Tucker 1

Jessica Tucker
Mrs. Wolverton
English 1010
November 20, 2014
Video Games: A Positive or Negative Thing
There has been a long-standing debate on whether or not video games have a damaging
effect on children. I have read two articles with opposing perspectives on the subject. The first
article, which is for the use of video games, is called Mind Games written by Alan
Gershenfeld, published in Scientific American on February 2014. The second article, an article
that is against video games, is called Are Violent Video Games Harmful? written by Guy
Porter and Vladan Starcevic on October 2007. The purposes for both of these articles are to
persuade parents to allow their children to play video games, or to prevent them from playing
video games, respectively.
Alan Gershenfeld, in his article Mind Games, argues that video games could become
the turning point for our education and getting ready for real-life experiences. According to him,
some games provide both moral and ethical choices for you to make based on experiences in the
real world. Gershenfeld tells us that you can learn about and solve real challenges, diplomatic
situations, and how to rule a country, hypothetically. Gershenfeld insists that even violent video
games can be helpful by improving our learning capacity, vision, motivation, and our ability to
tune out distractions. Not only that, he also asserts that it allows the people who play them to
make a difference in the world; whether it is in the real world, or a virtual one. He emphasizes
his belief that joy and wonderment could be put back into the pursuit of scientific questions and

Tucker 2
science itself. Gershenfeld reminds us that games with concepts that are challenging and difficult
can give people an increased intuitive understanding (Gershefeld).
Guy Porter and Vladan Starcevic, in their article Are Violent Video Games Harmful?
advocate that violent video games cause aggressive and antisocial behavior. They claim that in
order to decrease violence in our world, we need to get rid of the harmful effects violent video
games provide. The authors go on to discuss the shooting at Columbine High School by Eric
Harris and Dylan Klebold, and how they killed 13 people to be just like the video game Doom.
Porter and Starcevic remind us that violent video games increase our aggressive and hostile
behavior; and make it easier for us to become violent. They observe the tendency to get into
arguments with teachers and having poor school performance as a result of playing violent video
games. According to the authors, video games lack moral scripts and reward violent behavior
rather than punish it with consequences normally associated with acts of violence (Porter and
Starcevic).
Gershenfeld swayed the audience into considering his perspective on video games by
using logos, ethos, and pathos effectively within his article. He used logos by stating facts on
video games. In his article, he included experiences, experiments conducted, and statements of
researchers, William Colby of the CIA, Oleg Kalugin of the KGB, various game companies, etc.
Gershenfeld incorporated pathos by discussing his own experiences with his family and friends
being against his decision to have a career in video games, They believed that, Video games
were frivolous at best, dangerous at worst. This allowed the audience to be able to connect with
and understand Gershenfeld and his perspective better,. He included ethos by explaining his
career in video games and his experience as a studio executive at the popular game publisher,
Activision.

Tucker 3
Gershenfeld displayed strategy 1 by stating directly that, Video games [can] transform
education. Thus indicating that he was in agreement of video game usage. He also inputted
strategy 5 by having long sentences followed by short sentences and making them flow well.
This made it easier for the audience to follow and understand what he wanted to convey.
Porter and Starcevic made great use of ethos, pathos, logos, and even kairos within their
article to encourage their audience to prevent their children from playing violent video games.
Logos was included by mental, correlation, and longitudinal studies as expanded upon within
Porter and Starcevics article. They were careful to add in pathos by bringing up tragic events
like the shooting at Columbine High School to dissuade people from allowing their children to
play violent video games in order to prevent incidents like this in the future. As for ethos, Porter
and Starcevic have knowledge in psychiatry and know the behavior of people very well and
explained this in their article. The authors used kairos by writing this article only a month after
the memorial for the Columbine High School shooting, giving the article more effect on the
audience due to the closeness of both events.
Porter and Starcevic showed strategy 1 by telling the audience that violent video games
were harmful to people in a very direct manner without beating around the bush. They also
placed strategy 2 into their article by only telling about the negative effects of violent video
games, like with the high school shooting, and not telling about the positive effects. This made
the audience only think of how video games can hurt people and ignore the good that these
games can create in society.
Gershenfeld, Porter, and Starcevic have all given the topic of video games a lot of
thought. They did their research carefully and found people and stories to support their paradigm
on video games. These authors all seemed to care deeply about their topic, as shown by how

Tucker 4
much time they put into their research. They wanted to give the audience something to think
about, as well as, learn something from their articles. Gershenfeld and Porter and Starcevic differ
in their perspectives greatly. Where Gershenfeld observes that even violent video games can be
used as a learning experience for children, Porter and Starcevic adamantly disagree, declaring
that violent video games promote violence and aggression. These two articles take a different
approach in convincing their audiences; while Gershenfeld includes his own experiences to gain
supporters, Porter and Starcevic keep their article purely factual with events and studies to share
their point, trusting that that will appeal to the people.
Gershenfeld values education and the enhancements video games can have on it; he
assumes that the people also value education and uses it as his main persuasion tool. Porter and
Starcevic appear to value the safety and wellbeing of the people and work against video games in
order to preserve that safety; assuming that the people feel the same they do as well. If
Gershenfeld, Porter, and Starcevic were to meet, they would have a hard time convincing each
other of their respective perspectives. Gershenfeld, no matter how he tried, would not be able to
convince Porter and Starcevic of the good of video games and vice versa. They would probably
have a heated discussion in which nothing really changes at all because both parties strongly
believe in what they wrote in those articles.
After reading both of these articles, I have a better and more complete understanding of
the topic at hand. While I used to think there was no way that violent video games could cause
people to actually become violent and aggressive, I now think that this could be the case for
people who have already had some problems with aggression, as stated by Porter and Starcevic
in their article as follows Young people with primary, aggressive behavior or antisocial traits
preferentially select to play violent video games for recreational purposes. This means that

Tucker 5
people who already have aggression and antisocial tendencies like to play violent games. These
texts have further persuaded me that video games are a good learning device for people and can
help them prepare for the real world, but I still have some doubts about whether or not puzzle
games can help more that games of strategy. Something that I see now that I didnt see before
reading, analyzing, and discussing these texts is that people can find evidence on just about any
side of a discussion if they know where to look and that neither side is wrong, even if you want
to believe otherwise. Both sides have an equal chance of being wrong or right and just because I
agree more with one side, it doesnt make the other side any less correct. If I were to be part of
the conversations of these two texts, I would be on Gershenfelds side of the argument because I
have always had this belief that video games were helpful to everyday life and could teach you
many things.
The topic of whether or not video games are harmful to the community has been going on
since they first video game came out. Some people claim that video games are a waste of time
and have no purpose other than to ruin the minds of youths and adults alike. Other people
suggest the opposite; video games can be a great learning experience and give people
opportunities they would never have in real life. Gershenfeld declares that video games can
create a better future, and Porter and Starcevic points out the problems these games provide us
with. Both of these theories are intriguing and they really give you something to think about.
This is a good topic to think about when deciding what you think is best for your children.

Tucker 6
Works Cited
Gershenfeld, Alan. Mind Games. Scientific American 310.2 (2014): 54-59. Academic
Search Premier. Web. 27 Oct. 2014.
Porter, Guy, and Vladan Starcevic. Are Violent Video Games Harmful? Australasian
Psychiatry 15.5 (2007): 422-426. Academic Search Premier. Web. 27 Oct. 2014.