Absolute Wuss

[Bridge]

I presented the proof, as approved by Science and all of his little minions, but you decided that you somehow weren't going to like it anyway. That's not how it works. If I present proof, then you present at least an equal amount of proof, before you can decide to not like my proof. The burden of proof is on you.

Yes, but you never declared what your points was referring to in the first place, and you had five points, while I had four sections.

Yes, that's a nice theory that you've got there about how debating works, but as I can simply choose to not believe in it, you've proven nothing. You can't prove how debating works, unless you bring in outside sources - sources which you don't accept, and I can choose to not accept just as well.

You've never even read the studies I referred to, and you still say that they don't live up to your standards because their circumstances are biased and the control group was too small. You're being completely unreasonable.

Actually, I don't think you're one of the overall majority at all.

1. The problem is it isn't approved by "Science and his minions". Here's an article that proves it's not unanimous. Is it true? No, it could very well be complete bullshit, but so could your evidence. You wouldn't ever read a book stating general relativity is falsehood because it is now accepted as truth, whereas the nature of singularities and the big bang are still the subject of heavy debate and so not definite.

2. I think it was pretty obvious which point I was referring to, because at that point in time there was only one other point I had written. I wouldn't ever refer to a point that came after without stating which one exactly.

3. It isn't something that can be proven. It's standard practice (there is proof for that) and there's nothing that says it has to work that way. It is the way it is because disproving an unreasonable claim is an uphill battle. You can literally say anything, and I cannot argue with you.

4. Look dude, I really have no interest wasting my life hunting down and reading books just to get an idea for what your position is. It really isn't my problem if you can't provide at least a general summary of your points. Also, now you are being unreasonable because I never accused you of using biased sources at all. That doesn't change the fact that most studies that I've seen are biased with a small sample group (a handful of people that react in a way no sane person would and do something destructive).

5. What then, the minority? Honestly, just reading this thread should tell you that your opinion is not the generally accepted one (which doesn't mean anything in regards to your credibility only that your statement is somewhat mysterious).



I just want to say something outside of this particular discussion. It's not my opinion that videogames can never affect people because that is simply untrue. Humans especially children like to imitate what they see and hear if brings them joy in one way or another. Due to PG-13 action movies and military shooters violence is now seen as "cool". If violence is cool, then you can be cool by being violent, right? While this is completely true it has nothing at all to do with real violence. Going back to a movie like Oldboy however, which is a very violent but tragic and sometimes horrific movie, I can't imagine anybody wanting to emulate it. It's realistic, the violence has real impact and is essential to the story and is portrayed the way it truly is in real life: disturbing.

Does it have anything to do with violence then that children and teenagers are more violent? Partially, but I would lay most of the blame on the stylization (which is not that recent admittedly) of violence by the media. That does not mean it affects your brain in a significant way, so that you want to cause real harm to people. Murder is extremely heavy, even the thought affects people and even sometimes makes them sick. I would say murder is less about the actual violence and more about the emotion behind it. And if you no longer feel anything that could be called emotional when killing people you are officially insane, and I would argue have never been sane.