Absolute Wuss

[Bridge]

What the problem is here, is that you don't want to be wrong, and because you don't want to be wrong, you don't want to read anything on the subject that doesn't support your opinion. You "have an interest" in having your opinion, not in knowing the facts. There are superbrief summaries about these studies on Wikipedia.

I really have very little interest in keeping this debate up the way it's going. You are taking everything I'm saying completely out of context and placing words relentlessly in my mouth. This is the only point I want to address because anything else will just result in you twisting my posts around. I am very capable though not necessarily willing to be wrong. If the circumstances are fair, defeat can be quite enlightening. I am not so closed-minded that I won't consider differing viewpoints on the matter; I won't however put any credence in them if those viewpoints are supported accordingly with evidence.

So far you have given me none. Yes, you have made references and allusions to so called scientific studies that show without a shadow of a doubt that you are right. Maybe you are, but you explain it to me! I mean really, pointless religious debates I've participated in have been more sporting than this. Don't you tell me to go dig up the information. If the summary is so short, then copy/paste it here. At least pretend like you have something to say on the matter. Otherwise you are, in essence, nothing but a pointer. A null pointer in my opinion.

In other words, you're too lazy to look something like Video Game Violence up on Wikipedia.
In case you don't know this: You can't prove anything (at least worth while) if you don't refer to outside sources, and if you refer to outside sources, verification is expected anyway, to prevent you from just inventing studies. If you argue on the internet, you won't get anywhere unless you are willing to actually consult other pages.

It's not my problem if you don't want to put in the effort. Don't you think I've already read up on the issue? I have, and I decided it has no grounds in reality. Your job as a debater is to convince me otherwise and so far you are failing miserably (if not trying can be considered failing). What the fuck is the point of debating if one of the parties is just going to suggest reading material for the other party?