THBT video games promoting aggressive behaviour should be banned for children under 16 by the government

Motion: THBT video games promoting aggressive behaviour should be banned for children under 16 by the government.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/10/video-games-violent-study-finds

Proposition:

• It is the government that can ensure the safety of children by passing policies through the legislative board. The government is accountable to the people they receive their mandate from and thus is subject to public oversight by watchdogs, ombudsmen, etc. They can check and make sure that universal standards are enforced.
• Thus, it is in the interest of the government to pass laws and make its policy transparent for everybody. By changing macroeconomic legal circumstances, these video game companies are forced by the government to accept and implement these measures. The government, as a legitimised entity, has the legal tools to maintain these standards in the long run: age-verification, fine these companies, and regulate video game distribution.
• Individually, parents cannot enforce their will on their children, as it is counterproductive and will likely result in major backlash. The other alternative is that parents would sit down with their children and try to convince them to stop playing with their classmates after school. Obviously, it won't work. Even responsible parents cannot fully monitor their children’s activity in these online environments.
• The government is more effective in this respect as they already regulate several other harmful issues: alcohol, gambling, and smoking by putting age restrictions on these activities for minors. It is the same with violent video games.
• If everyone else plays violent video games, one simply can’t choose not to, as they might get excluded if they do so. Violent video gaming is the means through which they can attach to each other.
• As the adverse effects of violence in these video games are embedded in our minds unconsciously, children may not see them on their own. They need to be more informed / educated on this to play video games more responsibly, as they lack the cognitive maturity to process violent media.
• The majority of the stakeholders, who are children, study in primary / secondary education, and it is the government that can launch large-scale initiatives to facilitate constructive discourse on violent video gaming and eventually impose a ban on these games.
• The government has access to statistical figures from research representing video gaming trends among children. Through peer discussion activities, sub-16 children would at least be given the chance to reflect on themselves and find nonviolent alternatives to interact with each other after class. Through these sessions, they could see they are not the only ones struggling with this problem and are more open to adapting their behaviour. Banning violent video is only feasible through social discourse. Banning without initiating educational discourse will lead to defiance from the stakeholders.
• The government can fine-tune its policies for each region of the country by involving professionals (even NGOs). So, the policy is not based on a one-size-fits-all model but aligns with the characteristics of each demographic region.
• Still, governmental intervention must be the first step to solving the problem, as it can regulate NGOs and competition. The government can set consistent standards and foster equity. This is why the government is a prerequisite to implementing these bans through social discourse.
• NGOs are usually more incentivised to work with those who can pay for their services, which is a threat. This will eventually lead to NGOs prioritising their labour in urban areas, isolating underprivileged rural areas. This could further widen the gap between urban and rural areas in the arrangement of these sensitising programs, and banning will have uneven results. Towns will be lagging behind urban areas.
• Without governmental regulation, competition is limited, as larger NGOs might absorb smaller ones. Monopolistic entities may not have enough incentives to improve the quality of their services, and consumers have relatively few options to choose from. As consumers have no better alternative to choose from, they are forced to pay more for sensitising programs. Some educational institutions might not have the financial wherewithal to pay for them, making them inaccessible for some and thus less effective.

Opposition:

• NGOs are the ones capable of implementing individualised policies for various regions throughout the country, aligning with the characteristics of that particular region. NGOs could organize educational programs to sensitize children and make them aware of the dangers of violent video games. Prevention works better than prohibition.
• Even if the government places an outright ban on violent video games, the stakeholders, sub-16 minors, can bypass these restrictions and find other ways to gain access to these games: VPN, playing on their older sibling(s)’ PC. They can also circumvent restrictions if they buy these games abroad or download them from piracy websites. The root of the problem is not addressed by governmental policymaking, facing major backlashes.
• Thus, an outright ban by the government is ineffective and harmful. On the other hand, prevention through community education works better by involving NGOs. NGOs can let local communities become active agents in this situation. Giving back the right to local communities to implement policies allows for more precise, culturally sensitive and informed interventions tailored to their own unique situation. The root of the problem always stems from the local communities that the government-led approach is inherently limited in addressing. One-size-fits-all approaches are ineffective here.
• On the contrary, the prevention of violent video games through regular sensitising programs is more effective as they are designed to serve children, after all. On a local community level, institutions located in the same area could organise school intervention programs with workshops on the subject. During these sessions, professionals can open children’s eyes to the underlying dangers of violent video games and offer children other nonviolent alternatives to connect with each other (after-school clubs, sports activities). Sub-16 children could also learn to critically evaluate violent media through education, instead of being just prohibited from it.
• If everyone else plays violent video games, one simply can’t choose not to, as they might get excluded if they do so. Violent video gaming is the means through which they can attach to each other.
• However, violent video games might not be the primary reason why children become aggressive. There might be other socio-economic factors to consider, such as family environment, bullying, and trauma, etc. The causal link between these video games and violent behavior may be indirect, offering a surface-level understanding of the issue. That said, taking other factors into account allows people to see the wood for the trees.
• Parents would also be involved in the decision-making process. NGOs could also offer parent counselling programs and effective methods to apply when they talk to their kids about violent video gaming. NGO are the only ones that take family dynamics into account on a community level. By doing so, they let the parents be part of a larger picture and let them make decisions in their children’s media exposure to violent video games, besides the above-mentioned SE issues.
• As opposed to governmental bodies, transparency and accountability are a lot more present among NGOs. In the case of government, policy-making comes hand in hand with cumbersome and bureaucratic procedures, making the whole process a lot slower.
• There is limited access to EU grants and resources. Thus, access to subsidies could create competition between NGO. This incentivises NGOs to design more effective programs to ensure they procure, for example, EU grants. In addition to this, financial support encourages them to diversify their services and come up with innovative solutions. They could also expand to other regions of the country, making these educational programs available to wider audiences.
• Seeing that NGOs allow for effective and targeted intervention, NGOs are a lot more likely to ameliorate the current situation, i.e., fewer children exposed to violent video games through local discourse and prevention.