Okay, so this topic is for all you people that like debating here. What I'll do is give you a topic, and you can debate about it, and afterwards I'll decide who was the best debater and had the strongest arguement. You'll get a point, and I'll give another topic. The cycle then repeats. We'll do about 20 rounds, and claim a winner. :spin:

I have plenty of topics to choose from, but the first one is:

Does television/movie and video game violence make people more violent and cause them to become more likely to commit violent crimes such as murder?

It depends what kind of people your talking about...skitzofrenic(sp?) people are the most likely to repeat such violent acts how ever a normal person that acts or repeats something that is done on tv or in a game it just makes them plain psychopaths since they have the knowledge of what is right and what is wrong some people like to use video games or shows as an excuse so the arm of the law can be distracted and slap the wrong person and that is the key word for this issue.

You had a point, but it was shooed away by the lack of punctuation.

I'd agree though. We recently had a car crash in Toronto or some crazy place and a the first thing announced on the topic was that a copy of Need For Speed was found in the car. They obviously couldn't have been playing while in the car, so they played it at a friend's house and eventually left for home. Then, somehow, the game took control of their body and smashed the car into a taxi, killing the driver of it, but not harming the two teens. The game then left the conscience of the driver and returned to it's box. No. It's all their fault.

It was only a matter of time until a driving game got pulled into this blame game.

Maybe this wasn't the greatest topic of debate, DK. This is a GTA forum. :P

Yeah I heard about that car crash. I think that people these days would blame anything that relates to the accident, they don't even look at the area first, they just assume the teenagers was hooked on the game too much and thought they can do the same shit as in the game. Which they can't. :ph43r: :ph43r:

The fundamental point behind this question focuses on the impressionability of the population of today. Essentially, one must act to determine whether or not engaging in an act in a virtual setting gives one the psychological capacity to re-create that act in a real-world situation.

There are a number of perspectives one can take. One is by only looking at those who offend. There are, without question, crimes that are influenced by games. Whether it's the crime in it's entirity, or just the method (that is, the guilty party always had the intention, but saw the method by which there aims could be achieved while playing GTA:SA), there is really no question that through showing violence in youth associated mediums (Movies, Games etc.) one creates extra acts of violence. This does include movies - there are cases of people mimicing things such as scenes from Resevior Dogs.

However, does this, admittedly minimal, effect mean that Games make people more likely to commit violent crimes? I would argue not. In some cases it will, undoubtedly, but one really must ask if that could influence them, would they not have been influenced by some other source any way? To try and prevent violent crimes by removing all depictions of violence
seems to me to not be a particularly effective method.

If people are really impressionable enough to be influenced by actions taken in a virtual medium, I would think that the reporting of actions taken within the real-world to be a more serious threat. I would argue that media coverage of violent crimes has a far more serious impact on the incidence violent crime than the placement of violent crime in a virtual medium. The coverage of violent crime (specifically homicide) has been increasing, but the actual murder rate itself is not. If people take the idea of killing with such ease from a simulated reality, then taking it from reality would be much simpler.

Essentially, the situation is that, while there can be no question that the placement of violent criminal acts in virtual mediums does impact on both the qualititive (from a simple shooting to more barbaric methods, a la Quentin Tarentino) and the quantitive (how many) incidence of violent crimes, this effect is in the long-term minimal compared to the other impacts - notably, the psychological state of the criminal, and the media.

Oh he's good. Still only a one-sided debate though.

I'm not going to go out with some long explanation for this problem, but a brief honest explanation instead.

When people that other people love die, they look too blame something, sort of for closure, for example if a family member was killed by guns, you might go after weapons Laws ect.

Games just happen too fit not only guns, but also sex, drugs and all sorts of Illegal happenings which would make one believe that it makes these people do what they see.

However just because this happend, does not give you the right to go out and tell people what is false, because chances are this person(s) was already "Loco", and was plotting such a thing already as Purge said before me.

Games are just the newest scape-goat, before them it was Tv, Music.. everything, its probably just a stage untill the next best thing comes along.

I understand what you are trying to say, but unless you're whipping the case at somebody's head or using the disk as a frisbee in a crowded area, you can't really use that as a comparison.

I suppose that is true, besides that the people who actualy possibly get hurt by these arent leading the struggle anyways, people with a Political Reputation just add this too their "Agenda" too look good to all the conservatives ( It works ).

At church everyone talks about how bad games are, i am almost positive that 90%+ have never actualy played one of these "Violent" video games.

In fact I picked this quote up at church-

, While You can sleep with prostitutes and kill them, you cant do the majority of the things in that sentance.

Besides that what is wrong with telling people the truth? Its not like the game forces you to do this, and would you prefer a game with Care Bears roaming the streets? Liberty City just wouldnt be the same if Rainbow Bear was your first boss.

Thats what I hate about Children and their programing, they expect so much of the world, and it turns out its just a lie, and the world doesnt have the completely friendly atmosphere that Cartoons portray, for example in one cartoon.

Nearly everyone has some brand of colored hair that would be impossible to get naturaly, they almost always smile... there arent any guns... and dogs and cats talk.

Now if you were a 6 six year old, no matter how much you deny it, if you grew up spoiled rotten like most American children, you would probably believe it just for a moment.

If your going to tell a story, tell what really happend.

Grand Theft Auto and Simular games dont have "Care Bears" or "Talking Happy Dogs", it has what you would really encounter in the world.
Its how You deal with it is your decision.

Amen ma brutha! :dance:
I strongly agree with that bit american children are mostly the fools who do damage and blaming video games everytime I go to a movie theatre or store therels ALWAYS a american parent taking shit from a lil shit...parents need to beat their kids and educate them teach em what is right and wrong.

:rockon:

I totaly agree, If I did half the shit i see kids get away wit hevery time i'm at the store or wherever, i would have got slapped silly by my Dad.

Like when children throw hissy fits when they dont get their way, beat the crap out of them untill they stop their rebellion, it works.

Besides that its the parents fault that they bought the games, kids cant afford them.. then they go off and blame the companies who made them ( Not for their Children ).

Okay well Purge wins the first round, for having the best response. (Not surprising is it? :P)

And since we've started discussing it, the next topic is:

Is it right for parents to beat their children?

I'm with Maddox on this one. http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=beat

Does that count as me winning?

Children need to be beaten sometimes.
Otherwise they turn into spoiled little brats who always get there way ( Way to common with white parents ), If you beat them when they deserve it, they turn out well.

Lets face it, Children have "Rights" all of a sudden, like if a child says "I dont want to take out the trash", its cute all of a sudden?
WTF.

I agree with jedi here if you smack your kid or what ever they'll learn that by doing something wrong it will earn them something bad like a slap it's a psychological thing and yeah like jedi said kids are getting rights all of a sudden...like little middle school kids getting cellphones,america is getting fucked in the ass by it's own people with these dumb laws like a child molester getting off with the condition to check in..what kind of shit is that?
jail the bastard for life with no bail.(child molesters)

getting back on topic mostly it's the parents fault too because when they do drugs the kids comes out with some ADHD shit,so doing drugs and making babies is a cause for these sorta bratty obnoxious(sp?) kids sometimes since drugs are in their blood causing them to go crazy like when a smack head stops using smack that's why they go all wild like that.

Well it's alright to beat their ass's but no punching! If they're little rodents they deserve a smack and a week off the net. That sounds fair. :D

If questioned, most people will say that they do not approve of children being 'beaten' by there parents, but would find it appropriate for 'reasonable force' to be used in disciplining a child - I assume that is the point that is intended to be argued, rather than 'beat'.

There are two sides to this case, the legal and the moral. The legal side is clearer so I will go through that first.

In New Zealand, the law specifies that the parent/legal guardian of a child can use "reasonable force" in disciplining said child. However, in practice what seems to be quite sensible is actually completely redundant. Firstly, there is not a definition of "reasonable", so there is a situation where Parents have been excused from, frankly, acts of child abuse (hitting with power cords, other implements etc.) which the perpatrators have been cleared on the basis of the use of "reasonable force". Such a law, allowing "reasonable force" is thus unsuitable. Perhaps something more defined - eg defining specifically how discipline can be administed (only allowing say, a single openhanded smack) but in practice such things are far from revolutionary. The idea behind the law is far more important than the law itself, and the public perception of it would be, for all purposes, 'reasonable force'. So, from the perspective of ensuring that parents that are abusing their children are unable to use legal regulations allowing physical punishment to protect themselves from the law, it is completely untenable..

On the moral side of the question, we are faced with a number of queries. The fundamental issue is that for the use of violence against children to be justified, it has to benefit them in the long term. Using this criterium it is hard to find it moral acceptable. Firstly, children (especially smaller children) are influenced greatly by the people they look up to as role-models. In the over-whelming bulk of situations, the parents fall into this classification. So, by using violence against your children you are sanction there subsequent use of violence in whatever situation they may deem it suitable. Furthermore, studies have shown positive reinforcement to be more effective than negative, and that the use of violence cause more long-term psychological harm than good.

Consider the nations that have outright banned the use of physical violence against children. One such nation is Sweeden, a country that generally does very well in international comparasions of standard of living, crime rates etc.

This considered, the only legitimate conclusion one can take is that the use of violence in disciplining a child is neither legally sustainable, nor morally acceptable.

(oh and w00t I won the first round)

...and the second.

When I was in Philippines I used to get beaten with shit when I do wrong stuff, I guess I did deserve the whipping on the back and on the legs. Oh well. :ph43r: :ph43r:

Hehe Purge is helping me out in a way on the first question. My topic for my Research Paper in English is about TV and Movie Violence and its link to violent behavior. :P

I believe children should get beat when neccesary, and only then because it is not okay to beat them when they don't deserve it. That's called child abuse. However say your kid is refusing to do something you asked them to 3 times, it's time for a smack. I have a friend from San Diego and his mom would slap him when he fucked up. (Happened a lot too)

Parents need to take care of their kids and not allow them to disobey. You as the parent is providing the children with things vital to their survival. They should listen to you and learn from example. You can't let your kid grow up to be a scumbag, teach them lessons in life and hit them for disobeying. I have been hit occasionally by my parents growing up the past 16 years. It wasn't a regular occurence. It only happened when I would screw around and just ignore what my parents said.

So just to reiterate what I said, I think that parents are acceptably allowed to physically beat their child, when the situation calls for it. On the other hand, parents that abuse their children too often may be risking their child's development making them prone to developing mental issues and such. So it should just be used in moderation, when neccesary, and not in a country where it is outlawed.

That's all I have to say on this issue.

Again, the fundamental issue here is 'is the use of physical force to discipline children beneficial', which it is not. It encourages the use of violence in children, setting a double standard between the parents action and the childs action, and postive reinforcement is proven to be more effective than negative.

You must be one of those white parents? what do you expect to happen if you dont?
Corners dont work half as well as the fear of a spanking, it doesnt increase violence, you are just spitting up fake statistics for this, its practical.

Then again, I felt how painful the beating was, so I would never hurt my children whatever they did, I wouldn't want them to go through what I went through, instead I would rather reason with them using words, no punishment, just use the right words and you can make a child agree with you. :ph43r: :ph43r:

You have obviously never baby-sitted any child, you need to beat the crap out of them at least once for what they did bad, only like a spanking though, nothing too major.

Children learn that way.
And this newest generation ( 1995-now ) are a bunch of rebelious little jackarses.

Agreed.

And you, of course, have a degree in child psychology so you can tell me precisely what the long-term effects of physical force are?

I'm not denying the efficacy in the short-term, it produces results. But in the long-term it is not beneficial for a childs psychological well-being. I'm trying to track down a study that talks about the long-term psychological effects of the use of physical force as a disciplinary tool, but it may take a while.

I have baby sitted children before, and yes I did beat the shit out of them when they don't do shit right, but I don't have the thing in me to beat my OWN children. :ph43r: :ph43r:

Who gives about some fool and their Degree, it really doesnt matter.
This crap may work on paper, but its not that complex, you make it out to be some very difficult "You may only baby-sit/Have Children if you have 3 years in college for it" sort of thing, Children need to be punished when they do things wrong.

No matter what you say, it will not make these children better, they arent smart enough to comunicate yet, by the time they are 7 you shouldnt have to spank them at all.

Of course, who really cares about professionals at all. The next time I feel ill, I'll just self-diagnose myself and then mix some random chemicals together that brought from the chemist round the corner. That'll fix me up fine - who gives about some fool and their Degree, it really doesn't matter.

If they're after 7 and they're fucking men i'd beat my son and disown him. And as soon as his 12 i'll give him a porno book so that he doesn't go down the gay road.

That is so much different, Doctors are dealing with saving people lives from disease, which "Certain" people with certain skills have been doing for centuries, however a much wider region of people have Children, you seem to be throwing anything you can find at me to deny that "Spanking works", too any degree other than partialy.

I see no difference. They are both experts in there chosen fields, either child psychologists, doctors, medical researchers etc.

Unless you're trying to tell me that child psychology is all just irrelevant quackery and Freud and his companions were all just wasting there time.

Edit: Have a look at this.

Not quite what I was looking for, but it supports my point.

Stop beating around the bush!
I want you to tell a child that they can not have something they want for instance at home, they throw a fit.
Star freaking out all over the floor (As children tend too do), throw things around, do pretty much anything too anger you.

Then I want you to get them too calm down with words, most children arent that bright, however something that will run through their head is-

Fit= Spanking.
No fit= No spanking.

No matter what you say, it just makes you a White parent more and more, with no experience whatsoever with children.

I'm not a parent, nor do I claim to be, but in my work I see Parents and Children and alot of children have tantrums, but most of them aren't smacked as a result and yet very few of them either continue or get what they want.

Your repeated ad hominem attacks do little to bolster your arguement, and simply serve to prove that your arguement lacks the strength and you use other methods to strengthen it.

Edit: oops, really should double-check before I post...

But you just said yourself that the tantrums dont continue...

So has this just died or something

(Jedi, uh yeah - check edit. Doing this at 2 or 3 in the morning is not really that good for your health)

Meh, I dont have anything else to do and I dont feel like sleeping at that time :thumbs up: .

So DK, you gonna call this and start the next one or something?

My dad would often kick some fuck ass out outta me.

Well who wouldn't kick the fuck out of you ? :ph43r: :ph43r: