Absolute Wuss

[Cranky Old Man]

Or you just can't accept that you may possibly be wrong - all posts you have posted on this forum that I have seen point towards this logical conclusion. You quote books and studies and say that "yes, this is the answer" yet you fail to realize that people don't write books about it not affecting you - because they have nothing to prove and this is the assumption people would jump too.

Scientific experiments is something completely different than writing books.
Books are formulating opinions, while scientific studies rely on "the scientific method", which basically means that you actually check if something is true or not instead of drawing conclusions beforehand. Would they make these experiments, and nothing would show up, the scientists would have gotten headlines too.

You clearly swallow up any story they put out on the news.

I didn't see these studies on the news.

I'm 15, I daresay I've played far more disturbing games than you, and yet I'm achieving some of the highest levels/grades in my school. I've only been in one fight - and that was due to me being forced into one. But according to you and your studies, I'd have poor grades, a psychopathic mindset, get into plenty of fights and confront teachers - something I have never done.

What?
I said all of that?
Cool.

Please, if you're going to use books and studies, also be prepared to accept reason and logic.

I don't need reason and logic. I have the Al Azif, which speaks of things beyond reason and logic.

[Your Computer]

In a scholarly and formal debate, directing people to a book is not unheard of and is considered proper and formal. In fact, most of the time the publications are purchased and read before the debate which then become part of the discussion during the debate. It is not in anyway unreasonable to direct someone to third-party sources. Unless you make an absolute statement, a third-party source or some other form of assumed evidence is required. Journalists list their sources all the time, even going so far as to provide a page number.

It is unfortunate that the so-called debate that has been going on in this topic has been constantly leaning towards informality, coupled with unreasonable reasoning, sarcasm and foul language. However, i also realize those choosing to engage the debate may have never considered sticking to formality. I would take the side of Cranky Old Man as far as the way he has presented proper statements within the debate. Unfortunately, sarcasm is a beast that is difficult to tame, but i also realize that it sometimes can help relieve the person of some stress, or head-to-desk injury.

If those choosing to not go out of their way for the very evidence they so requested, then they should simply stop attempting to make a discussion beyond from what they've already made. As far as i can see, constantly requesting for evidence--especially with the assumption that the sources already provided are merely (potential) sensationalist [material]--is all that i'd expect to occur for the remainder of the "debate."

[Cranky Old Man]

Or you just can't accept that you may possibly be wrong - all posts you have posted on this forum that I have seen point towards this logical conclusion. You quote books and studies and say that "yes, this is the answer" yet you fail to realize that people don't write books about it not affecting you - because they have nothing to prove and this is the assumption people would jump too.

Scientific experiments is something completely different than writing books.
Books are formulating opinions, while scientific studies rely on "the scientific method", which basically means that you actually check if something is true or not instead of drawing conclusions beforehand. Would they make these experiments, and nothing would show up, the scientists would have gotten headlines too.

You clearly swallow up any story they put out on the news.

I didn't see these studies on the news.

I'm 15, I daresay I've played far more disturbing games than you, and yet I'm achieving some of the highest levels/grades in my school. I've only been in one fight - and that was due to me being forced into one. But according to you and your studies, I'd have poor grades, a psychopathic mindset, get into plenty of fights and confront teachers - something I have never done.

What?
I said all of that?
Cool.

Please, if you're going to use books and studies, also be prepared to accept reason and logic.

I don't need reason and logic. I have the Al Azif, which speaks of things beyond reason and logic.

And here you do exactly what I posted, you ignore entire sections, and choose to see only what you want too. I never said you said that - that's what the studies you threw at me stated. Or have you not read them?
And yes, some of these studies have been on the news, with numerous other "scientists" agreeing/disagreeing with them, and no, experiments that state that video games are fine for children don't get on the news because it's not a story that attracts a lot of attention. And the necronomicon is completely unrelated to this, stop randomly spouting stuff, please.

I am randomly spouting stuff because at this point, I just want the words to stop.
*heads off hunting for Smurfs instead.*

[Bridge]

In a scholarly and formal debate, directing people to a book is not unheard of and is considered proper and formal. In fact, most of the time the publications are purchased and read before the debate which then become part of the discussion during the debate. It is not in anyway unreasonable to direct someone to third-party sources. Unless you make an absolute statement, a third-party source or some other form of assumed evidence is required. Journalists list their sources all the time, even going so far as to provide a page number.

It is unfortunate that the so-called debate that has been going on in this topic has been constantly leaning towards informality, coupled with unreasonable reasoning, sarcasm and foul language. However, i also realize those choosing to engage the debate may have never considered sticking to formality. I would take the side of Cranky Old Man as far as the way he has presented proper statements within the debate. Unfortunately, sarcasm is a beast that is difficult to tame, but i also realize that it sometimes can help relieve the person of some stress, or head-to-desk injury.

If those choosing to not go out of their way for the very evidence they so requested, then they should simply stop attempting to make a discussion beyond from what they've already made. As far as i can see, constantly requesting for evidence--especially with the assumption that the sources already provided are merely (potential) sensationalist [material]--is all that i'd expect to occur for the remainder of the "debate."

In case you didn't notice, this is an internet forum. There was no pre-debate meeting and no mutual pool of evidence was decided upon. I'm not actively looking to be proved wrong by looking up evidence against my statements and so it's not my problem if he is uninterested or otherwise incapable of doing so.

In real debates, which is a tradition in my college so I am quite familiar with them, a short statement following your reference is the bare mininum. You can't just say "Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Cranky Old Man is wrong and if you read this book you will see why. So, yeah. Bye?". Something more appropriate would be: "Bridge has no idea what he is talking about and clearly has no experience whatsoever and refuses to listen to reason. In his book, "Absolute Proof" by Mr. Truth, he goes on to explain how the human mind is in fact affected in a significant way by videogame violence. A test was carried out by experienced scientists at <place> which yielded the following results: <proof>".

What's so difficult about that? I don't want to put in any effort to participate in a debate, which is a healthy activity and fun if done in a civil manner, if my opponent won't even try.

[Cranky Old Man]

Then why not be mature and just not respond?

Can't respond right now - hunting Smurfs.

[Statyk]

This thread got so off-topic from its original intentions... Nice =]

[Hunter of Shadows]

The sheer amount of stupidity in this thread is making my brain hurt...really bad, how old are you people again?

To everyone who argued, or debated with Cranky Old Man...congrats at feeding the troll, you've managed to derail the entire thread way off course by doing so

[Bridge]

The sheer amount of stupidity in this thread is making my brain hurt...really bad, how old are you people again?

Old enough to play violent games and not turn into a murderous psychopath.

Spoiler below!

I'm just fucking with you.

[Cranky Old Man]

The sheer amount of stupidity in this thread is making my brain hurt...really bad, how old are you people again?

To everyone who argued, or debated with Cranky Old Man...congrats at feeding the troll, you've managed to derail the entire thread way off course by doing so

Wasn't the original topic settled a long time ago, or did you have something to add to it? ...hmm?

[Hunter of Shadows]

The sheer amount of stupidity in this thread is making my brain hurt...really bad, how old are you people again?

To everyone who argued, or debated with Cranky Old Man...congrats at feeding the troll, you've managed to derail the entire thread way off course by doing so

Wasn't the original topic settled a long time ago, or did you have something to add to it? ...hmm?

Whether it was settled or not is irrelevant doesn't change the fact that if you really wanted to have the discussion you were having you should have made a new thread, not derail another and fill it with stuff that had nothing to do with it.