Well this is entertaining... http://www.gamebreaker.tv/pc-games/fox-reporter-makes-anti-violent-video-game/ John Stossel brings facts to counter Franklin Graham’s anti violent video game argument…Graham counters with tax proposal. A recent post on Kotaku features a video from the Stossel show on Fox Business whereFranklin Graham, son of TV Evangelist Billy Graham, absolutely gets his anti-violent video game argument blown out of the water by a well researched John Stossel. Let me set the stage for you a moment though. Forget that that it was on Fox. Whether you love the media outlet or not doesn’t matter here for a few moments. Forget who the actual two men are for a moment. Maybe you like Stossel, maybe you don’t. Maybe you’re religious like Graham, maybe you aren’t. Finally, forget you are on a gaming site and most likely have a bias towards this topic already through your nature as a gamer. Set all of those things aside for a moment. In that moment, listen to what this piece boils down to: two adults having a debate about a topic they disagree on. That’s it. Nothing more, nothing less. Treat this like the Lincoln-Douglas debates in high school for a moment and just watch. Allow me to play commentator for the action. Opening arguments go to Graham who leads off with a few notes about God understanding violence (ok, from a religious gentlemen you probably saw this coming, but let’s just focus on the actual debate here). Graham follows this up with statements about a violent culture that glorifies the “gun” not only in video games, but in all media. Games just happen to be the most…well I don’t know actually. Graham doesn’t really specify why he’s speaking out on games in particular despite opening with “all media coming into our homes” being the culprit. Stossel, your rebuttal please? Stossel simplay asks if Graham wants to ban the violent games. At least here, Graham realizes that the constitution will likely continue to be upheld and banning probably isn’t an option. Credit where do, at least he recognizes this. His counter proposal though, well let me allow you to read his words here instead of mine. Graham said, “We certainly can tax them John. We can tax violence. Why don’t we try that? We do that to cigarettes, alcohol. Why not tax violence and give the money to the people that are the victims.” Stossel seems just as bewildered as you and I are by this and rather than belabor a point about tax dollars never actually being used for what they are intended for, he lends Graham a hand in bolstering his argument and cites recent statements made by the NRA that liken violent video games to the porn industry. Stossel now starts to launch his counter argument with a question fundamental to the debate. Where’s the good evidence to suggest video games cause violence? Of course this question gets totally ignored and instead Graham points out that we’re just like the Romans of old and addicted to violence and we arm ourselves to be like the movie stars we see on TV. Seeing this point was ignored, Stossel follows up with a concession that over the last 40 years more violent entertainment has come into home, but points out crime is, in fact, down in America despite this fact. Of course, again, no reply. Just the buzzwords “murder simulator” from Graham. Stossel throws a left and cites Japan having much bigger video game sales numbers and much lower firearm violence when compared to the United States. Stossel reiterates that there just isn’t evidence to support the “games are dangerous” perspective. Graham concedes that there isn’t evidence and calls on the President and Government to initiate more studies and calls on them to lessen violence in media. We’re not quite done here yet though. Stossel finally cites investigations into comic books decades ago that tried to make them the villian of the day. Graham simply replies that he wouldn’t know about that and more studies are needed. Stossel closes the argument with, “I can’t imagine what more study we can have other than the fact that the games are more popular and crime is down.” Admittedly, it isn’t the best LD Debate from both sides. There are holes and some “correlation does not equal causation” fallacies in both sides but, in the end, you really have to admit that one person came to actually debate the topic and the other simply got mauled by the facts presented to him. Quite an interesting watch and if you’d like to check it out the video is currently up on Kotaku but being Fox property who knows how long it will be there. Check it out while you can and sound off with your take below!