Jack Flanagan argued that violent video games promote antisocial behavior.A major point of his was that the game 's environment affects the player 's attitude. He referenced an experiment to prove this; a group of players played a relaxing game and another played a tense game like resident evil. “Those who played high-stakes gaming like Resident Evil were more competitive than those that played less intense games like fishing”(Flanagan, 2015). The experiment suggested that “the link between game and gamer is a strong one and can be both positive and negative” (Flanagan, 2015).Thus he believed that the theory that violent games make violent people was not false. Flanagan believed this was not enough to prove his argument and decided to research
…show more content…
it basically says the only opposing argument is that video games that have a positive effect on mood only contribute negligible to the market, thus they are irrelevant to consider that video games are not violent. The counter argument is produced by Andrew Leonard it is titled “Video Game Culture Does Not Promote Antisocial Behaviors”. In which Leonard delves into the aspects of online game and all the positive games that Flanagan ignored. Leondard 's first major point is that gaming as a culture cannot be reduced to hate and violence. He continues on with his next point that gaming as a culture has become more cooperative with games such as minecraft and survival games like Don 't Starve. He exasperates that console gaming is not the only thing he is reviewing and that one game doesn 't make a culture. Leonard has his friend who has master 's degrees in both Performance Studies and Interactive Telecommunications provide information on her opinion of the culture since they are similar to his own she says a variety of things, but one phrase sticks out “The kinds of …show more content…
The only severe one that I found offensive was the first hasty generalization in which he said people who play games by themselves feel ashamed. Although, minor fallacies, can be found within the text, like when he hasty generalized Grand Theft Auto 's community, or when he used an appeal to pity to draw attention. Leonard definitely won with his simple but informational argument. Leonard strives, as far as I can tell, for a clear and decisive argument on video game culture as a whole. While Flanagan decided to rebuke one particular aspect of video game culture which was violent video games. While neither expected to be compared to each other, they did expect someone with opposing view 's to read their arguments. Thus, when comparing the two for who had the better argument when I ignore fallacies, I believe, in all actuality, it is Leonard who wins this point. It is impossible to say I am not biased; but Leonard 's argument which appealed to trends and emotions was far superior to me. Flanagan 's argument tried to appeal to reason and logic, but to me fell flat due to a substantial lack of data surrounding the so called experiments and their
it basically says the only opposing argument is that video games that have a positive effect on mood only contribute negligible to the market, thus they are irrelevant to consider that video games are not violent. The counter argument is produced by Andrew Leonard it is titled “Video Game Culture Does Not Promote Antisocial Behaviors”. In which Leonard delves into the aspects of online game and all the positive games that Flanagan ignored. Leondard 's first major point is that gaming as a culture cannot be reduced to hate and violence. He continues on with his next point that gaming as a culture has become more cooperative with games such as minecraft and survival games like Don 't Starve. He exasperates that console gaming is not the only thing he is reviewing and that one game doesn 't make a culture. Leonard has his friend who has master 's degrees in both Performance Studies and Interactive Telecommunications provide information on her opinion of the culture since they are similar to his own she says a variety of things, but one phrase sticks out “The kinds of …show more content…
The only severe one that I found offensive was the first hasty generalization in which he said people who play games by themselves feel ashamed. Although, minor fallacies, can be found within the text, like when he hasty generalized Grand Theft Auto 's community, or when he used an appeal to pity to draw attention. Leonard definitely won with his simple but informational argument. Leonard strives, as far as I can tell, for a clear and decisive argument on video game culture as a whole. While Flanagan decided to rebuke one particular aspect of video game culture which was violent video games. While neither expected to be compared to each other, they did expect someone with opposing view 's to read their arguments. Thus, when comparing the two for who had the better argument when I ignore fallacies, I believe, in all actuality, it is Leonard who wins this point. It is impossible to say I am not biased; but Leonard 's argument which appealed to trends and emotions was far superior to me. Flanagan 's argument tried to appeal to reason and logic, but to me fell flat due to a substantial lack of data surrounding the so called experiments and their