It's all about human nature. We tend to forget the good and act like the bad happens more often than it does.

Think about it from this perspective. If someone goes to a restaurant, and they have an average experience, they probably won't really say anything about it. But, on the other hand, if they have a bad experience they might complain to the manager and complain to other people. Forget keeping silent if they have more than one bad experience at the same place. Even if this person were to go to that restaurant every week for 3 years, and had 3 bad experiences all of a sudden, they would complain and talk about it all the time.

That's what happens with video games. They pretty harmless except for the people with mental problems that have problems distinguishing reality from a virtual world. There have been a few cases where things have gone wrong, so that's all anyone hears about. Forget the millions of hours everyone else in the world plays video games without anything happening.

I did a similar paper a couple of years ago. You're biggest help will be the DA from Florida that likes to blame video games for everything.

I believe he said that some of those games were simulators, which is easy to argue as in it doesn't take skill to push a button compared to actually pulling a trigger while aiming.

You may want to revise your title in saying Video Games Does Not Make People Violent, because then you can use the pros of video games more. RPGs are like interactive stories that can expand one's reading and vocabulary as well as basic algebra skills.

Another argument is look at video games in the late 80s to the mid 90s, if they had that much effect on people, we would be eating dots, jumping on moving mushrooms and turles, and blasting away evil machines bent on taking over the world.

Basically your key argument is this: That people must accept responsibility for themselves and not place blame on outside media for everything that happens. The game didn't tell you to go out and kill, in fact games have warning labels for that reason that certain people shouldn't play them until they hit the mature age.

the DA from Florida that likes to blame video games for everything.

Jack Thompson? Maybe.

Anyways, I probably can't help you much, but from my own experience, it doesn't CAUSE violence for me, at least. I've played violent video games for years and I don't go beating up people or shooting them, though I'd like to oftentimes, but that's a different story. I believe raising a child with violent video games will probably cause violence at some point. That's because they're still developing, and if that's all they learn, then that's all they'll know. It's like teaching someone a language or math, but instead, you're teaching them violence. While it's not something physical, it's still ingrained in their mind. My nephew, for example, is only about 5-6 years old and has played lots of violent video games, unfortunately. Children make up stories all the time; those tall-tales you always hear and the ones that people laugh at. While my mom laughs at his stories, I find it odd how his always revolve around his dad being shot (when he has, and has never been in a bad situation like that) and his dad shooting cops, stuff blowing up, lots of blood, stolen cars and pretty much everything else you'll find in a video game where you run from cops, or shoot at them (not talking about GTA, specifically, because I don't think he's played that, but similar games). While he's not violent, it's obviously in his mind a lot. It's come to the point where I don't allow him to play video games like that.

Anyways, that's my personal experience. Children shouldn't be allowed to play horribly violent video games like that because it gets to their developing mind too much. It hasn't caused violence for my nephew, but it's come to the point where it's in his mindset so much that I find it disturbing, which says a lot.

I can't provide you with hardcore proof of anything, but it could be beneficial to provide your own personal experiences. Lots of people play violent video games, yet they're not out acting out what they've played. It's hard to show that they don't cause violence, and truly, it's equally as hard to show that they do cause violence. But people like to use the whole "correlation implies causation" when that is always not true. Jack Thompson, one of the more outspoken people against video games, likes to use that argument whenever a shooting or beating happens. If that person has played a video game, he tries to link it to that game. Of course, people take games too seriously, but it's almost impossible to say that video games have CAUSED the violence. Maybe sometimes ideas will be taken from the game, but you can't say it's caused the violence.

In summation, if your mind is developed, then it more than likely doesn't make a difference whether you play violent games or not. It shouldn't change you much. As for children, I cannot say that it will cause violence in them, either. But they're still taking in ideas from their surroundings, still learning. If all they learn is violence then, more likely than not, that's all they'll show.

Typo in my first main paragraph

his dad being shot (when he has, and has never been in a bad situation like that)

That should read (when he HASN'T, and has never been in a bad situation like that)

Also when I said ""correlation implies causation" when that is always not true", I'd like to say that "correlation implies causation" oftentimes isn't not true. What I said originally said understates what I meant.

That's the one. Whatever happened to accepting responsibility for your actions?

In your speech, remember to also acknowledge the other side. You may be trying to argue against it but you have to say it exists in order to have an arugment.

Also, you may want to refine your argument. It may help you defend it a bit if you specify older teenagers or adults as the people. I'm not really saying that games made children violent, but children are more impressionalable like ScoobyDoo said. They have more trouble distinguishing fantasy and make believe from reality. And although they may never take a gun to school they may want to play more with toy guns and behave like a hero from a vilent game.

I'm sure there has been research done on this topic. Try looking for articles from universities. If your school library has a datebase of research articles that may be a place to look.

Alright, thanks again guys. You've given me a lot to... copy and paste, oh I mean "think about"... lol. But seriously, thanks for your help.

There are games similar to what you mentioned. "Negotiating" games. Games like SWAT 4 and some Rainbow Six games where your objective is to save people (which sometimes requires killing, but not always) with minimal use of force. I played SWAT 4 quite often, and I really liked it. It was fun to always use the non-lethal weaponry; pepperball guns, pepper spray, beanbag shotgun, stinger grenades, flashbangs, tasers. It definitely made things interesting, and it was a nice change from the "run in with guns blazing" mentality. It was harder, and necessary to use non-lethal things sometimes, which was fine by me.

Of course, I always liked using my taser on people and bringing them to their knees, then pulling out my .357 and shooting them in the forehead, execution style. But that's just me.

I shouldn't just say "SWAT 4". All the SWAT games were like that. Go in with a SWAT team, take down the bad guys with lethal/non-lethal weapons, save people. And I played the original Rainbow Six a while ago, when saving people was a good thing. Dunno how that series is nowadays. But they did have stealth games, where it'd be bad to kill people.