Justifying Choice of Polemic Arguments: For and Against R18+ Game Classifications

Although the National Classification Code states that "adults should be able to read, hear and see what they want" (2005), the R18+ classification didn't exist for video games prior to 1 January 2013 (ABC News, 2011). Before this gaming classification was introduced, the issue pitted those who believed the new rating system would assist parents in protecting their children against those who alleged the R18+ rating would encourage more sex and violence to be incorporated into video games. In an article published on ABC's 'Technology + Games' opinion page entitled 'Australian Family Lobby: Families let down by R18 classification delay', Jeremy Sear argued for an R18+ rating to be included in gaming classifications believing the choice would "give parents the tools they need to protect their children" (2011). Conversely, in the article 'R18+ computer game guidelines fly in the face of community concern' (2011), published by 'On Line Opinion', Lyle Shelton, claimed that R18+ interactive media will "do more harm than good" for the children of Australia. Despite contrary opinions, the effectiveness of the two articles can be established by examining the use of ethos, pathos and logos from classic rhetoric.

Ethos is the presenters ability to create a persona that persuades and allures the audience to believe that they are credible, qualified and skilled enough to speak on the particular subject (Reynolds, N. 1993, pg. 325-338). Jeremy Sear builds his ethos by appearing diplomatic and fair, considering both sides of the argument. He perceptively takes into account the effects an R18+ classification would have on adults and children alike. This gives the impression that he is knowledgeable about the issue whilst also having a vested interest in the subject. Although Sear expresses his concern for the well-being of children (as asserted in the title of his article), he declares that denying an R18+ classification for interactive media would be like "telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it" (Twain, M. as cited by Sear 2011). In opposition, by demonstrating that his main concern is protecting children at all costs, Lyle Shelton builds ethos by relating and appealing to the audience's ethics and character. His views on violent and sexual interactive media suggest that an introduction of a R18+ classification would expose children to "realistically simulated [sexual activity], and games with 'virtually' no restrictions on language and the treatment of themes such as racism and suicide" (Shelton 2011). This is where the two perspectives differ in their arguments styles. While Sear uses pathos to motivate his readers, Shelton uses logos to persuade his audience. Pathos is the emotional engagement used to improve and enforce persuasion (Cockcroft, R. & Cockcroft, S. 2005, pg. 54), whereas logos is the logical appeal normally used to describe facts and figures that support the presenters arguments (Garver, E. 1994, pg. 114). Sear applies pathos by invoking a protective instinct from the reader and creates an emotional incentive by stating "that children deserve to have their innocence protected from the things that are appropriate for adults" (Sear 2011). Because of this emotional dilemma, Sear applies logos to effectively determine a logical solution. After explaining how the previous classification system was failing with regards to child protection, he states "the only way to treat children differently from adults is, obviously, to have an adult rating" (Sear 2011). Because of this, Sear's argument emerges more convincing and persuasive demonstrating his ability to intertwine pathos and logos by logically resolving an emotional issue. In contrast, pathos is amplified through Shelton's strong stance for the protection of Australian children. This is made clear through his emotional appeal to parents by asking "what Australian parents would want an interactive, repetitious computer game on the market that contained simulated [sexual activity]?" (Shelton 2011). However, Shelton uses logos to explain that US research has proven that children "regularly play 'adult games'" (Shelton 2011), thereby believing that an introduction of an R18+ classification for computer games is not a child protection measure. He continues with "the logic of this, supported by a strong body of academic research, was that extreme violence and gratuitous sexual content in an interactive medium was harmful and would inevitably fall into the hands of children" (Shelton 2011).

In conclusion, Sear and Shelton both utilize classical (ethos, pathos and logos) rhetorics in their arguments to properly and effectively convey their point of views; however, Sear is more successful in his argument. Because Sear creates his ethos by appearing knowledgeable and as having a vested interest in the topic, he is able to reach a wider audience and appeal his views to the masses. He represents himself as diplomatic and far-minded, whereas Shelton comes off as narrow-minded, prejudice and less persuasive in his arguments. Furthermore, Sear's emotional appeal and use of pathos and logos is more effective because he is able to intertwine the two rhetorics to solve emotional issues logically. With this in mind, Sear's exploitation of pathos gives a productive answer towards the issue, whereas Shelton simply applies pathos to illustrate there is a concern present. Although Shelton's use of logos is more profound than Sear's with regards to findings and statistics from the US, he is discredited by Sear's comment "he doesn't present any evidence for this claim - not even the cherry-picked 'studies' from dodgy no-name American universities," (Sear 2011). For these reason, it is clear that Jeremy Sear provides a better argument regarding the debate on whether to introduce an R18+ classification to video games in Australia.

Reference List

• ABC News. (2011, July 22). Governments agree on R18+ games rating. Australian Broadcasting Company, Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-22/games-rating-agreement/2806200.

• Cockcroft, R & Cockcroft S 2005, persuading people: an introduction to rhetoric, 2nd edn, Macmillan Press, Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, UK.

• Garver E., Aristotle's Rhetoric: An art of character, University of Chicago Press, 1994,ISBN 0-226-28424-7, p. 114.

• Reynolds, N. (1993). "Ethos as Location: New Sites for Discursive Authority". Rhetoric Review 11 (2): 325–338.

• Sear, J. (2011, January 25). Australian Family Lobby: Families let down by R18 classification delay. ABC Technology and Games, Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/technology/articles/2011/01/25/3120998.htm.

• Shelton, L. (2011, May 27). R18+ computer game guidelines fly in the face of community concern . On Line Opinion, Retrieved from http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12099.The Classification Code, May 2005

• Toulmin, S. (2003). The Uses of Argument (2nd ed.). England: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1958).

#games #rating #law #australia