Explain The Claims Of Both Articles - Target Essay

Explain the claims of both articles. 5 Target Essa

Explain the claims of both articles. 5. Target- Essay expertly describes the claims of both articles, and description is comprehensive and insightful with relevant evidence to support claims. Essay demonstrates an exceptional understanding of the topic. Explain the background of the controversy and how it became controversial. 5. Target- Essay expertly describes the background of the controversy and how it became controversial, and description is comprehensive and insightful with relevant evidence to support claims. Essay demonstrates an exceptional understanding of the topic. -Explain how historical perspectives and theories add to the controversy. (C1.. Target 7.5 points Essay expertly describes how both historical perspectives and theories add to the controversy, and description is comprehensive and insightful with relevant evidence to support claims. Essay demonstrates an exceptional understanding of the topic. -Examine the evidence given in the articles and explain which article creates a stronger argument. Give examples from both. Include how current perspectives and theories support your rationale. (C1.. Target Essay expertly describes why one article’s argument is stronger than the other; including how current perspectives and theories support given rationale. Description is comprehensive and insightful with relevant evidence to support claims. -Identify any logic fallacies that exist in both and explain what makes them logic fallacies. 5. Target- Essay expertly identifies logic fallacies in both controversies, and explanation is comprehensive and insightful with relevant evidence to support claims. Essay demonstrates an exceptional understanding of the topic. -Describe how the controversy you chose is applicable and significant to the world. (C1.. Target- Essay expertly describes how the controversy chosen is applicable and significant to the world. Description is comprehensive and insightful with relevant evidence to support claims. -Communicates reason for writing and demonstrates awareness of audience. 5. Target- The thesis, position, or purpose is persuasively developed throughout and skillfully directed to a specific audience. -Advances position or purpose throughout writing; conclusion aligns to and evolves from development. 5. Target- The thesis, position, or purpose is coherently and cohesively advanced throughout. The progression of ideas is coherent and unified. A convincing and unambiguous conclusion aligns to the development of the purpose. -Selects and integrates evidence to support and advance position/purpose; considers other perspectives. 5. Target- Comprehensive and compelling evidence is included. Multiple other perspectives are integrated effectively. -Includes spelling, capitalization, punctuation, grammar, language use, sentence structure, etc. 5. Target -No mechanical errors are present. Skilled control of language choice and sentence structure are used throughout. -Uses appropriate style, such as APA, MLA, etc., for college, subject, and level; documents sources using citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., appropriate to assignment and discipline. 5. Target- No errors in formatting or documentation are present. Selectivity in the use of direct quotations and synthesis of sources is demonstrated. STATEMENT ON THE INTEGRATION OF FAITH AND WORK A s a university, we believe that the message of Jesus Christ bears profound implications, not only for individuals, but also for society and the ways that we as individuals live within it. The Lord Jesus instructed His followers to live as salt and light within society, which implies a call to live out our lives in ways that contribute to the common good. We are convinced that this call extends to the workplace and that our respective vocations represent vital opportunities to glorify God by serving others in ways that promote human flourishing. Therefore, by God’s grace, we seek to distinguish ourselves as a university by instilling a sense of vocational calling and purpose in our students, faculty and staff in accord with the following principles: WE BELIEVE that God’s Word speaks authoritatively about creation, fall and redemption as well as the restoration of all things through Christ Jesus. Therefore, we are convinced that the Christian worldview offers hope of restoration, not only for individuals, but also for families, communities and societies in which individuals live, work and serve one another. WE BELIEVE that God the Almighty created the world, placed human beings within it and blessed them by making them responsible for cultivating and caring for creation. Therefore, we are assured that our work within the world matters to God and our neighbors, and that we honor God by serving others in ways that promote human flourishing. WE BELIEVE that Jesus Christ is both Savior and Lord and that all who follow Jesus should seek His Kingdom and His righteousness in relation to all aspects of human experience, including culture and society. Therefore, we have resolved to carry out our work within the public arena with compassion, justice and concern for the common good. WE BELIEVE that Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection secured abundant and eternal life for all who believe and that Christ transforms all that we say and do. Therefore, we are convinced that Grand Canyon University should positively impact those who study at, work for and live near the university in ways that accord with the teachings of Jesus Christ. WE BELIEVE that mankind was originally created in the image of God and given responsibility over creation, but that all have failed to fulfill their God-given purpose and responsibility. We believe that God redeems and restores men and women in Christ, creating them anew for the good works He has prepared them to do. Therefore, we are confident that the work we do is a part of God’s calling on our lives and a means by which we can glorify God as we meet others’ needs. WE BELIEVE that regeneration by the Holy Spirit is essential for salvation and that the work of God’s Spirit in the human heart invariably results in renewed purpose and the growth of Christ-like love for neighbors and neighborhoods. Therefore, we are certain that God is working to restore the broken lives and communities of this fallen world through the collective gifts, talents, skills and resources of those who have been transformed by the power of the gospel. WE BELIEVE that salvation comes through Jesus Christ alone and involves redemption of the whole person. Therefore, we are convinced that the Christian life must involve compassion and care, not only for the spiritual needs of mankind, but also for basic physical needs that stem from poverty, oppression and injustice. WE BELIEVE in the spiritual unity of all believers in Christ and that evangelism and societal engagement are duties of the Christian life. Therefore, we are devoted to demonstrating the love of Jesus together as we share the gospel message and shape society according to the principles of His Kingdom. WE BELIEVE that the gospel message denounces evil and injustice while offering hope for reconciliation to Christ and the restoration of human culture and society through Him. Therefore, we recognize and embrace the potential of human work for furthering the greater good and strive to further the good of the culture and the society through education and the embodiment of biblical principles related to goodness and justice. “Let the favor of the Lord our God be upon us, and establish the work of our hands upon us; yes, establish the work of our hands!†(Psalm 90:17).

Paper For Above instruction

The controversy surrounding violent video games and their potential effects on behavior has been a persistent subject of debate among scholars, policymakers, parents, and the general public. Two notable articles contributing to this discussion examine the relationship between violent video games and violent behavior, each presenting distinct claims, evidence, and theoretical frameworks. Analyzing these articles provides insight into the ongoing controversy and highlights the complexity of establishing causal connections between violent media and aggressive conduct.

The first article, by Cunningham, Engelstätter, and Ward (2016), explores the economic and societal implications of violent video games, arguing that there is insufficient evidence to confirm a causal link between violent gaming and violent crime. The authors scrutinize numerous studies and data sets, ultimately concluding that the correlation between violent video game exposure and violent behavior is weak, inconsistent, or confounded by other variables. They emphasize that society’s concerns are often fueled by moral panic rather than empirical evidence. Their claim is grounded in a perspective that advocates for rigorous scientific validation before drawing definitive conclusions about violent media and behavioral outcomes. Evidence presented includes statistical analyses that show minimal or no significant increases in violent crime rates concurrent with the rise of violent video game popularity, suggesting that other factors play more substantial roles in violent behavior than media exposure.

The second article, by Hoff, Howell, Wampler, Krishnan-Sarin, and Potenza (2020), argues that problematic and excessive engagement with violent video games is associated with increased aggressive and violent behaviors, especially in adolescents. Their central claim is that there is a dose-response relationship; the more one plays violent video games, particularly in problematic patterns, the higher the likelihood of engaging in weapon-related and physical violence. The authors cite evidence from large-scale surveys and clinical assessments indicating a correlation between problematic gaming behaviors and violent tendencies. They also incorporate psychological theories, such as social learning theory and desensitization, to explain how repeated exposure to violent content can influence attitudes and behaviors. This perspective suggests a more direct and causal relationship, emphasizing that overexposure can dull empathy and normalize aggression, thereby increasing the risk of violent actions.

Historical perspectives and theories add depth to this controversy. For instance, social learning theory, originally proposed by Bandura, provides a framework for understanding how behavioral modeling can occur through media exposure. According to this theory, individuals learn by observing and imitating behaviors, especially when such behaviors appear reinforced or rewarded in media content. Hoff et al. (2020) utilize this theory to justify their focus on problematic gaming patterns as a risk factor for violence, suggesting that violent games serve as models for aggressive behavior that can be internalized over time. Contrarily, critics citing Cunningham et al. (2016) argue that empirical data do not support an increase in violence corresponding with violent game sales, challenging the notion that media acts as a significant catalyst for aggressive actions.

Examining the evidence from both articles reveals contrasting strengths. Cunningham et al. (2016) argue that existing data do not establish a causal link, emphasizing the need for rigorous scientific validation and pointing out the inconsistencies and confounding variables in existing research. Conversely, Hoff et al. (2020) assert that specific, controlled studies and psychological theories support a connection, especially among vulnerable populations like adolescents, where problematic gaming behaviors correlate with violence. The strength of Hoff et al.'s argument lies in their focus on individual vulnerabilities and behavior patterns, supported by contemporary psychological models, while Cunningham et al. emphasize broader epidemiological data, which tend to show no definitive causal relationship at the population level.

Current perspectives tend to favor a nuanced understanding. For instance, recent research suggests that violent video games may not directly cause violent behavior universally but can influence susceptible individuals, especially when combined with other risk factors such as social environment and mental health issues. The theories supporting this include desensitization, which proposes that repeated exposure dampens emotional responsiveness to violence, and social learning, which indicates that modeled behaviors can influence attitudes and actions in vulnerable individuals. Therefore, while the broad claim that violent games lead to violence is contested, there is growing acknowledgment that problematic engagement with violent content may exacerbate aggressive tendencies in certain populations.

Logical fallacies are present in both articles’ arguments. Cunningham et al. (2016) highlight fallacies such as the correlation-causation fallacy—assuming that because two things occur together, one causes the other, which they argue is unsupported by data. On the other hand, Hoff et al. (2020) risk committing either a slippery slope fallacy or overgeneralization by implying that violent gaming inevitably leads to violent behavior without accounting for moderating factors or individual differences. Recognizing these fallacies is crucial in evaluating the strength and validity of their claims.

The controversy is globally significant because violence and exposure to violent media are issues affecting multiple facets of society. In regions plagued by high violence rates, concerns about media influence shape policy and parental guidance. Furthermore, the debate influences how the gaming industry operates and develops content ratings, and impacts legal and educational strategies to mitigate potential harm. The discourse also raises questions about individual responsibility versus media influence, underscoring the importance of understanding the societal and psychological factors at play. It highlights how cultural perceptions of violence and media consumption intersect, affecting public policy and community health strategies.

Understanding this controversy through scholarly research emphasizes the importance of critical media literacy and balanced policymaking. The debate requires careful interpretation of evidence, recognition of biases, and acknowledgment of the complex interplay between media, individual psychology, and societal factors. As such, the discussion about violent video games remains pertinent, demanding ongoing research, especially with the rise of immersive and interactive gaming experiences, which may have different effects than traditional violent media. Ultimately, informed discourse grounded in scientific evidence can guide better decisions that protect communities while respecting individual freedoms.

References

• Cunningham, S., Engelstätter, B., & Ward, M. R. (2016). Violent video games and violent crime. Southern Economic Journal, 82(4).
• Hoff, R. A., Howell, J. C., Wampler, J., Krishnan-Sarin, S., & Potenza, M. N. (2020). Differences in associations between problematic video-gaming, video-gaming duration, and weapon-related and physically violent behaviors in adolescents. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 121, 47-55.
• Markey, P. M., & Ferguson, C. J. (2017). Moral combat: Why the war on violent video games is wrong. BenBella Books, Inc.
• Anderson, C. A., & Dill, K. E. (2000). Video games and aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behavior in the laboratory and in life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4), 772–790.
• Gentile, D. A., et al. (2017). The Impact of Violent Video Games on Aggression: A Meta-Analytic Review. Review of General Psychology, 21(2), 138–154.
• Ferguson, C. J. (2015). Do Angry Birds make for angry children? A meta-analysis of video game influences on children's aggression, mental health, and academic performance. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(5), 646–666.
• Bushman, B. J., & Huesmann, L. R. (2006). Short-term and long-term effects of violent media on aggression in children and adults. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 160(4), 348–352.
• Markey, P. M. (2018). Social learning theory and violent video games: A review and synthesis. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 10(2), 77–88.
• Granic, I., et al. (2014). The benefits of playing video games. American Psychologist, 69(1), 66–78.
• Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2001). Effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal, and prosocial behavior: A meta-analytic review of the scientific literature. Psychological Science, 12(5), 353–359.