.
The burden is pretty clearly on Pro in this debate: demonstrate harms that come from failing to censor these video games. He even buys into the utilitarian framework, which is probably his biggest mistake because utility generally focuses on outcomes, yet Pro actively states that those outcomes aren’t evident because of existing censorship (ignoring the fact that many of the games on his extensive list from R2 are legal to play as is in more than a few countries). So, much of Pro’s case is reliant on pushing a narrative of what would happen should existing censorship be removed, and almost every point is speculative. Pro asserts that people will be harmed, but provides only a source about the effects of dreaming to support this, a source that has tenuous application at best given that it doesn’t discuss the events of video games playing out in dreams, nor provides a clear impact to that occurring. That means Pro’s case is reliant on evocative imagery and a logical story about how this would affect people, though I have similarly logical statements from Con, and the imagery doesn’t do much to set him apart. I might have been willing to go for an argument about specific censorship of certain depictions of violence and gore, but to do that, I needed a response to the slippery slope argument from Pro’s R1 and I need evidence that those specific scenes are damaging in unique ways, not just reasons why they might be. I’m left wanting by Pro’s points in the end.
Con’s case is far more focused on defense than offense, spending most of his time tackling issues of video games translating into violence and arguing that they either don’t cause those harms or, in a few cases, that they can actually decrease violent tendencies (these are rather limited and don’t get much extension, nor do I get much reason to prefer this framing given the lack of data to support any shift in either direction resulting from VVGs). But I have quite a bit on loss of freedom of expression (Pro actively concedes this) and some of the more minor benefits to coordination and cooperation, even if I’m not quite clear on their impacts.
Since I can’t reach a clear conclusion on the effects of the specific VVGs Pro derides, but I can at least get some minor benefits from preventing censorship in terms of providing a broader range of video games with more creativity (I might not like that particular creativity, but that doesn’t mean it’s value-less), I vote Con. I’ll also award him sources, as Pro’s sources do little to nothing to assist his case, whereas Con’s effectively support his argument, even if most of them are defensive in nature.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: whiteflame // Mod action: Not Removed (borderline)
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: arguments and sources to con.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Of course this is already outside the voting period. From the voting policy: "For cases of suspected malicious voting patterns, votes may be reviewed up to one month after voting has concluded." This is not such a case. However, I'll review what's there anyway...
The argument allotment makes sense, the voter bought the moral framework and value offered in artistic freedom, over the slippery slope. There's a couple things that could be nitpicked, but it would still pass muster without hesitation.
Sources gives a hesitation, due to not dotting the i's and crossing the t's so to speak. While it is clear on why the award, it does not spell out any specific source from con; even while mentioning better utilization. It does spell out a couple specific ones from pro, and names lack of applicability. I'd most likely still let it stand, even if I prefer seeing a source from each side named to make my job less difficult.
**************************************************
Put a penalty mark on whiteflame for this RFD please. I report primarily for the sources point allocation.
Like I said, it has less to do with the content of the sources than it does with their application to the debate. I rarely award source points, but I feel it's justified in this instance.
I’d scratch my head on sources as well, considering you (white flame) didn’t take a stance on my other video game debate where my sources were scrutinized severely by other debaters. Nice vote though. I wasn’t sure why madman took this strange approach
I’ll also note that none of my RFD is based in the interpretation that censorship must encompass more than what already is censored. Not sure where you’re getting that.
Well, now you’ve blocked me, not sure why. If you disagree, then so be it. I’m not here to court your favor. I’ve voted on four debates between you and Undefeatable, and voted for you on two of them. You’re welcome to think it should be more, but I have a very clear voting record and I’ve voted on a similar basis multiple times before. Undefeatable, of all people on this site, knows I’m not biased in his favor.
But hey, you do you. Guessing I’ll see a post in the forums about this at some stage.
I have had enough of you, this is the limit where I am done tolerating your bullcrap bias. Your RFD showed 0 brainpower applied to the Pro's case or understanding of my side even as a concept.
This is getting so ridiculous that you vote Sources based on even more bullshit than that. My sources were reliable and very well used. Censor did not mean 'more than already is', it is never once said this is the case in the resolution or description, you decided to not apply tabula rasa and be a prick with your vote.
This is it, I am done with you. I have tolerated your shit votes long enough, I used to admire you but you are now the ultimate bullshiter whether it's bsh1's debate agaisnt me or this. Sure, you are smart and you put effort in but that doesn't mean anything when you are just loading your opinion into an RFD that barely has anything to do with the actual case of Pro when you analysed it.
Yes, because I’m so well known for posting insufficient reasoning for my notoriously short RFDs. I’m clearly afraid of having mods check my votes.
coward, voting so it can't be removed in last minute.
about one week left. Just who made the blunder of failing to participate in this debate, me, or Rational Madman? Let's see.
Also kids aren't innocent.
Going to show this to my mom. Maybe she will be less worried about me becoming a cold-blooded killer by playing a tactical shooter. LOL.
I'll keep an eye on it. I've played my fair share of violent video games :P
feel free to think about this one.