The surviving members of "Laughing Coffin" should've been put on trial upon awakening from SAO

My opponent chooses the final round to respond to the drops arguments. Regardless of whether or not it's "specified in the R1 rules", extend out the reasons I provide multiple times throughout my last round as for why he shouldn't be allowed to do that. This means that you're cleanly extending across the following points: - That killing people in a video game =/= killing them in real life. We don't arrest people for going on a killing spree in Call of Duty. - That the Japanese legal system specifically actually won't be able to try the players since the evidence to try them isn't there. His only response to this was that the Japanese legal system and the US legal system are probably similar, but doesn't respond to the specific instance that I brought up where they aren't that's relevant to the debate, nor does he respond to the tirade of evidence I provide for why eye-witness testimonies aren't actually reliable. - That the internal logic in his deterrence argument gives credence to the probability that it's not the LC members who are responsible for the deaths of the players, but rather the creator of the game, otherwise why would we need to deter people from making these kinds of games in the first place? He keeps trying to kick it by saying that deterrence isn't vital, but I could give less of a sh*t about the actual argument, my argument pertains to the interal logic he uses to justify his deterrence argument, not about the detterence argument itself. Don't let him just kick my argument. - That rehabilitation is a viable alternative to a trial setting. Instead of just sticking them in a trial we should forgo the trial for clinical rehabilitation for a traumatizing experience. They were all subjected to a delusional maniac's whims for two years where they saw their friends and loved ones die around them, so they last thing they need is to come out of it and get handcuffs slapped on them. His only response to this was that trials are necessary for sending people to rehab, but this doesn't make sense since people sign up for rehab on their own all the time. All of these in and of themselves are reasons to negate the resolution we have in front of us today. He never responds to these points, or his responses are just insufficient to actually address the point I'm making. This is literally the farthest down you have to read, but if you want to see me respond to his final round points anyway, just keep reading. Responsibility:His distinctions he's trying to draw between SAO and normal video games are entirely arbitrary. People call Dark Souls a death game because everyone dies in it a ton, but we don't arrest people who play that. The only possible distinction that could be drawn from the two is that it's the NerveGear killing people who died in game, which places responsibility on the NerveGear and, thus, Kayaba, not LC members. This is something he makes no attempt to refute until further down, which I'll get to in a second. His attempt to place blame onto multiple parties is pointless and silly. It's like saying if I drive drunk and slam into a schoolbus full of children, then we blame the schoolbus manufacturors for not making a sturdy enough bus, along with me. It's just nonsensical. The blame for the deaths is on the NerveGear for killing the people, and the game was solely and specifically designed to interact with it in such a way as death became a possibility, placing sole and entire blame on Akihiko Kayaba. And on his misuse argument, this doesn't actually make sense. The only distinction between SAO and not only other video games, but other games in the show (ALO, GGO), is that if you die the NerveGear kills you. Otherwise PKing is totally acceptable, so we can't look to PKing being the causal factor. Without the NerveGear being made the way it was and without the game being designed to interact with it in the way that it did, no one would've died playing SAO. This makes Kayaba solely responsible. Not to mention that literally everything I just responded to is an entirely new argument, so you aren't weighing it to begin with. Danger to Society:His claim that I didn't respond to the self-defense distinction is just blatanlty wrong. Extend the analysis I give that his own argument gives credence to the fact that killing took place, not the circumstances of the killing, which makes his self-defense distinction non-sensical. Read his own argument where it says "He killed people within SAO and thus he became twisted to the point where he was willing to kill people in real life. " which doesn't take circumstances into account. Pro's logic is that if you killed someone in the game, you're a risk to society, which includes literally every protagonist. Then extend out how jailing the heroes of SAO would only cause more harm than good, which isn't something my opponent responded to at all. If trying to try LC members means you have to try good guys and imprison them, the wrongful punishment would outweigh the good you're trying to do, which means we shouldn't try the LC members. As such, this round is really simple:- He's dropped way too many of my points for him to have any kind of offense going for him in the round. - His only attempt to salvage the debate comes in the last round and he didn't respond to my arguments as to why he shouldn't be able to do this.