Persuasive Speech Help
Hello everyone. Chuck here.
I am preparing a persuasive speech on video game violence, and I've become undecided on which approach would be better for the speech. I've come up with two topics and I was hoping some of you may be kind enough to give me some advice/feedback on them. They are:
- Persuade my audience that violent video games do not provoke criminal behavior on the player (The basic)
OR
- Persuade my audience that their needs to be a stronger restriction on violent video games against young children.
Mind you that I'm not saying we should ban violent video games or that violent games provoke violent behavior. I play them all day everyday and I'm fine as wine. What I'm saying is that there may need to be stronger restriction on kids or their parents buying them as it may have a bit of influence on the child. (Then again, that does depends on the individual, not the game)
Let's not get into a discussion or argument about that because I don't want a shit storm to happen here. All I'm asking for is a bit of advice on which would be a stronger topic for a speech.
Thank you.
Comments
Thank you for the feedback. I was thinking of doing the first one, but the second option is a little more different than the first. My teacher does want us to shake things up a bit for a last speech.
The thing though is that restrictions already exist to stop young children from playing violent video games, it's the parents that are the issue there. You have to remember that if you choose to go down the second route. However, it would be difficult to stop people from buying games just because they may give it to a child.
That could even be a good point in the first argument.
I suggest talking that violent Videogames do not provoke criminal behavior.
Alright. I suppose I'll choose the first one as my thesis. It's time to get this shit started.
Thanks to both you and @Cany0udance for the advice.
.
Thanks for the advice.
Go for the first one.
-- It's less subjective, more concrete.
-- There's a good deal of supporting data that show a lack of correlation between video games and crime.
-- You can deflect counter-arguments by arguing that video games are used as scapegoats.
Really good points.
Thanks Max. You've always got good advice when it comes to this stuff.
Personally, I feel like the second one is easier to argue, especially as the first stance seems like too big of a generalization. It seems odd to argue that explicit violent content has no impact on children at all. We have media age ratings for a reason. Younger people are more impressionable. It could be argued that while graphic violence may not effect every child in the same fashion, it could potentially be a negative influence, even if it doesn't necessarily end up manifesting as something terrible. Games with graphic violence also tend to come along with other things that children should debatably not be exposed to.
Happy to help.
I see where you're coming from. That came across my mind as well because i thought it was absurd to not think that violence can have some harsh effect on a child. I mean, I read stories regarding kids who have killed their own parents over a game. But then again, I do believe that particular individual had a problem to begin with. It's a very weird topic for my head to wrap around at times.
And from my stand point, the ESRB ratings and movie ratings don't do much to prevent children or any young impressionable people as they will find ways around them.
All in all, I think I'll be doing the first option as there is a lot of evidence that supports that claim. Thanks anyways.
That could be so. How do you potentially solve that problem, though? Ban people with signs of mental illness from playing games with graphic violence? What about children that do not show signs? Would it not potentially be easier and more effective to just regulate it in general to ensure that avoidable consequences can be avoided? Would these questions justify simply making children wait until they're a bit more mature to play games that contain mature content, such as graphic violence? Also, if these games are not banned for children on the basis that the violence in those games may not have any impact on them in terms of potential future violent crime, what about the additional mature content that may inherently go along with a game intended for a mature audience?
Just throwing some questions out there, lol.
True, but the point is just that those ratings exist for a reason.
You're welcome. I'm not necessarily trying to convince you to choose one side or the other, just thought I'd say what road I would take.
In my opinion, neither. You should write about how parents shouldn't be letting their children get their hands on these violent games.
It's all in the parenting, people.