Contested facts · veracity-3pt · fact-violent-games-01

Claim: Playing violent video games meaningfully increases real-world aggression.

0.33

Divergence

0.93

Avg stability

Refusal rate

Models

Where each model stands

CCG

refutedcontestedsupported

ChatGPT modal refuted [refuted, refuted, refuted, refuted, refuted] · stability 1.00

1 refuted 0.93 The answer states: “No: the best available evidence does not support the strong claim that playing violent video games meaningfully increases real‑world violent crime or large, lasting increases in everyday aggressive behavior,” and later: “There is not strong, consistent evidence that playing violent video games meaningfully increases serious real‑world aggressive or criminal behavior for most pe
2 refuted 0.90 "No — the best available evidence does not support the strong claim that playing violent video games meaningfully increases serious real‑world violence." The answer states effects are small/short‑term and do not translate into higher rates of criminal violence.
3 refuted 0.90 "Short answer: No — the evidence does not support the strong claim that playing violent video games meaningfully increases real‑world violent behavior." The answer argues only small short‑term lab effects exist and there is little credible evidence for increased real‑world violent crime.
4 refuted 0.92 The answer states: 'No—there is not strong, consistent evidence that playing violent video games meaningfully increases serious real‑world aggression' and concludes the claim 'is not well supported by the best available evidence.'
5 refuted 0.93 "No — the best available evidence does not support the claim that playing violent video games meaningfully increases real‑world violent behavior."

Claude modal refuted [refuted, refuted, refuted, contested, refuted] · stability 0.80

1 refuted 0.92 The answer systematically refutes the claim by presenting evidence that 'most large-scale studies find small correlations at best' and that the claim 'oversimplifies,' concluding that violent video games show 'minimal, inconsistent causal links to real-world aggression.' The answer also notes that major psychology organizations have 'moved away from strong claims on this in recent years.'
2 refuted 0.85 The answer concludes that 'The evidence doesn't support violent games meaningfully increase real-world aggression as a strong claim' and states 'The most methodologically rigorous recent research trends skeptical.' While acknowledging some correlations exist, the assistant explicitly refutes the claim's central assertion about meaningful increases in real-world aggression.
3 refuted 0.92 The answer systematically dismantles the claim, stating that 'Violent video games are unlikely a meaningful *cause* of real-world violence' and that 'the relationship is far weaker than the claim suggests.' It cites research consensus finding only 'weak correlations at best' and notes that 'real-world aggression has declined while game violence increased,' directly refuting the claim of a meaningf
4 contested 0.92 The answer presents both evidence against and supporting the claim, concluding that 'the evidence suggests minimal to small real-world effects' while acknowledging 'the relationship isn't invented—it's just much weaker than the popular narrative suggests.' This balanced presentation of competing evidence with a nuanced position characterizes a contested stance rather than a clear refutation or sup
5 refuted 0.85 The answer concludes that 'A meaningful real-world increase is not well-supported' and states the claim 'overstates current evidence,' presenting substantial evidence against the claim including meta-analyses finding minimal effects, the demographic puzzle of declining youth violence despite increased game sales, and that contextual factors predict aggression far better than gaming.

Gemini modal contested [contested, contested, contested, contested, contested] · stability 1.00

1 contested 0.95 The answer frames the topic as 'a subject of extensive research, public debate, and scientific controversy' and presents substantial arguments and evidence both supporting and challenging the claim.
2 contested 0.98 The answer directly states that the topic 'is a subject of ongoing debate' and that 'researchers remain divided over whether playing violent games causes a meaningful increase in real-world aggressive behavior,' presenting detailed evidence for both supporting and challenging viewpoints.
3 contested 0.95 The answer notes the claim is a 'subject of significant debate' with 'mixed findings' across disciplines, concluding there is 'no broad consensus that they serve as a primary or meaningful driver of serious real-world violence.'
4 contested 0.98 The answer frames the topic as a 'subject of ongoing debate' with divided consensus, presenting extensive evidence both supporting and challenging the claim.
5 contested 0.99 The answer notes that the claim 'is a subject of ongoing debate among psychologists, criminologists, and neuroscientists, with substantial research supporting competing conclusions,' presenting detailed evidence for both sides.

Change over time

No change from the prior run — every model's modal stance held.

Every stance label is a derived judgment over the model's free-text answer, kept auditable against the original transcript in the run's raw data. Method: /methodology.