It is claimed that violent video games cause violence in children, but there are also people who say the opposite. People on the professional side who criticize violent video games argue that violent video games trigger school shootings and violence among youth. Those who advocate against violent video games argue that violent video games do not cause violence in young people but instead provide a healthy opportunity for children to virtually explore war and violence without bringing it into the real world. So it's fair, even though I favor one side, both have very compelling claims. Both sides use different ways to persuade people, mostly with facts they have tested or with research done by others. One way the scam has tried to get people to stick it in their mind is by using repetition because they always use the violent phrase: video games are violent and they keep repeating it over and over until you're annoyed and it gets stuck in your mind. The best way to persuade people is to use facts and statistics because they always explain how what professionals say is bad about violent video games always proves them wrong. Both have different ways to persuade you, but both are good at it, but the difference is that one always proves the other wrong. Both sides use good examples to explain what they say. A good example that the pro side used was where they said that "the FBI said playing violent video games was on a list of behaviors associated with school shootings," which is a good example because they're trying to say that the FBI said so. it must be true. This example is useful because the FBI has said that school shootings and violent video games are associated. An example from the text t...... middle of paper ...... the argument and we always proved the other side wrong. The con side made a better essay because they used a lot of facts and logical things instead of the pro side which used a lot of emotional examples and a lot of unproven research. A good example that caught my attention was when they said that “video games allow young people to experience issues like war, violence and death without real world consequences” because they basically said that children can experience things without go to prison. Personally I don't think that violent video games cause violence among young people because if that were the case there would be many more school shootings and more bullying, but that's not the case. The anti side had a better time for the essay because it always contradicted what the other side said and that's why I side with the anti side. Works Cited http://videogames.procon.org/