Internet Hub Offers Both Sides of Game Violence Debate

February 8, 2010 -

ProCon.org, a California-based nonprofit charity that specializes in promoting "critical thinking" by presenting both sides of compelling issues has launched a new site dedicated to the topic of video games and violence.

The hub offers an introduction to the topic, noting that “The effect of violent video games on children and teens has been debated by researchers and the media since the release of the video game Death Race in 1976.”

It then lists a variety of research and opinions on the subject, from both sides of the fence, and offeres gathered images and videos on the subject. Visitors to the site can take a survey on the subject and add their own voice to the debate. A separate debate section highlights pros and cons offered by politicians, scholars or public figures.

A 1999 quote from Bill Clinton is used on the pro (or, yes, violent games contribute to youth violence) side:

… video games like ‘Mortal Kombat,’ ‘Killer Instinct,’ and ‘Doom,’ the very game played obsessively by the two young men who ended so many lives in Littleton, make our children more active participants in simulated violence.

A Henry Jenkins quote is utilized to illustrate the con side of the argument:

According to a 2001 U.S. Surgeon General's report , the strongest risk factors for school shootings centered on mental stability and the quality of home life, not media exposure. The moral panic over violent video games is doubly harmful.


Comments

Re: Internet Hub Offers Both Sides of Game Violence Debate

If the children are left in front of a computer game for many hours they may develop a greater insensibility toward the violence they face in the real world and therefore act in consequence. But video games are bad only if they are overplayed. On the other side, PC games actually develop strategic thinking and many of them contain references to mythology (see Age of Mythology or Caesar). Ella Rochelle - Arizona Web Designer

Re: Internet Hub Offers Both Sides of Game Violence Debate

I do believe this video sums a lot of my opinion on the subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGArqoF0TpQ

It is a video by the saturday morning breakfast comic team exposing "both side" debates as something a bit more than that. Please watch until the end, the author's explanation and opinion is in the third, I think, "debate".

Re: Internet Hub Offers Both Sides of Game Violence Debate

Violent games haven't made me violent & will probably never will. Only my family esp. my mom makes me irritated & go nuts.

 

 

"It's better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." - Montgomery Gentry

"It's better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." - Montgomery Gentry

Re: Internet Hub Offers Both Sides of Game Violence Debate

FBI crime graph is good enough to bring for evidence, as well as the long line of Scare Tactics and Moral Panics that happened with books, radio, comics, TV, movies, cartoons, videogames, dolls, computers and so many other things.

Plus look at wars that are happening in other countries and ask if those countries had videogames?

 

TBoneTony

Re: Internet Hub Offers Both Sides of Game Violence Debate


I just went over there to take a survey.  If anybody reading this article, go to that site and do the survey.  If you join the debate bring every evidence to show them that video game does not cause violence.  Use the FBI Statistic on crimes to prove your point.  Also, to discredit the haters, show what happen to Jack Thompson, Rob Blagoevich, and the like of those politicians.

 

Re: Internet Hub Offers Both Sides of Game Violence Debate

we kinda don't need to drag those names out. Those people are done and over with. We should just present our case and hope for the best.

Re: Internet Hub Offers Both Sides of Game Violence Debate

No.

--------------------------------------------------

I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

-------------------------------------------------- I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

Re: Internet Hub Offers Both Sides of Game Violence Debate

I've posted my views on the site. I think other people here really should take a few minutes to do the same, and do so politely. The survey is VERY short. It asks if you are pro or con and about the importence of the issue, and has a space to write your views in more detail.

Re: Internet Hub Offers Both Sides of Game Violence Debate

This is actually a good idea, assuming enough of both sides join in on the debate. The gamers will for sure. The problems are two things: 1. Those against violent videogames not showing up. 2. Rude gamers making the decent ones look bad.

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." -Albert Einstein

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Which group is more ethically challenged?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Goth_SkunkeZeek: No, I do not agree they are union members.07/07/2015 - 7:48pm
E. Zachary KnightTeachers unions are just as bad as police unions, except of course you are far less likely to be killed by a teacher on duty than you are a cop. But they also protect bad teachers from being fired.07/07/2015 - 6:29pm
E. Zachary KnightGoth, so you agree they are still union members. Thankfully we have a first ammendment that protects people from being forced to join groups they don't support (in most cases any way.)07/07/2015 - 6:27pm
E. Zachary KnightAh, police unions. The reason why cops can't get fired when they beat a defenseless mentally ill homeless person to death. Or when they throw a grenade into a baby's crib. Or when theykill people they were called in to help not hurt themselves.07/07/2015 - 6:26pm
Goth_SkunkeZeek: Non-union employees have no right to attend meetings or union convention/AGM, or influence policy. The only time they get to vote is whether or not to strike.07/07/2015 - 6:24pm
Infophile(cont'd) about non-union police officers being given hell until they joined the union.07/07/2015 - 4:58pm
InfophileParadoxically, the drive in the US to get rid of unions seems to have left only the most corrupt surviving. They seem to be the only ones that can find ways to browbeat employees into joining when paying dues isn't mandatory. I've heard some stories ...07/07/2015 - 4:57pm
Matthew WilsonI am old school on this. I believe its a conflict of interest to have public sector unions. that being said, I do not have a positive look on unions in general.07/07/2015 - 3:59pm
TechnogeekWhat's best for the employee tends to be good for the employer; other way around, not so much. So long as that's the case, there's going to be a far stronger incentive for management to behave in such a way that invites retalitation than for the union to.07/07/2015 - 3:10pm
TechnogeekTeachers' unions? State legislatures. UAW? Just look at GM's middle management.07/07/2015 - 3:05pm
TechnogeekIn many ways it seems that the worse a union tends to behave, the worse that the company's management has behaved in the past.07/07/2015 - 3:02pm
james_fudgeCharity starts at home ;)07/07/2015 - 2:49pm
james_fudgeSo mandatory charity? That sounds shitty to me07/07/2015 - 2:49pm
E. Zachary KnightGoth, if Union dues are automatically withdrawn, then there is no such thing as a non-union employee.07/07/2015 - 2:38pm
Goth_Skunka mutually agreed upon charity instead.07/07/2015 - 2:33pm
Goth_Skunkyou enjoy the benefits of working in a union environment. If working in a union is against your religious beliefs or just something you wholeheartedly object to, dues will still be deducted from your pay, but you can instruct that they be directed towards07/07/2015 - 2:33pm
Goth_SkunkBasically, if you are employed in a business where employees are represented by a union for the purposes of collective bargaining, whether or not you are a union member, you will have union dues deducted from your pay, since regardless of membership,07/07/2015 - 2:32pm
Goth_SkunkIt's something that has existed in Canada since 1946. You can read more on it here: http://ow.ly/PiHWR07/07/2015 - 2:27pm
Goth_SkunkSee, we have something similar in Canada, called a "Rand Employee." This is an employee who benefits from the collective bargaining efforts of a union, despite not wanting to be a part of it for whatever reason.07/07/2015 - 2:22pm
Matthew Wilson@info depends on the sector. for example, have you looked at how powerful unions are in the public sector? I will make the argument they have too much power in that sector.07/07/2015 - 12:39pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician