Corissa's Strongest Argument Analysis

First I will go on to state each opponents strongest argument and then I will go on to discuss who I feel won the debate putting my personal basis aside. Corissa’s strongest argument was that exposure to violence can cause aggression in children. Children will grow up to imitate what they see and think that violence is the norm. She justified her argument by stating the statistics of children who watch media violence compared to those who do not and stated that their long-term aspirations included being criminal or “thugs” instead of doctors a more socially expected profession. This went against Kara’s argument that there is no link between violence and children unless we were to look at other variables including mental illness or children who are exposed to

Kara’s strongest argument was that adopting the resolution is a violation of the 1st Amendment, freedom of speech etc. She justified her argument by providing evidence that adopting the resolution is unconstitutional because it has not made it through the US Supreme Court, thus the government has little control on media violence. This went against Corissa’s argument that if the government can have control over children watching pornography then the same control should be implemented for children watching media violence. This is an example of an argument from principle because it appeals to values such as justice or equality (Herrick). Furthermore, I believe Corissa won the debate. She established that there was in fact a problem, having exposure to aggression as a child can lead to violent lifestyles in adulthood. In addition she established that adopting the resolution would remedy the problem. If we were to adopt the resolution this would lead to less exposure to violence in children, which would lead to a less violent generation for our future creators and leaders, therefore resulting in a decrease in violent outcomes in the future. This outweighs the benefits of not adopting the