Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Argumentative Essay
Argumentative Essay
1. Video games
Take a look at today's generation. A student comes home from school at around three or
four o'clock in the afternoon, sets his bag aside, debates whether he should take a shower,
definitely eats his lunch, and begins his after school program: playing video games, playing
video games, and playing more video games. Video games, unfortunately, have become an
imperative part of the average teenager's life. Whether it's hours, day, or maybe even
weeks, teenagers spend an excessive amount of time slaying monsters, killing zombies, or
just shooting at each other's avatars for all time's sake. They lose track of time, deprive
themselves of sleep, miss out on their homework, and deteriorate their health, all for the
sake of the phenomenal world of 'Call of Duty' and fellow video games. A vast majority of
the global population believes that playing video games can positively influence the lives of
those who favor them, while others strongly disagree. Although playing video games may
help stimulate and relax the brain, it is still considered detrimental because of the tendency
to reward violence and create the ultimate aggressive player.
To begin with, playing video games often leads gamers to accept what is conventionally
and ethically dismissed. Violent video games offer a profoundly aggressive and bloody
atmosphere. They are simply based on the notion that killing others is a reward.
Furthermore, they teach the players how to disrespect life by picking up a gun and shooting
at people, and thus integrating into their lives the fact that violence is a social norm
everybody praises. Moreover, certain games, such as GTA, school players about how crucial
it is to disrespect authority by simply adding points for those who manage to escape the
cops, or even shoot some. Such games brainwash teenagers to think that authority figures
are the bad guys, when in the truth they're not. Thus, they no longer feel a sense of
reverence for law enforces, or the law itself for that matter. David Greenfield, a professor of
psychiatry at the University of Connecticut and founder of the Center for Internet and
Technology Addiction argues that: "It (violent video games) conveys two things -- a lack of
respect for human life and a desensitization to violent acts," "And it teaches them the skill
set to enact the violent act with increased precision. And we call that entertainment.
Apart from the ethics, overexposure to violent video leads to the development of bad
conflict resolution skills. Playing these games allows players to express their feelings,
whether anger, pain, or pleasure, through hostility and aggression. Gamers only grow
familiar to the violent approach of sorting out problems and lose the art of communication.
Thus, they resort to physical abuse to show their friends or siblings that they are bothered or
irked by them. Brad Bushman, a psychologist at Ohio State University, was co-author of a
study that examined 380 studies on video games; he stated, "The results show that playing
violent video games increases angry thoughts, aggressive behavior, and decreases helping
behavior, empathy and compassion for others." In another study, 161 college students were
randomly assigned to play one of several violent games, neutral games, or pro-social games
(in which helpful behavior was required). After playing, the students completed a task in
which they could either help or hurt another student. Those who had played the violent
games were more hurtful to other students, whereas those who had played the pro-social
games were more helpful.
It is claimed that video games are mental stimulators that help sharpen the mind and relieve
it of anxiety and stress. This is an absolute truth; however, playing video games has also
proven to reduce certain cognitive brain functions. Certain studies have focused on how
specific brain regions of players of violent games respond under varying circumstances. For
instance, Rene Weber and his colleagues asked 13 experienced gamers to play a violent
game while undergoing FMRI brain scan (functional magnetic resonance imaging). By
imaging players' brain activity before, during and after each violent encounter, the
investigators found that immediately before firing a weapon, players displayed greater
activity in the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex. This area involves cognitive control and
planning, among other functions. While firing a weapon and shortly afterward, players
showed less activity in the rostral anterior cingulate cortex (RACC) and amygdala. Because
interaction between those brain areas is associated with resolving emotional conflict, their
decreased functioning could indicate a suppression of the emotional response to witnessing
the results of taking violent actions. Thus, the greater the experience with violent media, the
lower was the activation of brain areas for thinking, learning, reasoning and emotional
control.
2. Health
We have always heard the word ‘health’ and ‘fitness’. We use it ourselves when we
say phrases like ‘health is wealth’ and ‘fitness is the key’. What does the word health
really mean? It implies the idea of ‘being well’. We call a person healthy and fit when
he/she function well physically as well as mentally.
3. Athlete
Hajiq Ahmad Tortup, [27/11/2023 9:39 PM]
As college sports continue to be hugely popular and the National Collegiate Athletic
Association (NCAA) brings in large amounts of revenue, people have revived the
debate on whether college athletes should get paid.
There are many ways payments could work. They could be in the form of a free-
market approach, where athletes are able to earn whatever the market is willing to
pay them, it could be a set amount of money per athlete, or student athletes could
earn income from endorsements, autographs, and control of their likeness, similar to
the way top Olympians earn money.
Proponents of the idea believe that, because college athletes are the ones who are
training, participating in games, and bringing in audiences, they should receive some
sort of compensation for their work. If there were no college athletes, the NCAA
wouldn’t exist, college coaches wouldn’t receive there (sometimes very high)
salaries, and brands like Nike couldn’t profit from college sports. In fact, the NCAA
brings in roughly $1 billion in revenue a year, but college athletes don’t receive any
of that money in the form of a paycheck. Additionally, people who believe college
athletes should be paid state that paying college athletes will actually encourage
them to remain in college longer and not turn pro as quickly, either by giving them a
way to begin earning money in college or requiring them to sign a contract stating
they’ll stay at the university for a certain number of years while making an agreed-
upon salary.
Supporters of this idea point to Zion Williamson, the Duke basketball superstar, who,
during his freshman year, sustained a serious knee injury. Many argued that, even if
he enjoyed playing for Duke, it wasn’t worth risking another injury and ending his
professional career before it even began for a program that wasn’t paying him.
Williamson seems to have agreed with them and declared his eligibility for the NCAA
draft later that year. If he was being paid, he may have stayed at Duke longer. In fact,
roughly a third of student athletes surveyed stated that receiving a salary while in
college would make them “strongly consider” remaining collegiate athletes longer
before turning pro.
Paying athletes could also stop the recruitment scandals that have plagued the
NCAA. In 2018, the NCAA stripped the University of Louisville's men's basketball
team of its 2013 national championship title because it was discovered coaches were
using sex workers to entice recruits to join the team. There have been dozens of
other recruitment scandals where college athletes and recruits have been bribed
with anything from having their grades changed, to getting free cars, to being
straight out bribed. By paying college athletes and putting their salaries out in the
open, the NCAA could end the illegal and underhanded ways some schools and
coaches try to entice athletes to join.
People who argue against the idea of paying college athletes believe the practice
could be disastrous for college sports. By paying athletes, they argue, they’d turn
college sports into a bidding war, where only the richest schools could afford top
athletes, and the majority of schools would be shut out from developing a talented
team (though some argue this already happens because the best players often go to
the most established college sports programs, who typically pay their coaches
millions of dollars per year). It could also ruin the tight camaraderie of many college
teams if players become jealous that certain teammates are making more money
than they are.
They also argue that paying college athletes actually means only a small fraction
would make significant money. Out of the 350 Division I athletic departments, fewer
than a dozen earn any money. Nearly all the money the NCAA makes comes from
men’s football and basketball, so paying college athletes would make a small group
of men--who likely will be signed to pro teams and begin making millions
immediately out of college--rich at the expense of other players.