Pros and Cons - Debbie Newman, Ben Woolgar 2014

Violent video games, banning of
Section F. Culture, education and sport

This debate considers whether state censorship can be justified by the harms caused by violent video games. Games such as Grand Theft Auto have attracted increasing criticism over recent years as the amount of violence has escalated.

Pros

[1] Violent video games encourage a more violent society. The constant exposure to horrific acts desensitises the user to assault and killing. The extent of the brutality in today’s games is shocking and people play them for hours a day, meaning they are on a constant diet of shooting, beating and bludgeoning. This normalises violence in society. There is also a specific issue of copycat crimes where a player enacts in real life the atrocities that they have played. Recently in Britain, a 14-year-old boy committed murder with a hammer after repeatedly playing Manhunt which rewards the same type of attack.

[2] Video games are a particularly harmful medium because of their immersive quality. Violence in film and TV should also be limited, but video games are the worst culprit because the player is in control, committing the violence themselves, rather than watching somebody else do it. It is this feature which leads to a programming effect and can embed violence in the brain of those using the games.

[3] Violent video games are especially harmful to impressionable children and it is very hard to prevent access to them. There has always been a problem with older friends and siblings buying games for youngsters, but now that you can download games straight to your computer, children can access the games themselves with ease.

[4] Violence as entertainment is immoral. If society wants to take a stand against violence, then it should not allow entertainment media to glorify it. This only muddies the message and undermines our values.

Cons

[1] Violent video games are just entertainment and the government should not intervene to limit people’s freedom of choice to play them, as they do not harm the player or anyone else. People know that it is make-believe and it does not therefore influence their views of reality. People who are psychologically disturbed and commit awful crimes would do so without video games. The games cannot be blamed when the overwhelming majority of people play and are unaffected. In fact it may be that video games can channel aggression which might otherwise come out in real violence.

[2] It is wrong to target video games. Film and television have just as much gratuitous violence as video games, and some music genres also feature violence in their lyrics. If anything, these media are worse as they show real people rather than graphics, and they create action heroes for the audience to admire.

[3] Video games have age certification to make sure that they are used appropriately. It is up to parents to monitor use, just as it is with films. Adults should not be denied access to video games in order to protect children any more than they should be denied access to alcohol or gambling.

[4] There always has and always will be violence in entertainment because people find it entertaining. Before the technology for video games was here, children played with toy guns and when there are no toys, children will still engage in imaginative play using their fingers as shooters. Computer games are just a different way of doing the same thing.

Possible motions

This House would ban violent video games.

This House believes that violent video games damage society.

Related topics

Boxing, banning of

Music lyrics, censorship of