Categories
Speech thoughts?
So I just finished typing up a 3-5 minute speech that I have to present in class tomorrow, and I figured I could post it here to get other people's opinions on it.
The Myth of Video Games and Violence
How many of you have played a video game? How about a Grand Theft Auto game or Call of Duty? Well, there are many so-called “studies” that have claimed to have discovered links between these video games and aggressive behavior in children, and that they desensitize young children to real-life violence. However, many of them did not have a sufficient amount of testing involved or leapt to extreme conclusions. Another accusation is that violent video games are marketed towards young children, heightening their exposure to violence at a young age. This is also a false statement used as propaganda towards video gaming as an industry. There has been no concrete link between video games and violent behavior, and the false conclusion that there are links is a insult to the gaming population and myself alike.
The main argument used by video game protestors is that scientific evidence links violent video games with aggression in modern youth. There have been around 300 studies of media violence, but most of those studies have been deemed inconclusive by those enacting the study or been criticized for their methods. Subjects would be shown media images completely out of context from their original setting, often confusing the subjects and rendering the results useless. Any studies that found conclusive “links” often stated that subjects with already aggressive personalities enjoyed aggressive entertainment. Patrick Kierkegaard, a professor at the University of Essex, England, made the important point that “Violent crime, particularly among the young, has decreased dramatically since the early 1990s, while video games have increased in popularity and use. With millions of sales of violent games, the world should see an epidemic of violence. Instead, violence has declined.”
As for the argument that children are the primary market for violent video games, this is deeply rooted in the asinine assumption that children are the only consumers of video games in general. What is considered the first generation of gamers are now deep into adulthood, and the gaming industry responds by releasing game content that is geared for adults. There is a game rating system in place which categorizes games into “E (everyone)”, “T (teen)”, and “M (mature)”. Games that are released in the “M” category are usually the controversial ones that are accused of being marketed towards kids, even though they are blatantly marketed towards adults and only sold to those over the age of 17. These games usually have content equal to or lesser than that of a rated R movie, and it’s up to the child’s parents whether or not the child should be able to play it.
In the end, claims that video games cause violence in youth are the result of uneducated opinions and have no evidence to support them, and the proposition that violent video games are marketed towards kids is untenable. Thank you and goodbye.
The Myth of Video Games and Violence
How many of you have played a video game? How about a Grand Theft Auto game or Call of Duty? Well, there are many so-called “studies” that have claimed to have discovered links between these video games and aggressive behavior in children, and that they desensitize young children to real-life violence. However, many of them did not have a sufficient amount of testing involved or leapt to extreme conclusions. Another accusation is that violent video games are marketed towards young children, heightening their exposure to violence at a young age. This is also a false statement used as propaganda towards video gaming as an industry. There has been no concrete link between video games and violent behavior, and the false conclusion that there are links is a insult to the gaming population and myself alike.
The main argument used by video game protestors is that scientific evidence links violent video games with aggression in modern youth. There have been around 300 studies of media violence, but most of those studies have been deemed inconclusive by those enacting the study or been criticized for their methods. Subjects would be shown media images completely out of context from their original setting, often confusing the subjects and rendering the results useless. Any studies that found conclusive “links” often stated that subjects with already aggressive personalities enjoyed aggressive entertainment. Patrick Kierkegaard, a professor at the University of Essex, England, made the important point that “Violent crime, particularly among the young, has decreased dramatically since the early 1990s, while video games have increased in popularity and use. With millions of sales of violent games, the world should see an epidemic of violence. Instead, violence has declined.”
As for the argument that children are the primary market for violent video games, this is deeply rooted in the asinine assumption that children are the only consumers of video games in general. What is considered the first generation of gamers are now deep into adulthood, and the gaming industry responds by releasing game content that is geared for adults. There is a game rating system in place which categorizes games into “E (everyone)”, “T (teen)”, and “M (mature)”. Games that are released in the “M” category are usually the controversial ones that are accused of being marketed towards kids, even though they are blatantly marketed towards adults and only sold to those over the age of 17. These games usually have content equal to or lesser than that of a rated R movie, and it’s up to the child’s parents whether or not the child should be able to play it.
In the end, claims that video games cause violence in youth are the result of uneducated opinions and have no evidence to support them, and the proposition that violent video games are marketed towards kids is untenable. Thank you and goodbye.
Comments