There were two arguments that surpassed the rest when Huesmann and Taylor were proving their point. The first argument was the Key Empirical studies where two separate experiments were done. The first experiment was done by taking two groups of children and showing one group a violent film then showing the other group a nonviolent film. After allowing them to watch the films they put them in a room to play together which showed that the kids that watched the violent films showed more aggression than the kids that watched the nonviolent film. The second experiment was done by showing a large group of young boys a violent film, then having them participate in a game of floor hockey in the classroom. They had observers that kept track of how many time the boys physically attacked one of the other boys to see if the violent film caused more aggression than the boys usually showed. They presented a well-formed argument because this experiment shows a good correlation between the behavior expressed during the game and the violence seen on television. The only flaw that I noticed in the experiment was that we don’t know what percentage of the children selected were already known for violent and disruptive behavior. The other argument that is laid out well is the study of violent video games. Anderson and Dill did an experiment with college students to show the link between aggressive behavior and playing violent video games. The experiment showed that the students that played the violent video games were more likely to act with aggression when given the opportunity to be aggressive. They have been able to positively correlate aggressive behavior in the past year with a recent outbreak in violent video gaming. The other experiment performed showed that violent video games played during adolescence and young teenage year resulted in an increased aggressive rate in college kids and early adults. This study was not a strong due to some of