Out of left field: my sleep deprived effort (the directors unrated cut)

I have always found it interesting when an argument can be turned back on the originators of it and used to devalue and invalidate itself. Maybe it was all of that interscholastic debate I observed as a child, being the son of a debate and forensics coach. Perhaps it is because I like playing the devil's advocate. Some might even say I enjoy being an ass. Whatever the reason, these instances always fascinate me, and the act of turning them around has made me some friends that I hold dear to this day. So, how about one more for old time's sake? I've read the arguments about how Games are corrupting the youth of America (read world to the people making these arguments, as they tend to be short sighted and self absorbed), turning otherwise constructive young people into mindless killing machines or sex crazed robots or lethargic do-nothings. There are many holes in this argument, but I'll go one by one and refute them, before turning them back upon the originator, and give a response that is likely to be elicited.


I would like to restate the argument, offset so as to be easy to reexamine at leisure:
"Video Games are corrupting the youth of America, turning them into mindless killing machines/ sex crazed robots/ lethargic do-nothings."


Now, the first hole I see is that the argument assumes that video games are a market dominated by the youth, much like Toys. In fact, I have often heard Games referred to as Toys in these arguments. The fact is that Adults are the market demographic, since children often do not have disposable income in the amounts necessary to purchase a game. If youth is meant to include the 17-24 year old demographic, then this becomes a more well targeted, if no more accurate, argument. The classic rebuttal has been to cite the fact that parents are often purchasing the games for children, and therefore skewing the sales to age ratio. This rebuttal must, however, be reminded that the children of yesterday, who grew up with Games, are now the parents of today. Many parents are now purchasing games for their own enjoyment, rather than for their children.

The next avenue of attack on this argument could be the assertion it makes about the children of America being mindless killing machines. While it is useless to cite personal experience in this case to the originators (they wave it away as isolated), the facts are a touch gray at first glance. Violent crime by teenagers and younger has skyrocketed over the last 15-20 years, which coincides with Games' rise as a cultural experience. This correlation is the backbone of the argument, as this spike in violent crime also includes a spike in violent sexual crime among teens and younger. The only problem is that these numbers, when looked at more closely, actually seem to reflect the rise of a different cultural near institution: the emergence of large numbers of single parent households. Since the mid-eighties, single parent households have grown exponentially in number, and large amounts of research suggests that a child from a single parent home, especially in the inner city, is at least four times more likely to be arrested for a violent crime, and twice as likely for that crime to be sexual in nature. During this time there also have been multiple recessions and some major incidents that have become ingrained in our social memory (Columbine, Oklahoma City, 9/11, Katrina, etc.), all of which has combined, according to some social scientists, to create the most emotionally depressed generation since that raised during The Great Depression, except without a nationalistic cause to support. With so many factors potentially affecting these numbers, they cannot be considered valid and must be discounted.

The typical rebuttal made to these invalidations is to cite a study, published in a national Psychology Journal that mentioned it had found a link between violent Games, and increased aggression in those predisposed to aggressive tendencies. These words, however, are normally simplified to "violent games make kids violent", or something along those lines. Having read the article myself, it states unequivocally that the increases seen occur only in children predisposed to violent reactions, and that the increases were close to the same as those subjects watching a action movie or sporting event. The article also showed that most affected were 12-14 year old boys, but that an increase among the same demographic was seen in those playing non-violent Games as well. Further studies have cast doubt on the veracity of this study, denying the originators of the argument the science they crave to reinforce their stance.

The latest version of this argument is to say that Games make the younger generations lethargic, lazy, and grants them a attitude of entitlement. This argument has been based on figures including voting demographics, unemployment figures, education test scores, and public health statistics. By citing that America is becoming fat, dumb, and unemployed, the originators point the finger at the newest working generation, some even suggesting that the "Great Recession" is Generation X and Y's fault. All of the numbers cited, excepting voting demographics, show generalities, all of which can be attributed in at least some part to America's society in general, a culture so fixated on more that people eat twice as much in a meal as some people eat in a day; a culture where having a bigger TV is more important than paying more taxes to have better schools for their children; a culture that encourages parents to use that TV to babysit their children when they're young, and that education system when they're older; a culture that glorifies getting as much as you can for as little as possible. Somehow, I think it more likely that that is the bigger problem, rather than Mario, Halo, GTA, and the host of other games on the market that directly or indirectly glorify violence or sex.

The final nail in the coffin of the argument is the fact that they attribute so much power to what they seem to be insinuating is just a Toy. Sure, when they first came into being, Games were Toys. Complicated Toys, but Toys none the less. However, slowly, they became something more, something powerful enough to "corrupt" according to the originators of the argument. The last three things to garner this kind of discussion, including the use of the word corrupt, are Comics and Rock and Roll, two things many people would consider Art, even if only Pop Art. By using such a powerful word in their argument, the originators already put themselves behind the eight ball, because in the end only three things are able to "corrupt" a person: power, religion, and Art. By acknowledging their ability to corrupt, Video Game's most strident denouncers have actually given them their greatest shield: Not only are they "just a game", they're also "Art".


Yes, I realize I went the wrong way with it, but I like this somehow. Maybe it's because of the time. It normally is in this situation. Anyways, sorry for missing the topic somehow in this block of text, and sorry for you reading through it. Unless you like it. Either way, say something in the comments, please.