Rate my paper on violence and video game companies

[ClaytonN]

If you've got the time, I'd be grateful if you'd read my paper for college english. If you have anything worth pointing out, feel free, or if you think it's good/sucks, say anything.

__________________________________________________ _______

A new scapegoat for child and teenage violence exploded into the mainstream during the spring of 1999. Eric Harris wrote of a killing spree at his high school that would soon shock America. "It's my fault! Not my parents, not my brothers, not my friends, not my favorite bands, not computer games, not the media, it's mine." Harris would later gun down fourteen students and a teacher at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado with another teenager, Dylan Klebold. Harris made clear in writings before the shooting and his eventual death that his decision to kill was his and his alone.

In spite of Harris’ writings, investigators found that while Klebold and Harris shared interests with not only weapons and a passion for murder, they also partook in role-playing videogames such as Doom and Quake that engaged the player to commit violent acts in a fantasy-type realm. Can video games morally corrupt people? In a time where the amount of violence in video games is trending upwards in general, the notion that violence can be blamed on such a narrow range of society is silly and quite frankly disturbing.

It isn’t necessarily wrong for people to look at the Columbine killings and say “Well, if those two kids played violent video games then shot up their high school, isn’t it at least feasible to look towards video games as a possible cause of the problem?” This is understandable, but the reverse is true: Video games have become more violent due to the increasingly violent nature of society in general. While video games have been known to show more aggression in young persons, the weight of responsibility in keeping the youth away from these outlets should be on parents and other role figures instead of the people offering the product. Americans have become more and more tolerant with the realities in today’s world, and video games are only banking on the interests of their consumers. If society wasn’t violent enough already, then how do the most violent of video games manage to become best-sellers?

Before video games, Americans wondered how television was impacting their children. In the early twentieth century parents wondered if radio was something to be trusted. Before electricity was discovered, townsfolk banned books from their local libraries that were deemed too dangerous. People have always found things that will arguably desensitize acts of hatred and vengeance, and video games are the new kids on the block. Time and time again studies have failed to show a correlation between video games and violence, though there has been an established link between exposure to aggression and acts of aggression thereafter in young children.

Young children are very impressionable, and it can be debated as to what point a youth becomes a more objectively thinking individual. Regardless, to argue that video games are the cause of breeding aggressive behavior in young children is like making the argument that fast food chains are causing obesity, or that cigarette companies are causing lung cancer. Yes, these are all outlets of certain vices that deal with certain consequences, but at the root of it all there’s a choice to be made from the consumer. One doesn’t become addicted to cigarettes by not smoking them, and a company that produces video games with violence should not be a culprit of child violence if irresponsible parents are letting their six-year old play games of killing rampage.

Violence in and of itself should be linked to an older crowd that can maturely handle such situations without becoming impressionable. Violent movies are given an “R” rating that disallows children under seventeen to watch the movie without supervision of an adult. Some movies are given the “NR” rating that completely disallows children under seventeen from attending the movie at all. Likewise, video games attach “Mature” ratings to the most violent games. Unfortunately, sales of games to minors are more lax than that of movie ticket sales, but that’s not the problem. If a violent game can be linked to more aggressive behavior in young children, then it’s the parent’s (or another role model figure’s) responsibility to disallow the use of that outlet for aggression from their child. It makes just as much sense to bar one’s child from seeing the movie “Apocalypse Now” as it is to prohibit that child from playing the video game “Grand Theft Auto”. Movies like “The Godfather” and video games like “Doom” should be experienced by adults and more maturely thinking young persons.

Whether or not a certain person should be entitled to experiencing a violent movie, television show, video game, or novel should be dependant on the more responsible and mature persons surrounding him or her. Blaming the producers of video games and other outlets of entertainment for the violence in today’s society is akin to removing culpability from more prevalent and active role models in children’s lives. Violence has and will always be a part of life, and by educating children about violence and inhibiting their role in violent means society can gain overall by allowing video games to continue as a means of entertainment in today’s society while at the same time keeping children away from destructive tendencies and decisions.

________________________

thx in advance

[Piz0wn0reD!!!!!!]

this is a short paper.

[ClaytonN]

Yep, three pages double spaced. min 3, max 4 are the standards for our class.

Our professor detests the thought of twenty page papers. He thinks we should be basing our work more along the lines of articles you'll see in magazines and newspapers and websites.

[nothumb]

It's generally okay. A few nitpicks:

When you say, "[games] that engaged the player to commit violent acts..."

I would say something like, "Games in which players commit violent acts in a fantasy..." etc etc.

When you say, "More maturely thinking young persons," towards the end, either just say "Mature young people" or leave that caveat out entirely.

Not really going into your argument or anything major here as it will suck me in and take forever...

NT

[ClaytonN]

No, that's what I was going for nt, thanks

The argument part is what the class focuses on this semester. first semester was making cogent (sp) papers, this semester it's on making good arguments.

but thanks

[nothumb]

Oh, also, when you say violence should be exposed to an older crowd that won't become impressionable... really I think it would be better to say 'is not likely to be as impressionable as young children' or something like that. Adults don't really 'become' impressionable.

GL,

NT

[PhatTBoll]

Not bad. The biggest issues are at the beginning and end of your essay. In a paper this short, your thesis should really come by the end of the first paragraph. Any longer and you are relying on the fact that your teacher has to read it. You should make him/her want to read further.

F'rinstance:

[ QUOTE ]
Eric Harris wrote of a killing spree at his high school that would soon shock America. "It's my fault! Not my parents, not my brothers, not my friends, not my favorite bands, not computer games, not the media, it's mine." Harris would later gun down fourteen students and a teacher at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado with another teenager, Dylan Klebold. Harris made clear in writings before the shooting and his eventual death that his decision to kill was his and his alone.

[/ QUOTE ]

This becomes much more effective if you boil it down to one sentence. You're a good enough writer that I shouldn't have to tell you how.

Same goes for your conclusion:

[ QUOTE ]
Violence has and will always be a part of life, and by educating children about violence and inhibiting their role in violent means society can gain overall by allowing video games to continue as a means of entertainment in today’s society while at the same time keeping children away from destructive tendencies and decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is very wordy and difficult to understand. There are some syntax errors. I know you're tempted to give a short summary of your beliefs in one sentence, but you should resist that. Your goal here should be to hammer home your most salient point, to unload the money shot right where it counts. Happy writing.

[ClaytonN]

ty again nt

*edit - wow I just saw someone else comment, better get on that

The argument itself can be debated to no end because it deals with psychology and terms of reality, but making an argument is what it's about. If I make a crappy argument, I don't get a good grade.

Other topics in our class:
-Is education the consumption of knowledge or the imposition of ideologies?
-Does man need faith?
-Is there a point to arguing?
-Does science approve or disprove faith?
-Should drugs be legalized?
-Are humans innately altruistic?

etc etc etc

[ClaytonN]

Thanks Phat, that is a problem of mine (too lengthy intros, wordiness). Much appreciated.

[DemonDeac]

1)usually for 3 page papers like this, you want to state ur thesis in the first paragraph and i dont think the last sentence in your 1st paragraph is ur thesis. your thesis is probably the last sentence in the 2nd paragraph
2) you wrote "shared interests....and a passion for murder" when you need to say " , and they shared a passion for murder
3)2nd paragraph: you wrote "interests with" when it should be "interests in"
4)2nd paragraph: you wrote "Quake that engaged the player to commit" when it should be "Quask that engages the player to commit" ....stay with the present tense since you're describing the games
5)paragraph 2: shouldn't ask hypothetical questions like that without a lead in. try saying "the question then becomes: do video games blah blah blah"
6)3rd paragraph: shouldn't have a hypothetical person make a hyposthetical quote like that, just make a statement with the word one (i.e. one might infer from the killings.....)
7)4th paragraph: put a comma after "century"
8)5th paragraph: you wrote "cause of breeding" and thats redundant. just say causes
9)Last paragraph: you wrote "inhibit their role in violent" when u want violence

Plus, check you paper for passive voice and contractions. papers should not have neither. i saw examples of both.

buts its a solid argurment. i wasn't really reading it looking for ways to counter, as i dont care enough. i looked at it as a regular reader and fixed ur grammar and [censored], making it easier to read


hope this helps. im bored as hell since my roomate is asleep so i did this. later

[DemonDeac]

you also need a colon introducing the quote u use in the first paragrpah. either a colon or a comma

[Piz0wn0reD!!!!!!]

[ QUOTE ]

-Is education the consumption of knowledge or the imposition of ideologies?

[/ QUOTE ]

good question

[ QUOTE ]
-Does man need faith?

[/ QUOTE ]

no.

[ QUOTE ]
-Is there a point to arguing?

[/ QUOTE ]

depends.

[ QUOTE ]
-Does science approve or disprove faith?

[/ QUOTE ]

yes and no. er both.

[ QUOTE ]
-Should drugs be legalized?

[/ QUOTE ]

yes.

[ QUOTE ]
-Are humans innately altruistic?

[/ QUOTE ]

yes.

[DemonDeac]

i think the problem with ur argument is that u first argue that society is, in general, becoming more violent and so its not video games that cause such outbreaks of violence. but the rest of ur paper deals with stopping children from playing video games, which in turn admits that video games have an affect. if you're going to stick with your first argument, you need to argue about how parents are bringing up their children in general. one should be able to deduce from your argument that if parents raise their children correctly, then their children playing violent video games will have no effect on them because they were raised knowing that violence solves nothing.

does this make sense? hopefully it does. it just seems that your argument is contrdictory

[Piz0wn0reD!!!!!!]

[ QUOTE ]
due to the increasingly violent nature of society in general.

[/ QUOTE ]

How did you arive at this conclusion? Do you have data to back this up?

I would think we have become less violent over the years. Especially over the last few 100's of years. IIRC homicide in america has decreased over the last 15 years.

[ClaytonN]

It does seem contradictory, yes.

I think we're in a much more educated society than we were in the fifties, but the price we pay at that cost is becoming more aware of the harsh realities surrounding us. Video game companies are banking on that, but that's not their fault.

The solution, therefore, is to get kids more educated on the violent videogames and movies by not allowing these things to make an impression on their lives without some sort of reasonable influence from a parental figure. When this happens, society becomes more affluent to making objective decisions overall and thus stupid acts like violence and robbery and the whatnot will decrease. I hope.

This make sense? I hope...

[DemonDeac]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
due to the increasingly violent nature of society in general.

[/ QUOTE ]

How did you arive at this conclusion? Do you have data to back this up?

I would think we have become less violent over the years. Especially over the last few 100's of years. IIRC homicide in america has decreased over the last 15 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

im gonna have to disagree. violence is def on the rise. there are other forms of violence other than homocide

[ClaytonN]

post deleted because I need to rephrase my thinking

[DemonDeac]

[ QUOTE ]
It does seem contradictory, yes.

I think we're in a much more educated society than we were in the fifties, but the price we pay at that cost is becoming more aware of the harsh realities surrounding us. Video game companies are banking on that, but that's not their fault.

The solution, therefore, is to get kids more educated on the violent videogames and movies by not allowing these things to make an impression on their lives without some sort of reasonable influence from a parental figure. When this happens, society becomes more affluent to making objective decisions overall and thus stupid acts like violence and robbery and the whatnot will decrease. I hope.

This make sense? I hope...

[/ QUOTE ]

better. but don't say "stupid" of "whatnot".ruins integrity of ur paper

[DemonDeac]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
due to the increasingly violent nature of society in general.

[/ QUOTE ]

How did you arive at this conclusion? Do you have data to back this up?

I would think we have become less violent over the years. Especially over the last few 100's of years. IIRC homicide in america has decreased over the last 15 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ooo crap, I got my wording wrong on that statement, thanks for pointing it out. I meant to say violence is more tolerable in society, not violence itself. People are more aware of it, and it's more commonplace. Hit TV shows about mob families, big video games about killing prostitututes and carjackings, TV shows about gambling, sex, drugs, all that fun stuff. The FCC can only do so much to curb the realities that all kinds of media and entertainment outlets throw out there.

[/ QUOTE ]

ur original statemetn is still fine, IMO. since there is a rise in violence, people have adapted to is and have become more tolerable. so you can probly conjoin the two thoughts together into a kickass psychological sentence

[Piz0wn0reD!!!!!!]

[ QUOTE ]
When this happens, society becomes more affluent to making objective decisions overall and thus stupid acts like violence and robbery and the whatnot will decrease.


[/ QUOTE ]

i doubt there would be a messurable change in either, especially robbery. Violence (of any kind, for any reason) has been around, and will continue to be around for the entire existince of humanity.

I think the only way to decrease violence is to have a far more balanced, educated society. We have been getting beter at this if anything. However, a utopic society or a socialist economy would bring other problems up (and im sure there would still be an abundance of violence).

[ClaytonN]

I'm not asking for utopia, I'm just asking for parents not to be so fkn stupid, lol.

"Video games made my son kill that kid!". First off, no studies have ever shown that, and second off, who's fault is it that your kid played those video games? You, stupid!

[DemonDeac]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When this happens, society becomes more affluent to making objective decisions overall and thus stupid acts like violence and robbery and the whatnot will decrease.


[/ QUOTE ]

i doubt there would be a messurable change in either, especially robbery. Violence (of any kind, for any reason) has been around, and will continue to be around for the entire existince of humanity.

I think the only way to decrease violence is to have a far more balanced, educated society. We have been getting beter at this if anything. However, a utopic society or a socialist economy would bring other problems up (and im sure there would still be an abundance of violence).

[/ QUOTE ]

i think its safe to say that violence will decrease if children are educated better by their parents, not just schooling. of course its going to be around, but it will decrease because the enviornment of the US will be different. the only problem is getting all parents to change and educate their children, which is easier said than done.

what does a utopic society or socialist economy have to do with anything? i dont follow that.

[DemonDeac]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not asking for utopia, I'm just asking for parents not to be so fkn stupid, lol.


[/ QUOTE ]

be sure to add that in ur paper

[Piz0wn0reD!!!!!!]

[ QUOTE ]


im gonna have to disagree. violence is def on the rise. there are other forms of violence other than homocide

[/ QUOTE ]

"Zimring and Hawkins tested Centerwall's theory more fundamentally by looking at homicide rates in four other industrial democracies - France, Germany, Italy and Japan. They found that the incidence of murder in those countries either remained more or less level (Italy) or actually declined (France, Germany and Japan) with increased television exposure. These counterexamples, they write, "disconfirm the causal linkage between television set ownership and lethal violence for the period 1945-1975.""

"To explain the recent declines in homicide in the U.S. and England despite continuing and even increasing exposure to media, Centerwall redrew the theory of his study, claiming that it really should have been a two-factor model, factoring in not only television exposure but also economic conditions. Economic conditions affect the murder rate, he said: It goes up in bad times and when times are good it goes down. He said the television effect eventually saturates, after which its influence on the murder rate is steady-state. Thus, he claimed, rising postwar prosperity probably retarded somewhat the influence of television on the murder rate. Then, when that influence saturated, further prosperity kicked in to bring the rate down. He pointed to a particularly dramatic drop in English homicide rates between 1978 and 1981 as evidence of the success of Margaret Thatcher's economic policies, which he said had increased per capita income in England by 80 percent."

"As for culture overriding television in Japan, Zimring wrote, "says who, and when?" The French murder rate trends upward between 1980 and 1985 and then trends downward, "but all of this leaves French homicide in 1990 at 35 percent lower than it was in 1960" when Centerwall's theory would predict it to double. Italy, similarly, "goes up in the 1970s, drops back from 1981-1986, and then goes up again. How this pattern fits the Centerwall thesis is his secret." Centerwall told me he based his claim that other European countries also experienced doubled murder rates (a claim Grossman also makes) on Interpol data. Wrong data, Zimring advised: "Most Continental countries report homicide and attempted murder together, which led our current drug czar to assert recently that Holland had a higher homicide rate than the United States. But even General McCafferty would not use Interpol data, which is unaudited and notorious." In conclusion, Zimring wrote, "the off-hand and ad hoc quality of the responses that you report reinforce my disinclination to buy a used car from Dr. Centerwall." Yet Centerwall's theory has been a mainstay of American Medical Association and Congressional claims that television violence is destroying American youth."

http://www.abffe.com/myth2.htm


still looking for graphs and other data.

[Piz0wn0reD!!!!!!]

[ QUOTE ]

what does a utopic society or socialist economy have to do with anything? i dont follow that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I belive that economic and social health are directly related to the amount of violence that occurs.

also international relations, if you count war as violence here.

[Piz0wn0reD!!!!!!]

"The violent crime rate of 586.7 per 100,000 population in 1999 was the lowest since the inception of the UCR program in New York State in 1973."

here is some data, covering various kinds of crime and violence. Notice the varience (LOL!):

some stats for NY state (http://criminaljustice.state.ny.us/crimnet/ojsa/cja_99/sec1/index.htm)

[DemonDeac]

whats centerwall's theory? i think i need to know this before readin the article critically. this part of the article seems at first glance to deal with the more passive continent, europe.

this piece also deals solely with homicide when i said that there are more forms of violence than homocide.

[The-Matador]

I taught ethics for a couple of years, and ... well ... that's a pretty terrible paper. No insight, banal argument, some ludicrous claims that aren't backed up, weak prose, and grammar issues.

I'd give it a D, sorry.

[DemonDeac]

[ QUOTE ]
"The violent crime rate of 586.7 per 100,000 population in 1999 was the lowest since the inception of the UCR program in New York State in 1973."

here is some data, covering various kinds of crime and violence. Notice the varience (LOL!):

some stats for NY state (http://criminaljustice.state.ny.us/crimnet/ojsa/cja_99/sec1/index.htm)

[/ QUOTE ]

wow, thats quite interesting/intriguing and staggering. that certainly will affect my thoughts on violence. thanks

[Piz0wn0reD!!!!!!]

FBI Uniform Crime Reports 1981-2001 (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/01cius.htm)

this has some intersting data im sure, but i dont have excell installed. Take a look and paste some of it in here, eh?

[DemonDeac]

[ QUOTE ]
I taught ethics for a couple of years, and ... well ... that's a pretty terrible paper. No insight, banal argument, some ludicrous claims that aren't backed up, weak prose, and grammar issues.

I'd give it a D, sorry.

[/ QUOTE ]

i have to agree with all ur points here except for your statement that says he makes ludicrous claims without evidence. its possible that the class has looked at information that supports his argument that needs not citing because the professor will know where he's coming from. perhaps not?

but everything you else you say ive already talked about in my previouos reponses.

a D?? really? i guess i say thing since im a college student too and would be pissed to get a D.

[Piz0wn0reD!!!!!!]

I find anything you say hard to belive.

[DemonDeac]

[ QUOTE ]
FBI Uniform Crime Reports 1981-2001 (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/01cius.htm)

this has some intersting data im sure, but i dont have excell installed. Take a look and paste some of it in here, eh?

[/ QUOTE ]

i did and excel does not copy and paste well here. its unreadable. but it still proves that violence is on a decline lately

[DemonDeac]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
FBI Uniform Crime Reports 1981-2001 (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/01cius.htm)

this has some intersting data im sure, but i dont have excell installed. Take a look and paste some of it in here, eh?

[/ QUOTE ]

i did and excel does not copy and paste well here. its unreadable. but it still proves that violence is on a decline lately

[/ QUOTE ]

however, from 2000 to 2001. all crimes increased which may hurt your point. its too bad theres no recent info as it probably takes years to accumulate this type of information

[Piz0wn0reD!!!!!!]

[ QUOTE ]
but it still proves that violence is on a decline lately

[/ QUOTE ]

My real point was that it has been on a HUGE decline over the last couple 100 years. This is indirectly caused by tons of new technologys.

[DemonDeac]

[ QUOTE ]
I taught ethics for a couple of years, =

[/ QUOTE ]

what kind of ethics prof would call themselves the matador, the most unethical card player in the f'in world.

[DemonDeac]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but it still proves that violence is on a decline lately

[/ QUOTE ]

My real point was that it has been on a HUGE decline over the last couple 100 years. This is indirectly caused by tons of new technologys.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think one can argue the technologies, but also the fact that we are much more civilized now (possibly due to the technologies) than we were 100 years ago.

this guys paper also deals with recent trends, so arguing differences from 100 years ago is moot.

was ur point based on his paper or just a general point u wanted to make?

[Piz0wn0reD!!!!!!]

[ QUOTE ]

however, from 2000 to 2001. all crimes increased which may hurt your point. its too bad theres no recent info as it probably takes years to accumulate this type of information

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, crime goes up and down for seemingly no reason (like varience in poker). Im sure there are so many variables that no one could sight why it increases or decreases over short periods of time. However, if you look at large amounts of data over long periods of time i bet there is evidence of a steady decrease in violence world wide.


Im not sure if there is enough accurate data to make any hard conclusions, but perhapse good hypothesis.

[Piz0wn0reD!!!!!!]

[ QUOTE ]


i think one can argue the technologies, but also the fact that we are much more civilized now (possibly due to the technologies) than we were 100 years ago.

this guys paper also deals with recent trends, so arguing differences from 100 years ago is moot.

was ur point based on his paper or just a general point u wanted to make?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think technologies are exactly why we are more civilized. In fact, im sure of it. (this is intersting tho. I belive the neolithic revolution is both the start of society, and the downfall of society, or at least the start of inter-social violence).

As far as recent trends go, i think that some things may very well affect the amount of violence around us. But, i think it is mostly because of social/econmic health as well as other reasons that would be imppossible to pin-point.

This is just what i belive, and this paper got the conversation going. I like discussing/debating crap.

[ClaytonN]

[ QUOTE ]
I taught ethics for a couple of years

[/ QUOTE ]

Stop there. I'm laughing too hard. Oh, the irony.

[ClaytonN]

Let me propose this, Piz.

Crime has gone down, yes, but do you think crime and violence are more openly seen and commonplace thanks in part to the media?

I'm trying to find a right way to word what I'm trying to say, but nothing is coming out right.

[Piz0wn0reD!!!!!!]

[ QUOTE ]
Let me propose this, Piz.

Crime has gone down, yes, but do you think crime and violence are more openly seen and commonplace thanks in part to the media?

I'm trying to find a right way to word what I'm trying to say, but nothing is coming out right.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes. its funny you mention that. If you went door to door and asked people if crime has gone up or down over the last 50 years, ill bet most would say "up".

This is most likely due to the increase in depiction of violence in the media, esp the news. The media doesnt "mold you" into a violent person. It can affect peoples lives (the way they dress/talk) especially in youth, but i think it "educates" people incorrectly. If you were to only watch TV, you would have a strange view of the world.

I was reading one of balki's hippy books (when he was still a hippy) called "fear" or something like that. The auther was talking about the link between media and false fears like road rage, poison holoween candy, etc. He points out how the media blows things out of proportion; like reporting black crimes much more often than that of white people. Or claiming that "road rage" related deaths are sweeping the nation, when in fact they are not reletive to other acts of violence (i dont remeber them but he states numbers here, which are insanely low). I think the same thing applies to the amount of violence on tv (news and fiction) and the publics view of the amount of violence in society.

[DemonDeac]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let me propose this, Piz.

Crime has gone down, yes, but do you think crime and violence are more openly seen and commonplace thanks in part to the media?

I'm trying to find a right way to word what I'm trying to say, but nothing is coming out right.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes. its funny you mention that. If you went door to door and asked people if crime has gone up or down over the last 50 years, ill bet most would say "up".

This is most likely due to the increase in depiction of violence in the media, esp the news. The media doesnt "mold you" into a violent person. It can affect peoples lives (the way they dress/talk) especially in youth, but i think it "educates" people incorrectly. If you were to only watch TV, you would have a strange view of the world.

I was reading one of balki's hippy books (when he was still a hippy) called "fear" or something like that. The auther was talking about the link between media and false fears like road rage, poison holoween candy, etc. He points out how the media blows things out of proportion; like reporting black crimes much more often than that of white people. Or claiming that "road rage" related deaths are sweeping the nation, when in fact they are not reletive to other acts of violence (i dont remeber them but he states numbers here, which are insanely low). I think the same thing applies to the amount of violence on tv (news and fiction) and the publics view of the amount of violence in society.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is kind of related to a recent psychological experiment that took place. people were in hotels and shown doctored news on TV. people based their opinions on certain issues on the order shown and length talked about said issues. this demonstrates the influence of the media on public opinion. i found this experiemtn cuz i am both a political science and psychology double major here at WFU.

just thought id bring it up

[The-Matador]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I taught ethics for a couple of years, =

[/ QUOTE ]

what kind of ethics prof would call themselves the matador, the most unethical card player in the f'in world.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't an ethics prof. I had to teach junior ethics as a part of my M.Phil/Ph.D programme.

[scrub]

I didn't read the rest of the thread, but I skimmed through the paper and chose a few sentences you might want to revise.

In spite of Harris’ writings, investigators found that while Klebold and Harris shared interests with not only weapons and a passion for murder, they also partook in role-playing videogames such as Doom and Quake that engaged the player to commit violent acts in a fantasy-type realm.

--"Partook" sort of sucks there.

--You're using "with" wrong.

--Look up "engaged."

Can video games morally corrupt people? In a time where the amount of violence in video games is trending upwards in general, the notion that violence can be blamed on such a narrow range of society is silly and quite frankly disturbing.

--To the extent that "a range of society" means anything, it doesn't mean a specific group of consumer products.

While video games have been known to show more aggression in young persons, the weight of responsibility in keeping the youth away from these outlets should be on parents and other role figures instead of the people offering the product.

--How do video games show aggression in young people? Does the video game stand up and give a power point presentation demonstrating that young people are aggressive?

--You used about twice as many words as you needed to in this sentence.

--You're probably better off saying "video game manufacturers" than "the people offering the product"

Americans have become more and more tolerant with the realities in today’s world, and video games are only banking on the interests of their consumers.

--This sentence is gibberish.

If society wasn’t violent enough already, then how do the most violent of video games manage to become best-sellers?

--This one too.

People have always found things that will arguably desensitize acts of hatred and vengeance, and video games are the new kids on the block.

--God I hate it when acts of hatred and vengeance aren't sensitive enough...

Time and time again studies have failed to show a correlation between video games and violence, though there has been an established link between exposure to aggression and acts of aggression thereafter in young children.

--You should be more specific about what "aggression and acts of aggression" means. Does this include or exclude aggressive acts that children are exposed to in video games?

--That whole paragraph could use footnotes or explicit references to your sources, particularly for the studies you're citing here.

Young children are very impressionable, and it can be debated as to what point a youth becomes a more objectively thinking individual.

--Look up "objective."

--Breaking this up into two sentences and starting the second sentence with "The point at which..." would probably make your life a lot easier.

Regardless, to argue that video games are the cause of breeding aggressive behavior in young children is like making the argument that fast food chains are causing obesity, or that cigarette companies are causing lung cancer.

--My guess is that you're not getting paid by the word, so you might want to go with "that video games cause aggressive behavior." If you are getting paid by the word, you've probably extracted maximum value out of this clause--ni han.

Yes, these are all outlets of certain vices that deal with certain consequences, but at the root of it all there’s a choice to be made from the consumer.

--Wow. I wish those outlets of vices the best of luck in dealing with those unspecified consequences; that's got to be rough on them.

One doesn’t become addicted to cigarettes by not smoking them,

--Profound.

and a company that produces video games with violence should not be a culprit of child violence if irresponsible parents are letting their six-year old play games of killing rampage.

--Look up "culprit."

--You either mean "should not be blamed for..." or "a company that produces violent video games is not responsible for..." Rule of thumb: when you find yourself using the subjunctive verb to be and then negating it, you've chosen a poor structure for your sentence.

Violence in and of itself should be linked to an older crowd that can maturely handle such situations without becoming impressionable.

--Look up impressionable.

--If you're trying to make a sentence longer and less clear without running the risk of adding any meaning to it, appending the phrase "in and of itself" to the subject is a great place to start.

--Apparently, you are in favor of violence "being linked to an older crowd." Does that mean we should blame the AARP for violence, or just associate them with it?

Violent movies are given an “R” rating that disallows children under seventeen to watch the movie without supervision of an adult. Some movies are given the “NR” rating that completely disallows children under seventeen from attending the movie at all. Likewise, video games attach “Mature” ratings to the most violent games. Unfortunately, sales of games to minors are more lax than that of movie ticket sales, but that’s not the problem. If a violent game can be linked to more aggressive behavior in young children, then it’s the parent’s (or another role model figure’s) responsibility to disallow the use of that outlet for aggression from their child. It makes just as much sense to bar one’s child from seeing the movie “Apocalypse Now” as it is to prohibit that child from playing the video game “Grand Theft Auto”. Movies like “The Godfather” and video games like “Doom” should be experienced by adults and more maturely thinking young persons.

--Reading this paragraph gave me a headache, so I'm going to stop here.

Strangely enough, this is the best paper that I've seen posted on these boards in the past year or so.

scrub

[WillMagic]

[ QUOTE ]

Strangely enough, this is the best paper that I've seen posted on these boards in the past year or so.


[/ QUOTE ]

I have to agree. I only can remember a couple off the top of my head, and they were both atrocious.

This is actually pretty solid. I don't feel like going through the entire thread - the only things I noticed were the small grammar fixes that scrub mentioned, and your comparison between video-game makers and cigarette companies, which I didn't think was a very apt comparision.

Still, as is, this is a lock for at least a B/B+.

Will

[The-Matador]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Strangely enough, this is the best paper that I've seen posted on these boards in the past year or so.


[/ QUOTE ]

I have to agree. I only can remember a couple off the top of my head, and they were both atrocious.

This is actually pretty solid. I don't feel like going through the entire thread - the only things I noticed were the small grammar fixes that scrub mentioned, and your comparison between video-game makers and cigarette companies, which I didn't think was a very apt comparision.

Still, as is, this is a lock for at least a B/B+.

Will

[/ QUOTE ]

You have GOT to be kidding me. Unless he's going to Community College, this paper shouldn't get more than a C. There is *nothing* of any interest in it. It's simply a hodgepodge of half-baked arguments and statements taken from the popular discourse on the topic.

[WillMagic]

Unconstructively criticizing other people's English papers will also hinder your progress in becoming a better poker player.

Will

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Strangely enough....


[/ QUOTE ]

I have to agree.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYI, you didn't agree.

[thatpfunk]

how in the world is this a topic for an english course?

[WillMagic]

Wow, you're totally right. Scrub kinda tore into it. But I have excuses, don't worry:

1) it's 3:45.
2) I haven't had to write, and thus edit, an English paper in over a year....
3) it's 3:45.

Will

[partygirluk]

What stage of study are you enrolled in?

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Strangely enough, this is the best paper that I've seen posted on these boards in the past year or so.


[/ QUOTE ]

I have to agree. I only can remember a couple off the top of my head, and they were both atrocious.

This is actually pretty solid. I don't feel like going through the entire thread - the only things I noticed were the small grammar fixes that scrub mentioned, and your comparison between video-game makers and cigarette companies, which I didn't think was a very apt comparision.

Still, as is, this is a lock for at least a B/B+.

Will

[/ QUOTE ]

You have GOT to be kidding me. Unless he's going to Community College, this paper shouldn't get more than a C. There is *nothing* of any interest in it. It's simply a hodgepodge of half-baked arguments and statements taken from the popular discourse on the topic.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with the Matador and I fail to see why some are so impressed with this paper. No offense to the author but when reading I am reminded of a talkative teenager who mistakes the latest celebrity soundbites as evidence or fact. The paper basically repeats the premise that video games do not cause one to act violently then uses the same statement in various as evidence to the original.

I don't mean to be overly critical but I can't see you getting a very good grade.

You would have been much better off,I believe, actually using some of the "countless studies" or referenced one or two of the many articles written on this subject. Perhaps choosing to take something dealing with similar arguements used against the music or movie industry during various periods in popular culture to show that the current attack on video games is nothing new and thus can be dismissed.

[scrub]

[ QUOTE ]

I agree with the Matador and I fail to see why some are so impressed with this paper.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who was impressed with the paper?

scrub

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I agree with the Matador and I fail to see why some are so impressed with this paper.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who was impressed with the paper?

scrub

[/ QUOTE ]

Certainly not you. Impressed was a poor choice. Basically I am surpised people were not as harsh as you or Matador, and I can't believe someone thought it deserved a B, especially when it was supposed to be an argumentative paper.

[WillMagic]

I thought it was good at first, but then I actually read it, and you are all right, there are serious, serious flaws. The response to Matador was more of a joke that was continued from a small stakes post.

Anyway, I'm going to bed, because I might post something even dumber than this if I stay awake.

Will

[BadBoyBenny]

Is this supposed to be purely an opinion paper? If not, you need to find some studies or statistics that can help support your thesis.