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

My opponent's responses are just insufficient to warrant back for the arguments I'm presenting against him. Let's go down the flow:Argument One: ResponsibilityFirst, extend out the second response I make that killing in the real world isn't equivalent to killing in real life. We don't arrest people for PKing other people in World of Warcraft or for going on a killing spree in Call of Duty. Just because someone died in a technical mishap while playing a game doesn't mean that the two acts are equivalent. He's 100% dropped this argument, so hold it against him. Don't let him respond to it in the last round since it'd be a) a new response which is unfair for me to have to deal with and b) he had the chance to respond to it in his last round and chose not to, so hold the drop against him.Second, my opponent is confusing what actually killed the players in SAO. None of the players autopsy reports showed being stabbed by a sword or falling off a cliff or dying to packs of monsters as their cause of death. They all died from damage to the brain associated with an electromagentic pulse from the Amusphere on their heads. This places the responsibility of the deaths on one of two parties: Angus, the company that designed the Amusphere, or Akihiko Kayaba, the man who designed the game to interact with the Amusphere's in such a manner. And given that the company never intended for the devices to be used lethally, they can't really be held criminally responsible. That leaves the responsibility, and thus the only thing the courts are going to look at, on the hands of Akihiko Kayaba, not the LC members. /debateThird, extend out my argument about how trying them is actually impossible to do in Japan. He tries to respond back to this by saying we can assume that the US and Japan share similar legal systems, but I've already showed a specific difference that cripples the ability to even try LC members. Extend out the wikipedia argument I show that says that even if the LC members were to confess, in Japan prosecuters still have to submit evidence showing guilt before the suspect can even be tried. This is absolutely damning to my opponent because the only possible evidence he could provide would be a) heresay ("He says I'm LC, I say I'm not.") and b) entirely unreliable. Refer back to the argument that I make about how eye-witness testimony is highly unreliable, meaning that it won't hold up in a court of law. This argument is the first place you're negating the resolution. I'm showing you that not only are the LC members not responsible because killing in a video game =/= killing in real life, not only am I showing you that the actual person resposible for the deaths is the creator of SAO, not the players in the game, but that even if we were going to hold them responsible, it would be impossible to try them because the evidence required to try them simply wouldn't exist. He's doing an insufficient job of responding to the arguments I'm making here, so hold this against him. Don't let him respond to any of the things he's dropped here because it's unfair to me and he had the opportunity to do so and didn't.Argument Two: Danger to SocietyExtend out the turn I make here about how if killing was what made the LC members a danger to society, then we'd also be forced to try and arrest literally every single major protagonist in the show because, at one point or another, literally all of them have killed someone. Prefer my interpretation since I'm quoting the literal text of what he said ("It is clear that Kouichi's choices within SAO determined what kind of person he would be in the real world. He killed people within SAO and thus he became twisted to the point where he was willing to kill people in real life.") to show that it's the killing that's making people twisted. This would mean that every single protagonist would also be a danger to society. By his logic the LC members can simply testify against them, since he values witness testimony so highly, so they would be convincted. This puts my opponent in a double bind: either witness testimony is important and we imprison every single protagonist in SAO, which causes the resolution to create more harm than it solves by imprisoning innocents, or that witness testimony isn't as important, and then it's impossible to take the LC members to trial, which negates the resolution. Eithe way, he loses off of this argument. Argument Three: DeterrenceDon't let him just kick this argument. Extend the third point I made about deterrence about how the internal logic of this argument implies that the members of the LC actually aren't guilty, but rather the creator of the game is guilty. There's no reason to deter people from making another death game unless we're holding the people who create the death game responsible. He doesn't respond to this and it's an internal link turn to his first argument, which is the crux of his entire case. This dropped turn is reason enough to drop him and vote con. Don't let him try to fix this game-over mistake in the last round. Counter-Argument Two: RehabilitationExtend this out as an alternative to a trial. Instead of trying them in a criminal court, we bypass the entire court procedure and have all members of SAO who are orange or red (meaning that they've commited a crime and/or killed a player in the game) enter rehabilitation to reform them into a productive member of society. They've all been through a multi-year traumatic experience that none of them signed up for, and as such we shouldn't be punshing them for something they never fully signed up for in the first place. We should be trying to help them and reshape them so that they can return to normal life as quickly as possible. This solves for the potential harms of LC members "snapping" and becoming psychotic killers. His only response is that we need to have a trial in order to send them to rehab, but this doesn't make sense. People sign up for rehab on their own all the time outside of a trial, so clearly a trial isn't necessary. Skip the trial and go straight to the rehab, which will work in making them better. ConclusionMy opponent's cockiness is misplaced: the arguments I'm making are clearly showing why we shouldn't have a trial, how having a trial wouldn't even work, and that there are better things we can be doing for the former players of SAO than to try them. He's making far too many drops throughout the debate to have any hope of sufficiently responding back to the warrants I'm showing. Hold these drops against him because they're critical to his failure on the debate. Dont let him make any new responses to the arguments and refutations I've made or come back to any of the dropped arguments he dropped because a) he had the chance in his last round to respond to them and didn't do so, which means it's entirely his fault that he dropped them, and b) it's unfair for me to have to hold to not making new arguments in the last round while he's free to make all new kinds of responses and arguments in the final round and if I don't respond to them I lose. These drops are the reason he's going to lose.