CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I am not really sure to tell you the truth, but for the sake of argument I will say yes, I do wonder if all the violence in video games and in today's culture have an effect on desensitizing humans to acts of violence, my personal interest wants to say no video games have no effect on violence (do love my MMO's lol) but to make such a claim would be irresponsible without any hard proof to back up this claim.
obviously yes. It makes the attitudes violent especially in children. They are young brains and could accept anything and sure the aggressive behavior would percolate into their minds.
Your arguement do prove that real life violence can occur by other sources such as ignorance, or aggression or pride of your land. But it doesn't prove that some (or maybe all) video games DO NOT cause significant real life violence. And for that reason i am downvoting you.
But for some reason, my computer doesn't let me downvote. I press the downvote icon and i keep getting this constant clockwise rotation.
There could be a connection for certain people, but such a connection is totally arbitrary.
If a person kills another person because of the influence of a violent video game, then that person had preexisting insanity that had nothing to do with the video game that was played.
Because that's what you are if you cannot differentiate fantasy violence in a video game from violence in real life: insane.
And just in case it's mentioned, why would or how could a video game cause insanity? Any argument saying a video game could actually make someone insane is totally arbitrary, again, in relation to what is normal. If video games make you insane, I don't think you're going to play them until you become insane. Insanity happens from stress breaking the psyche in some manner, so if you're THAT stressed from playing a video game... then you'd have to have preexisting insanity to continue playing something that stresses you out that much.
I think it depends on the type of game. Grand Theft Auto is just indiscriminate killing and criminal behavior, but some other violent video games teach valuable lessons. These lessons are usually, actions have consequences etc.
Well it depends on the person I mean for me I play Call of Duty and other major shooters and I don't think about shooting people, going to a shooting range, trying out different gun , and all of those other thoughts that lead to real life violence.
It really depends on how the person reacts to those situations. I don't think if I play violent video games that I will shoot someone afterwards, but some people might or might not.
No, everyone I have known who has played violent video games has never killed or hurt anyone, plus anyone friends outside my circle has never killed or hurt anyone, so I would imagine that the circle gets pretty large before someone actually killed or hurt someone who had played video games.
Also, how can one definitely suggest that it was the video games that caused the outburst of violence?
In general I say no. However, some violent video games do desensitize you to killing virtual people. It's hard to imagine that someone who is used to using a AR-15 to kill virtual people and is used to shooting targets in the backyard with a real AR-15, would not have an esier time shooting a real person with a real AR-15. All you need is a little metal instability or lack of morals and you have a problem..
It also associates gun use with "power" and "fun" and this is a problem. Guns are tools for hunting or protecting yourself not "power toys". Unfortunately, to much of the gun culture in America, guns are just that. Toys.
"All you need is a little metal instability or lack of morals and you have a problem.."
Therein lies the rub.
Mental instability and lack of morals can cause someone to drive into a crowd of pedestrians, too. The method of the expression of that instability is irrelevant.
"Unfortunately, to much of the gun culture in America, guns are just that. Toys."
Those are the rare exceptions, and they tend to shoot themselves, thus taking care of the problem. :)
A car gets 99% of its utility from transportation. A AR-15 gets 99% of its utility from shooting people. The effectiveness of a car as a weapon is much less than a AR-15. These are the reasons that we should not control cars in the same way we control some guns. Utility and effectiveness matters in this conversation.
I disagree on the toy issue. There are definitely responsible gun owners, I know a few. But I know just as many "man boys" that play with their guns. Look at the advertising in most gun magazines, websites, etc. visit the forums of "gun enthusiasts". All the ads are about machoism. "renew your man card"? What kind of adolescent schoolyard lessons that? Talk to a "gun enthusiast" after they have few beers and its amazing how many times their AR-15 comes up as a way to solve every day problems.
Even on this site the gun enthusiast will say some remark implying that "I have a big gun, so at the end of the day I'm right!". The lesson they are teaching their children, "you want to get your way, make sure you have the biggest gun".
The proper use of a car is transportation, the proper use of an AR-15 is defense, or recreation. Each may be used for purposes other than their proper one, to the detriment of human life.
They have the same poetntial utility only in the sense of "are they usefull or not". But look at the numbers, how many man hours are spent each day "using" cars vs using "guns" in the civilian world? If you removed all cars from the US the economy would collapse, maybe the entire society. If you snapped your fingers and all guns in the US were gone, there would be no major effect on the economy or society. Cars have much more utility to American society than guns.
Neither the collective, nor aggregate utility matters, only the utility to and responsibility of the individuals involved.
It is the same argument they use against ending drug prohibition. They say that "society" is harmed, ignoring the rights debate and the responsibility of the individual for his own actions, and not the actions of others, entirely.
We don't live in a libertarian society and never will. Individual rights always have been and always will be curbed for the good of the society. The decision to curb these rights is based on the utility vs harm of that right (right to have a Genade launcher, sell cocaine at schools, distribute child pornography,etc). People's individual rights must be limited in civil society.
"Even on this site the gun enthusiast will say some remark implying that "I have a big gun, so at the end of the day I'm right!". The lesson they are teaching their children, "you want to get your way, make sure you have the biggest gun"."
You misinterpret. The "I have a gun" argument is not a "might makes right" argument. it is a defense against force argument. They are not threatening to initiate force, only to retaliate against force initiated against them in the form of attempting to strip them of natural rights. The lesson we teach our children is that your rights must be defended, or lost.
Sometimes it is about rights, and sometimes it's not. So when the democratically elected government changes the law and comes to take your semi-auto (hypotheticaly) are you going to give it them or defend your right to have it (shoot at them)?
The democratically elected government has no authority to repeal, by statute, a right protected by the constitution, unless it goes through the process laid out in the constitution to amend that document, to stop protecting the right.
That process has neither been initiated, nor completed.
Understood. So when the democratically elected government amends the constitutution such that you can only have a single shot musket, and comes to collect your other guns do you shoot at them or not?
And this is the problem. Gun owners using there "artificial power" (guns), instead of our democratic system, to get their way. This is a very dangerous idea and one of the main reasons guns should be more restricted.
Obviously slavery is not a relative example since our society and government are not considering/debating this. Pick a more reasonable example and I will answer. Would you rather not have any guns OR not be enslaved? I think it's clear these are not equal.
What government is currently debating is irrelevant. You must encompass all general cases, or the argument is invalid. The principle of both are identical. the right to life, liberty, property ownership, self-ownership, and to protect all those.
If they were to amend the constitution to enslave a class you belong to, should you go willingly into slavery, just because the democratically elected government decided you did not have a right to own yourself?
All rights are not equal so the right in question does matter. The right to own your self is much more important than the right to own a "small piece of metal". If you tell me you would rather be a slave than give up your gun then I will concede that to some people they are equal.
In this, the rights are not only equal, but are the same right.
It is not a right "to own a small piece of metal" it is a right to effectively defend oneself from those who would take your life, liberty or property. Access to an effective means of defense is the best guarantee that one will not become a slave.
In this, the rights are not only equal, but are the same right.
While the right to defend your self can help you not be enslaved, it's not the same specific right as " thou shall not be enslaved". Also, the right to defend yourself is not the right to have any weapon you want. We already have laws limiting the weapons you can have.
The right " thou shall not be enslaved" is an extension of the right to property ownership, specifically, self-ownership, as is the right to defend your property (including the self). Without the latter, the former is meaningless.
"Also, the right to defend yourself is not the right to have any weapon you want."
I agree, but the limit should only be self defense or defense of one's property. This would include weapons such as semi-automatic rifles, handguns and shotguns (on one's own land) which may repel invaders (including a government which has turned oppressive). This would not extend to weapons which, by their nature, only destroy property, such as hand grenades, rocket launchers, explosives and atomic/nuclear/bio weapons.
"And this is the problem. Gun owners using there "artificial power" (guns), instead of our democratic system, to get their way. This is a very dangerous idea and one of the main reasons guns should be more restricted."
The idea that the majority may strip rights from a minority is a very dangerous idea and is the main reason that the minority should have access to a means to protect those rights.
The majority strip rights from the minority all the time, half the laws we have does this. You can try and effect change through the democratic process or you can find a country that is more comparable with you belief system.
"The majority strip rights from the minority all the time, half the laws we have does this. "
For example?
Laws which strip rights are invalid.
"You can try and effect change through the democratic process or you can find a country that is more comparable with you belief system."
Or I can fight to restore and maintain the system, as it was designed (protection of natural rights), instead of what others have corrupted it into (cradle to grave nanny state).
But as to the democratic process: What recourse does the majority have against the predations of a majority who votes themselves the lion's share of wealth which a minority produces?
Example: you can't dump toxic waste in your back yard. You can't wire your house incorrectly, you can't own a machine gun, you can't discriminate at your place of business, you can't keep all your earned money, etc...
You can fight, thought the democratic process, to try and effect the changes you would like to see, but you can't use force. One mans nanny state is another mans companionate state.
What recourse does the majority have against the predations of a majority who votes themselves the lion's share of wealth which a minority produces?
I'm not sure I follow? If you meant the "minority" then it depends on the situation. They can appeal to the majority to "change their mind", they can try and better their situation, they can sue if their human rights are violated. By definition the majority is what the "average" person can attain so the minority should be be able to become average unless they have a disability. In the case of disability (in the US) the majority support disadvantaged minorities.
"I'm not sure I follow? If you meant the "minority" then it depends on the situation. "
For example:
Let us say that it has become the case that 60% of the voting population pays no net taxes, yet receive all the same services that the 40% who do pay taxes receive, plus direct transfer payments, in the form of welfare.
"They can appeal to the majority to "change their mind" "
What chance is there that the majority (the 60%) will vote to increase their payments for the services they receive, or reduce the amount of the transfer payments??
"... they can try and better their situation,..."
How would this be accomplished, within the framework of a democratic process that puts property rights at the whim of the majority, instead of protecting all citizens' property rights equally?
In this context, "bettering one's situation" could mean joining the non-productive 60% majority.
"they can sue if their human rights are violated. "
The right to the product of one's labor is a basic human right. To whom should the minority 40% productive citizens appeal?
"By definition the majority is what the "average" person can attain so the minority should be be able to become average unless they have a disability."
No, by definition, a majority is any group that is greater than half of a given population, regardless of the average. In this case, (according to your logic) the majority get to decide the rights of the minority (for the good of the group, which in this case, means the good of the majority). How can the minority change this?
The idea of liberty is to be free to become as great as your ability and drive allow, not to "become average".
(as an aside, how are you making the quoted text bold?)
Let us say that it has become the case that 60% of the voting population pays no net taxes, yet receive all the same services that the 40% who do pay taxes receive, plus direct transfer payments, in the form of welfare.
So in the framework of this example, that sounds pretty good. If an economy works where 60% of the population is not paying paying taxes, gets services, is receiving payments from the government and they are happy, whats wrong with that? I mean the 60% are happy, the 40% are "happier" (have more wealth despite paying taxes)
In this situation I don't see any piratical reason why the 40% would have a valid claim or why they would need to make a claim?
No, by definition, a majority is any group that is greater than half of a given population, regardless of the average.
I know the average is the "average", I just meant that for example in the US the "middle class" is the majority. Given the average number of resources and effort a person will be in the middle class (on average) an be in the majority. Given more or less resources and effort a person can be in the upper class minority or the lower class minority. This is just a function of how societies and economies work. Most people fall in to the "average" group.
The idea of liberty is to be free to become as great as your ability and drive allow, not to "become average".
As far "liberty" goes, that's true. But when you join a society you MUST give up some liberty. You can't have absolute liberty when your sharing a confined space, sharing resources, sharing defense, etc. Participants in a society must be willing to sacrifice personal liberties for the good of the society. If don't want to participate in the society, then your liberty and rights are absolutely guaranteed to any degree you see fit. I don't see any way around this. Even the sacred Constitution is not guaranteed in our society. If the society has the will (enough of a majority) it can change the Constitution.
As far as being "average", I don't know of any democratic, capitalist societies (including the US) which force you to become average?
(Click the "show help" link to see the formatting options for bold, etc.)
So in the framework of this example, that sounds pretty good. If an economy works where 60% of the population is not paying paying taxes, gets services, is receiving payments from the government and they are happy, whats wrong with that?
You see no problem with a situation where 60% of the population leech off the productive effort of the other 40%?
What about equal rights? Specifically, what about the right to demand that government not play favorites when protecting the rights of the citizenry? One of the purposes of the constitution was to establish justice. Treating citizens differently is the opposite of justice.
I mean the 60% are happy, the 40% are "happier" (have more wealth despite paying taxes)
How are they "happier" than they would be if they were receiving the same services, but were paying less, because the other 60% are now paying their "fair share"? They would have more disposable income, for the same labor.
In this situation I don't see any piratical reason why the 40% would have a valid claim or why they would need to make a claim?
Because the other 60% are receiving services, for which the 40% are being forced to pay. This is tantamount to theft.
As far "liberty" goes, that's true. But when you join a society you MUST give up some liberty....If the society has the will (enough of a majority) it can change the Constitution.
True, but many (progressives mainly) have been trying (with some success) to change the degree and manner in which the government protects our rights, WITHOUT going through the specific process necessary to change the constitution. This is VERY dangerous.
You see no problem with a situation where 60% of the population leech off the productive effort of the other 40%?
Your staring to change the example to make your point. Now the 60% are "leaches" and the government is playing favorites. I'm assuming in your example the 60% are the "poor" because they are receiving welfare and paying no taxes right?
When you join a society, your basic human right should be guaranteed, but not all "rights". People in a society are not equal due to many factors (wealth born in to, physical abilities, metal abilities, etc). The society benefits when "handicapped" people are given "advantages" that other citizens don't get and society accepts this. Wealth and power will concentrate in a society if there is no counter force. Society recognizes this and therefore has a progressive tax system, inheritance tax, monopoly laws, etc. Societies are not formed for the "pure liberty/rights of the individual". You give up "rights" for the benefit of the society. To what degree you give up these rights is determined by the majority of the population when they vote.
How are they "happier" than they would be if they were receiving the same services, but were paying less, because the other 60% are now paying their "fair share"? They would have more disposable income, for the same labor.
I'm assuming from your example the 40% is the working middle class and the 60% are the "poor"? What makes the 40% happier is they are not poor and they have more income because they make more money. If I make a 10 million dollars a year and pay 90% tax, I'm still much much better off (happier) than a poor person on welfare paying no tax. Personally I would have a very hard time complaining about poor people if if I was in that situation. It's not "theft", it's the price I'm willing to pay to be part of a society. Do we need welfare reform? Of course, but that's not a fundamental problem with our government or democracy. A man is free to not join a society and live like a caveman with ALL his rights and liberties intact, but most men are not interested in this.
True, but many (progressives mainly) have been trying (with some success) to change the degree and manner in which the government protects our rights, WITHOUT going through the specific process necessary to change the constitution. This is VERY dangerous.
Very dangerous? Lets say the Constitution disappeared tomorrow, what do you think would happen? The "Constitution" is not protecting us from our government or each other, common sense is. Look how good the Constitution protected the BASIC human right that "all men are equal", not very good. Look at the 18th amendment and its "repeal". Clearly the constitution is not a "bible", it's just a document made by men and fallible just like anything else man has made. It will be amended and changed as our society advances.
Your staring to change the example to make your point. Now the 60% are "leaches" and the government is playing favorites. I'm assuming in your example the 60% are the "poor" because they are receiving welfare and paying no taxes right?
Not changing the example. The relative wealth/income of the citizen is irrelevant. A citizen is a citizen, and in the example, 60% (the majority) vote themselves a portion of the wealth of the 40%(the minority), in the form of services and transfer payments.
When you join a society, your basic human right should be guaranteed, but not all "rights".
There are only two basic human rights. The right to own property (including oneself) and the right to protect that property. All other true rights are derivative of those rights.
People in a society are not equal due to many factors (wealth born in to, physical abilities, metal abilities, etc)
True, and it is not the function of government to guarantee, or even promote an equal outcome.
The society benefits when "handicapped" people are given "advantages" that other citizens don't get and society accepts this.
How does "society" benefit?
Is it some who benefit, at the expense of others, or does everyone in the society benefit, in an objective sense?
Accepting, or deluding oneself into believing something is not the same as it being fact.
Wealth and power will concentrate in a society if there is no counter force.
True, and the greatest counter force against the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few is the free market, where only those who serve the demands of the greatest number of people, most efficiently, prosper. This is the opposite of the system we have now where the ones who prosper, are those who please the demands of the government, either through contributions, or through votes.
Society recognizes this and therefore has a progressive tax system, inheritance tax, monopoly laws, etc.
Name a coercive monopoly that exists, or has existed without protection by the government.
You give up "rights" for the benefit of the society. To what degree you give up these rights is determined by the majority of the population when they vote.
So, what you are saying is that the minority (the producers) in this example have no legal recourse to prevent the predations of that production by the majority? Other than to stop being one of the producers?
What effect would this have on the overall standard of living of the society?
I'm assuming from your example the 40% is the working middle class and the 60% are the "poor"? What makes the 40% happier is they are not poor and they have more income because they make more money. If I make a 10 million dollars a year and pay 90% tax, I'm still much much better off (happier) than a poor person on welfare paying no tax.
So, you are saying that the more wealth you have, the less you deserve for your rights to be protected, because someone else has decided that you are still happier than they are?
Do we need welfare reform? Of course, but that's not a fundamental problem with our government or democracy.
Yes, it is.
A man is free to not join a society and live like a caveman with ALL his rights and liberties intact, but most men are not interested in this.
If you were to go into the wilderness, and try to live like that, the tax man would still show up for property taxes.
We had a society similar to this, but the progressives have destroyed much of it by not following the rules, necessary for changing the society to the degree it has been changed.
Look at the Constitution. Read art1 sec8, the 9th amendment, and the 10th amendment. Taken together, what do those parts suggest , to you, should be the limit of the power of the federal government? Now look at everything that the federal government does, and tell me if it falls within your limits.
Most people can tell the difference between shooting an 8-bit alien with a laser gun on a screen and killing real people in real life. If you can't, you're fucking stupid.
I've played a lot of violent video games; I've killed shitloads of people and other things, most many times over. Very violent indeed. But that was all in the past... Wait, what? Real life? You cannot differentiate games from from real life? Then you should avoid living. Oh... sorry, then you should avoid playing violent video games... Actually, avoid playing all games... you might end up throwing birds at pigs...
