The debate was held in British Parliamentary (BP) format, with beginner-level debaters.
The Opening Government (OG) defined the topic by stating that violent video games should be prohibited for children under the age of 18.
The main arguments brought by the OG were: violent scenes in video games causing children to blur the lines between real-life and virtual life, the harmful environment of “Internet Cafes” and the non-socialization.
The first argument asserted that violent scenes in video games caused children to confuse reality with virtual reality. Consequently, this would lead to the disruption of their life and, most importantly, their nervous system. Cases such as the threatening video game “Blue Whale” were mentioned to emphasize the negative effect of video games on children.
Secondly, the environment of video game culture was given importance in the discussion as a negative factor in children’s daily life. It was said that the “Internet Cafes” in Kosovo are usually identified as places of drugs and violence. Therefore, children who visit them to play videogames also get exposed to narcotics and fights.
Third, the OG stated that children who play violent videogames are prone to cut off contact with other peers and not socialize as much.
Lastly, the OG presented the idea that children have other educative and non-violent video games at their disposal.
By the second speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister, the opening government was able to define what violent video games entail by specifying the use of blood, weapons, and physical violence.
On the other hand, the Opening Opposition (OO) was against the statement.
The main arguments brought by the OO were: violent video games serving as a coping mechanism for stress, freedom of choice, development of reflexes, and violent videogames posing a threat only to the mentally disabled children.
As a rebuttal to OG’s first argument, the OO proposed that violent videogames can be a positive indicator for the children’s nervous system since they activate the release of dopamine and pleasure in children. Furthermore, they said that violent video games could be used as a coping mechanism to release and manage stress.
The second argument focused on the freedom of choice amongst individuals. It was implied that children have the right and freedom to choose themselves how they want to spend their time.
Furthermore, the debate elaborated how violent video games contribute to the development of children’s fast reflexes and serve as moral preparation for possible cases of violence and conflict in real life.
During the debate, it was suggested as a solution by the OO that violent video games should not be prohibited if the children’s parents consent and approve of their children playing them.
Next, violent videogames were classified as addictive and as a risk only to mentally disabled kids, but rather recreative for not disabled kids.
The Closing Government (CG) mostly supported the Opening Government’s (OG’s) previous points. However, they also brought a new argument to the debate; how violent video games contribute to the destruction of correct and clean vocabulary in children by promoting swearing and aggressive expression.
The Closing Opposition (CO) disregarded the definition of the topic brought by the OG. They rebutted OG’s third argument, anti-socialization, by highlighting the freedom of choice. They declared that children have a right to choose and decide which activity fits them best.
Furthermore, the arguments of OO, first, about stress relief and management and second, about the development of fast reflexes, were supported.
CO brought a new main point to the debate by suggesting that violent videogames should not be prohibited since they prove to be helpful in developing critical thinking among children by encouraging them to find ways and solutions to win the game.