Argumentative essay about Violent video game should be

porhibited

The term “violent video games“ that will be reffered to in this essay will include video

games in which there is torture, massacring, killing, sexual violence, and similar violence applied to

human beings only. The games that children play should not contain any harassment or violence

exerted by the player on a human being within a game. Neither should there be any drugs or sex

present. The video games containing one or more of such elements will be regarded as violent video

game, and should not be sold to children under 18 years old.

There is a big difference between harming humans and harming fantasy beings. Children

should not be exposed to making decisions concerning violent acts, that they will undertake in

regard to a human being in a game. It may distort their perception of reality, and confuse them about

what is acceptable and justifiable and what is not. In contrast, any sort of fantasy monsters or

androids will be excluded from the ban. Children who play video games are able to understand the

distinction between the reality and the made-up reality in the video games where fantasy creatures

are involved. However, when humans come into the picture, this concept may be more difficult to

grasp, and therefore, children should be restricted from being able to purchase such video games

and play them without the consent with their parent.

It is true that video game industry already rates its games, so that people, and especially

parent, can orient themselves in the matter of which games are appropriate for which age group.

These ratings serve as a guidance for finding the appropriate age boundary for each game. In the

US, these rating are set by the Entertainment Software Rating Board. Ratings distinguish age groups

such as 12+, 15+, 17+, or adults only. In addition, they present information about explicit content

including violence and sexual content. The current ratings are useful in rough understanding of

1
which games are suitable for children, and which they should be allowed to play. However, they do

not actually restrict selling inappropriate games to children. They merely caution of inappropriate

content..

Due to the ratings acting only as a guidance, parents might not be cautious enough about the

contents of the game that they are buying. “Parents mistakenly assume that just because video

games are marketed to the kids, they are appropriate for kids. This is not so.” ( C a r p e n t e r, &

F e rg u s o n , 2 0 0 9 ) 2 . This ban would help parents understand that they should pay more attention

to the content of certain games, that they let their children play. Until reaching the 18 th year of life,

parents serve as guardians, and they take responsibility for their child's development. The ban of

video games would help the parents to protect and control the development of their children in

moral terms. Very often, children play games during the times that their parents are not at home. So,

it is hard to keep track of what games the children are playing, and often the parents might not be

even aware of it. There are many ways of parental control for the consoles and computers, but it is

easy for children to overcome that with the help of internet.

Essentially, this ban would only help parents when they are not around and it would protect

children development. However, it must be understood that there would not be a complete ban on

violent video games, containing drugs, sex and where human beings are harmed. The state should

guide its citizens and protect them but if the parent sees it fit for its child to play game where he can

run over people with a car, then he will not be stopped from doing so. The parent is a guardian and

can still walk into a shop to buy any violent game for its child.

The censorship of violent video games should be done by a state-owned organization not a

privately-owned one. This will decrease the likelihood of video game industry using financial

2
means of supporting such organization, in order to gain benefits in the rating process. Either the

judges could be appointed to do so, or a separate commission could be set up composed of

psychologists and perhaps even people of different backgrounds, who would serve similarly to how

jury acts in the court. This would help in making the decision on the bans more objective.

Other possibilities instead of banning the violent video games fro children, there may be

other restrictions. For example, the seller of video games could place the violent video games in

separate place of the shop, where children should not enter, or putting them behind the counter.

However, such approach may not be effective enough. Another possibility would be restriction of

advertisements of violent video games that contain drugs, sex, and harming of human individuals.

This could lower the demand for such games as less people would know about them.

The violent video games have shown to be a risk factor in increase aggressive behavior and

can lead to adverse effect in school performance. The elements of drugs, sex as well as harassment

or harming of human beings should not be incorporated in video games that are to be sold to

children below the age of 18. The sale of these games should continue, but only grown-ups should

be allowed to purchase them, just like alcohol or sexually explicit material. California Supreme

Court should act responsibly, and it should not allow the sale of video games that may harm moral

development and attitudes.