10 Minute Speech On The Topic 'Does Video Games Cause Violence'
Answers
Explanation:
According to the summary table from Quwaider et al, fighting games such as Tekken or Mortal Combat have a higher risk for hostile and aggressive behaviors. This is also the case with shooting games like Counterstrike or Hallo – the latter which can push for competitive (inter-group) or cooperative (intra-group) attitudes.
Other studies published on Media Psychology or Elsevier have also established links between the increase of external behavior problems – such as more aggressive and violent behaviors – with playing first-person shooters games and other types of violent games. The first study suggests aggressive cognitions and feelings occur independently of how technologically advanced the graphics are or the extent to which one feels immersed in the game. The second study had opposite results as it concluded more realistic games led to more physically violent intentions.
Further, multiplayer online role-playing games, often offering a more immersive reality, were found to be predictive of external behavioral difficulties like aggression or delinquency.
Answer:
The effect of violent video games is among the most widely discussed topics in media studies, and for good reason. These games are immensely popular, but many seem morally objectionable. Critics attack them for a number of reasons ranging from their capacity to teach players weapons skills to their ability to directly cause violent actions. This essay shows that many of these criticisms are misguided. Theoretical and empirical arguments against violent video games often suffer from a number of significant shortcomings that make them ineffective. This essay argues that video games are defensible from the perspective of Kantian, Aristotelian, and utilitarian moral theories.
A demarcation line would likewise be difficult because the standards of what is considered violent change over time. “Using today’s standards, “Pac-Man”, and other early videogames like “Space Invaders”, “Defender”, and “Asteroids” appear relatively non-threatening, however, in the early 1980s these games were characterized as violent.” Newman (2004) p. 66. Standards would have to be revisable and arbitrary, and these are not characteristics of deontological moral rules.
Here “good” and “evil” only refer to the quality of the actions within the virtual world. Virtual murder is not evil, but it is in the context of the game, as judged by the other players or non-player characters. The good and evil actions in the game do not have any real moral meaning, but from an Aristotelian perspective they can still be meaningful forms of practice in cultivating a virtuous character.
Singer’s claim draws attention to an important oversight in the studies critical of violent games: the cases that are relied on as examples of game-induced aggression are always given different explanations by law enforcement officials. This is true for Singer’s use of the Columbine Shooting, Grossman’s discussion of Michael Carneal, and Chalmers’ example, Lee Boyd Malvo. In each of these cases video games were not found to be significant. Where there is disagreement, we should favor the explanations of investigators who have the training and access to information to form sound judgments.
Explanation:
Please mark me as brainliest