I guess if John Bruce can't make money from it, or help someone else make make from it, then it isn't of any worth to the "Warrior for God". (Claim backed by his bowing out of the XFire debate, his desire to make money off of these college debates, and the civil suits such as the Cody Posey case that ignores the various abuses that Cody went through and merely blames violent video games, among other evidence).

The probability that John Bruce will find an excuse to back out of the debate exists also. He'll come up with some lame excuse. And if he doesn't, LET'S GET READY TO TO (debate) RUMBLE!

Nightwng2000
NW2K Software

Thompson has never had the balls to go into a debate he wasn't sure he could win. He'll never go through with this.

The only place this debate can be held is: After school; by the monkey bars!

*cracks up*

Thompson's just a pathetic coward and massacre chaser. He will never follow through with this, because he knows his lies will be exposed and he will be humiliated.

I must have missed the college tour. Any links?

I hope this guy tears Jack a new one.

Jack would get torn up by this guy. Frankly, there's no proof that stopping video games would have stopped Cho from doing what he did, since there isn't much in the way of proof that he was into games. I'm banking JT will be a punk and back out of the debate, again.

Anyways, let us know when the debate will be! This will be must see TV!

First off, I'd say ignore the debate. Just point out that Thompson isn't a good person to debate against, as he isn't a dignified opponent, and thus isn't worth the time. As much fun as it would be to see Thompson get his keister kicked (yes, I just used the word "keister"), I don't think it'd be worth giving Thompson any more possible credibility as a worthy opponent of the gaming industry.

I'd say if the debate were to happen, have one condition as a priority: All money raised goes to charity.
Any charity works really, but something preferably neutral and involved with the topic. I somehow doubt you could get Jack to agree with the charity being Child's Play. This should test whether or not Jack is willing to push his beliefs without a paycheque waiting for him afterwards.

I agree with the formal debate structure for this one, helps keep things pointed.

As for apologizing, I doubt it. If anything, allow him to explain himself. It's not too hard for that claim to be substantiated with quotes from Thompson himself, as well as his behaviour. And really, you don't hear Thompson offering to apologize for his insults.

Considering that he chickened out of debating video game lawyer Tom Buscaglia, I wouldn't be surprised if JT did it again here.

My suggestion to Mr. Rocca is to do the same strategy that Doug did, that is to IGNORE JACK THOMPSON. The only thing the debate will accomplish is giving him free publicity and more bragging rights to him. "I am Jack Thompson! I am an expert! And I just went on another debate with the crooks of the video game industry!" You see what I mean?

As for discrediting JT, there's no need. Newspapers, media, GamePolitics, bloggers, Wikipedia, and lots of other sources are already doing that right now. He already contradicted himself in the foot with his Nightline appearance, and he did it again with the VT shootings. Plus add to the fact that he's currently in trouble with the Florida Bar.

I love it. I was talking with some buds at our office, we make vid games so we love jacks exploits. But this is what we came up with. They should do it, put it on pay per view. I'd happily pay like $15 for it. Then get a group together and take a drink/shot every time jack says something stupid.

I hope Della Rocca turns it down. If he decides to accept, it should only be on the condition that nobody profits from the event. The last thing we should be doing is giving Jack another platform from which he earns a profit while spewing lies.

If I were him, I wouldn't bother getting involved with Jack, it's just JBT looking for yet another platform to pimp his bad science from, he failed on National TV, so now he's trying to make an issue out of his own actions that made him fail. Let him rot in the Media no-go zone he himself created, there are far more worthy people to debate this with, who would provide an intelligent response and not one motivated by hatred and ignorance.

Would this college tour involve debates with the students?

JT is not worth debating, let alone watching. The time is better spent getting the word out about his behavior and less-than-sane demeanor.

Someone needs to use the phrase "massacre chaser" as often as other certain people have used the words "murder simulator"... until it becomes a common turn of speech.

"Can Jason Della Rocca refute the brain scan science coming out of Harvard and Indiana Universities that explain this video game copycat phenomenon?"

Maybe he could if the studies actually explained this so-called “video game copycat phenomenon.”

Let’s start with Harvard. First of all, Thompson has the wrong school. Unless he’s talking about Kim Thompson’s ESRB accuracy study, I believe he mean’s Sonya Brady’s University of Pittsburgh study which had 100 college kids (18-21) play GTA III or Simpsons: Hit and Run. The study showed that those who had played GTA III had higher blood pressure and more permissive attitudes towards drug use.

Why does Thompson keep referring to that as the Harvard study? Because he read about it here which talks about two other studies, the aforementioned ESRB accuracy study and a TV violence study, both from Harvard.

As for Indiana, the study used an MRI to look at the difference between the brains of normal kids and kids with disruptive behavioral disorders when playing violent games. The conclusion: kids with DBD have less activity going on in the frontal lobe (decision-making and behavioral control) then kids without DBD when playing violent games. The games used? A racing game and a James Bond game.


"What is his rebuttal to the US Supreme Court case striking down the juvenile death penalty that cited those brain scan studies?"

Probably the fact that that case has zero to do with video games. Did Roper v. Simmons cite these specific studies? No. In fact, near as I can tell, no specific brain scan study was cited period. Got lots of reading time? Hear you go.


"Is he willing to refute the American Psychological Association formal finding that there is a direct causal link between violent video games and teen aggression?"

For the simple reason that it did not find a direct causal link I’d say yes. It’s not a finding, it’s a resolution. It read studies that suggest there may potentially be an increase in aggressive behavior when playing violent games so the APA recommends, in light of this possibility, that children be taught media literacy, the entertainment industry links violent behavior with negative consequences, a content-based ratings system, and that game developers address the possibility of game violence increasing aggressive thoughts and behaviors.


Andrew Eisen

Oops. Forgot to link the APA resolution.

http://www.apa.org/releases/videoviolence05.html


Andrew Eisen

Is it really because of the money that he declined? Or the fact that he has no... ummm... facts?

No, it's the money. Shocking.

JT is not a coward, he is a concerned father that does not want to finacially hurt his family. Is it that hard to get a little compensation in exchange for the time and effort it takes to defend his beliefs

/sarcasm

Its sick that he will only confront his opposition if his getting paid for it.

@ Gameboy
That entry was made just after reading the update that Jack won't debate unless he's getting paid. Here's what I meant: Is it really because of the money that Jack declined? Or the fact that Jack has nothing to back up his "facts"? That debating with someone in the actual gaming industry who knows what he’s talking about would be public suicide?

Personally I think it's all of the above.

Damn. My last post was supposed to indicate the use of air quotes around the words "Footsoldier of God"...~_~

Thompson has just proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that JDR was completely right. He is an ambulance chaser, a massacre chaser, a despicable lowlife, and a poor excuse for a human being. I feel dirty being the same species as him, let alone the same race.

Here he is, trying to "prove" that he's not out just for himself, and then he makes it painfully clear that THE ONLY REASON HE WANTS THE DEBATE IS SO HE CAN MAKE A BUCK! It's clear through the first few emails in the blog that he's trying to trap JDR into saying OK so he can book the debate before all of the details are disclosed.

A sick, sick "man".

This isn't the first time I've seen people confused by the connection Thompson has to Guccione Jr.

Bob and Jack butted heads over obscenity in music, mainly surrounding the group 2 Live Crew. While Bob doesn't have much of a handle on the game industry, he does have a history of commenting on the lack of merit in censorship.

Everything Jack does regarding the game industry is an overarching attempt at content censorship, so there is at least a tangential connection here against which Guccione has some experience.

I realize that all that takes longer to type than "(huh?)", but figured somebody would want to know.