Reflection on writing paper #3 and how it was different from paper #2

Paper #3 was tasked to us as a paper where we had to persuade the reader of out point of view, this is different from the second paper which required us to analyze ads. The review of others papers could be seen as similar to the second paper in that we are analyzing other's views, heck we might be able to write a second paper on the third. But the main reason the third was different was because we were presenting our own opinions and providing evidence to prove our point.

Final English Paper

Patrick

Kulfan

Ending the war on games

We have all heard the stories, maybe some of you have experienced them. A kid finally snaps and half a school winds up dead. Then the police canvas the kid’s room and find that he enjoyed horror novels, rock music, and video games. The story then hits the news. The killer’s face is displayed and the discussion starts. Do video games cause violence in teens? I’ve been gaming my entire life. I remember playing “Putt Putt Travels Through Time” when I was younger. After a few years it was World of Warcraft, then numerous other games. So many it’s take days to talk about each one. So the question “do video games cause violence in teens?” really hits home for me. I firmly believe that this is not the case. I feel this way because throughout my years of gaming I’ve never felt the need to kill another person, and I’ve heard many opinions from people I respect that believe the same way.

So why have games been the focus of so much controversy? I believe there are a few reasons. First, many video games have a display of violence in one way or another and often this is graphic. In the media, video gaming is always attached to something negative, school shootings, teen behavior, bad grades just to name a few. Many of these issues can be attributed to other causes as well, but that doesn’t always occur.

When people think of violence in video games what comes to mind are the gory “FINISH HIM!” scenes in Mortal Kombat or the blood soaked battlefields of Call of Duty. If used correctly, this form of conflict can be a challenge that the player has to overcome to get their reward. Killing or fighting is used in the majority of games to offer a sense of challenge. This is often displayed in different ways, in Mario the killing is stomping on Goombas whilst the challenge would be navigating over the obstacles including the many enemies. In games like Call of Duty this changes to moving between cover and killing tougher and tougher enemies that get in your way. Fundamentally they are both the same thing. Clear x amount of obstacles to reach the ending point for a reward. In Mario it’s the gratifying sound of sliding down the end flagpole, in Call of Duty it’s the start of another story sequence.

I do understand where other people are coming from when they talk about how games promote violence. This ending gratification could be seen as a type of operant conditioning where killing an enemy then being granted the points or gear of the fallen enemy is the positive reinforcement teaching people that killing x gives you y. Yes this strategy eventually teaches you that killing an enemy in-game gives you a reward, but the keyword here is in-game. Does cooking in a game make you a cook in real life? Does playing a lawyer in a game make you a lawyer? No. Thus killing in a game does not make you a killer.

This is shown through trend lines presented by Max Fisher on The Washington Post’s website. The first graph shows the expected trend line if there was a relation between gun violence and game purchases. The second graph, off the same website, shows the actual trend line tracking video game spending versus gun-related violent events. As you can see there is no relation between the two. Instead there is a general decrease in gun violence versus game spending per capita actually suggesting that games reduce crime. This same theory actually has a basis in psychology as well.

In an article published by Polygon, authored by Colin Campbell, he presents evidence of a reduction in overall homicides coinciding with popular game releases. In support of this Campbell writes "We always have to be careful with correlational data." Markey added, "Correlation doesn't mean causation. But we haven't just looked at sales of games and violent crimes. We have taken into account trends in the data. We remove stuff that typically happens, like a spike in murders during summer and high sales of games near the Holidays, and it's still negative. To me what is most amazing is that it is never positive. It is always statistically negative."

As I mentioned this has a basis in psychology, and just common sense in general. When a game is released what are would-be criminals doing who are fans of a game? They are playing said game. Thus they aren’t out on the streets committing crimes. On the psychology side, what if instead of potentially hurting someone in real life they can take out all the anger and stress of real life by playing a game instead? An article on the True Stress Management website presents an idea that games can relieve stress for some types of people. “Video games allow Type A personalities to get enough of a mental challenge to be able to relax, but not get too bored or overly stressed. So it’s like giving that sugar filled kid a toy to play with. It gives him something to do so that he’s occupied, but doesn’t go overboard.” In my case, I’ve used games to distance myself from reality. If I’m angry, I can take a step back and immerse myself in a virtual world, one that allows me to de stress in an environment that won’t be permanently damaged.

I do understand where people who are not gamers are coming from. Games like Hatred (a sociopath mass-murder game) or Postal (A murder game) really leave a negative impression on the gaming industry. If used correctly though, the majority of games can be used as a learning experience, one to be enjoyed by the whole family. What’s required is for parents to take heed of the ESRB rating system. It provides an easy system to determine whether a game is meant for the age your child is at. But often this doesn’t happen, my belief is that parents know these ratings exist but haven’t grown up in a world where games exist thus aren’t accommodated to the fact that games can be mature. “Mr Freund suggested that the problem was that parents felt disconnected from the world of video games and so showed little interest in this aspect of their children's lives.” Excerpt from a BBC news article on the subject.

Thus it’s my belief that there are misunderstandings across the board, from consumers to developers nobody can understand anyone else’s views. For this to truly end parents from this generation must make steps to research what games are available and correct for their children to play. The media has to stop associating games with violence. Finally, these studies have to be released to the public and be easily found by those looking to purchase games. Games don’t cause violence, they’ve just been misunderstood. Games can be a positive influence on society if we let them, we just have to remove this misplaced hate that is focused on them.

Bibliography

Fisher, Max. "Ten-country Comparison Suggests There’s Little or No Link between Video Games and Gun Murders." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 17 Dec. 2012. Web. 19 Nov. 2015.

Campbell, Colin. "Do Violent Video Games Actually Reduce Real-world Crime?" Polygon. Polygon, 12 Sept. 2014. Web. 01 Dec. 2015.

"Can Video Games Relieve Stress? - True Stress Management." True Stress Management. N.p., 02 June 2014. Web. 01 Dec. 2015.

Hermida, Alfred. "Parents 'ignore Game Age Ratings'" BBC News. BBC, 24 June 2005. Web. 01 Dec. 2015.

English in-class: Analyzing Arguments

1st:

1. Planned Parenthood (the organization) is important
1. she is trying to get the readers to support Planned Parenthood, or to at least understand the controversy pointed at it.
2. The thesis is clearly stated, it can be seen in the first paragraph near the end.
2. She uses the support provided by facts presented by Planned Parenthood along with articles presenting the problems .
1. The controversy is null, Planned Parenthood is unique in applying sex ed education and treatment. Then debunking of the controversy behind Planned Parenthood.
2. Facts about how Planned Parenthood provides assistance to women, the facts and statistics from Planned Parenthood’s website, articles from news sites, and a personal anecdote.
3. The reasons presented are factual and work to convince the reader that yes, this is an important subject
3. She seems pretty even handed on the issue taking the controversy into account and dealing with it accordingly.
1. Yes there are, mainly on the second page going forward there are mentions of the controversy faced by Planned Parenthood and why it doesn’t matter
2. She acknowledges them and responds to them reasonably
3. She treats other arguments respectively.
4. Yes she does, though she avoids countering the controversy she presents why Planned Parenthood is important and why the controversy should be overlooked
4. She uses the sources presented by Planned Parenthood along with an article from a news site and a personal anecdote.
1. Each is portioned through the paper and used to support arguments or present another piece of opinion to argue through ethos or pathos
2. Planned Parenthood is biased towards it’s own success but could be seen as fairly credible, CNN is a news site and on this issue could be seen as fairly unbiased thus is credible, and her own anecdote is presented fairly biased but that’s because it’s her friend’s opinion
3. They are, her friend’s anecdote was recent.
5. It seems to be from a neutral if not slightly biased towards the side of Planned Parenthood talking to the audience in a matter considered peer to peer.
1. She does not and presents information in the first paragraph that provides some backstory
2. I felt pretty excluded reading the paper, not that it was a bad thing, because it wasn’t really aimed at me
3. It was a topic that I’m not really familiar with thus not really.

2nd:

1. Abortion is bad and should not be allowed (simplified)
1. That abortion is cruel and should not be allowed
2. No stated thesis yet.
2. She uses scientific evidence of the development of a baby, she uses opinions and beliefs for the rest.
1. Scientific evidence, arguing towards ethos, mentioning that it should be a crime akin to murder.
2. Facts and examples are used to backup the main point.
3. She needs to use more facts over opinions or find anecdotes to prove her opinions
3. She has examples of arguments from both sides.
1. Yes and there doesn’t seem to be any mention of dealing with them.
2. She doesn’t seem to refute or acknowledge them as the paper is still an outline.
3. She seems to treat them respectfully.
4. Possibly a few sweeping generalizations.
4. She has no stated sources yet.
1. There seems to be sources used in the main argument and they are used to reinforce her argument.
2. As they are not stated I cannot check if they are credible
3. or current
5. She addresses from a neutral point in the outline from a peer to peer standpoint.
1. No and presents information to get you up to speed.
2. Exclude, very little use of “we” language.
3. As I’m not very up to date on the issue I don’t really have any opinions on the subject.