Stop the Madness

Contrary to our belief, is the idea that violent video games do not have an effect on the cognitive processes of children. Some believe that nothing can be proven from studies such as those conducted by Anderson and his colleagues, and yet others have conducted studies to prove violent video games do not have an effect on children. Though this is commendable, our theory is that if violent video games did not have an effect on children and was not a world-wide problem, then there would be no need for experiments to be made to prove otherwise. 

 

Benedict Carey of the New York Times is hesitant to believe that playing violent video games "increases the likelihood that a person will commit a violent crime, like murder, rape, or assault, much less a Newton-like massacre" ("Shooting in the Dark"). Carey, however, does believe in the evidence that violent video games do "stir the blood," and increases aggression shortly after playing ("Shooting in the Dark). The fact he concurs with half the puzzle suggests that violent video games do have somewhat of a negative effect on children. In examining Anderson and Dill's experiment, Carey would see the long-term effects of playing violent video games. If college students have increased levels of hostility after fifteen minutes of play time, then one can conclude that exposure to violent video games never disappears, but rather is reawaken with the thrill of the game.

 

"Advocates of video games' potential, on the other hand, call attention to the 'tremendous educative power' of games to integrate thinking, social interaction, and technology into the learning experience" (Kahne 2). This idea is true, as addressed by Anderson and Bushman in their case study. They claim video games are excellent teaching devices. Gentile also agrees with this statement when he suggests, "video games are natural teachers. Children find them highly motivating; by virtue of their interactive nature, children are actively engaged with them; they provide repeated practice; and they include rewards for skillful play. These facts make it likely that video games could have large effects" (“The Effects of Video Games on Children: What Parents Need to Know”). Unfortunately, violent video games do not teach the right lessons. They focus children's energies on the violence and rush of killing someone. Do you really want to teach your child to deal with hostility with more hostility? Well, this is the idea video games portray. 

 

Another theory is that there are other factors, not just the amount of time spent playing a violent video game, that cause violent actions and aggressive behaviors such as home life, social life (whether or not they were bullied as children), and other influences (Carey "Shooting in the Dark"). This idea is true, as with any problem there are multiple reasons that build on one another, only to cause too much pressure and result in the crashing down of morals. However, since exposure to violent video games is among these factors, and is considered one of the leading causes, it is safe to suggest violent media is a destructive force and parents should monitor their children's use of it. 

 

As one can see, there are many who oppose our argument, but they lack concert evidence to suggest violent video games to do effect children. Additionally, their arguments are null and void as most of their supporters are children who are already involved in violent video games and who cannot see past the thrill and excitement of the game to see its destructiveness. 

 

 

 

**We are not assuming every child who engages in violent video games will become a mass murderer. We are just trying to prove violent video games have a negative effect on the thought processes of children, which could  lead to aggressive acts as those at Columbine and Sandy Hook (where both perpetrators were said to have played violent video games before committing their terrible crimes).