Video games can actually be beneficial

My opponent drops the analysis I provide at the very top of my Round 2. Extend where I"m talking about how by his own definition his objective reality argument makes no sense. If we take the definition of actually that he provides and plug it into the resolution, the resolution changes from "Video games can actually be beneficial" to "Video games can truthfully/factually be beneficial". At the very worst, this means that I have to show some sort of empirical evidence (i.e. factually) as to the benefits of playing video games. Showing statistics is sufficient to meet his absurd standard because: First, fact means "something that actually exists; reality; truth".(1) Since empirics show us what actually is within the real world, it"s a display of something that actually exists. This is sufficient to meet his standard of factually beneficial. Second, true means "being in accordance with the actual state or conditions; conforming to reality or fact; not false".(2) Empirics are sufficient to meet this because they show you exactly what"s happening within the real world, i.e. reality. But even if you don"t buy my analysis here, he"s not actually showing you that an objective reality doesn"t exist. His only argument for objective reality not being true is that our values as human beings vary and are subjective. This argument doesn"t make sense, though, because: First, he denies the possibility of being wrong. He"s making the assumption that if as a five year old I value being a dinosaur and eating my little sister"s barbie dolls that being a dinosaur, then my true subjective purpose is to be a dinosaur and eat my little sister"s barbie dolls. Rather, our subjective values and beliefs are always capable of being wrong. Just because I subjectively believe that two plus two equals five, that doesn"t mean that two plus two suddenly equals five; it means I need to go and re-take first grade mathematics. Second, he"s making the assumption of absense of evidence means evidence of absense, which is an entirely fallacious logical step to make. Even if we aren"t aware of our objective purpose in life, that doesn"t mean that there isn"t an objective purpose in life. It comes down to him making the claim that it doesn"t exist to prove it, otherwise we ignore literally all of this pointless debate and go back to the actual resolution at hand. And, on the shifting the goalposts argument: First, this is entirely reliant on his objective reality argument, so since I"m winning that his logic here doesn"t make sense. Second, I"m not shifting any goalposts since I"m factually proving that video games can provide benefits through the use of empirical studies that factually show benefits coming from playing video games. This is me hitting the goalpost square on, not shifting it. And, at the end of the day, if you"re still in question about who"s best showing reality, you"re still presuming pro here because I"m making the best attempt at showing what"s objective within reality through using empirics, compared to my opponent"s own (as he claims) subjective ramblings, which means I"m the one who"s most likely consistent with the reality of things. This means that you can extend out the study I provided last round as to the benefits of playing video games, which is that it leads to increased hand-eye coordination, problem solving ability, learning, health, and social skills. This is literally the only weighable impact in the round, which means it"s the only piece of offense that you as a judge can vote off of, and it flows aff. To conclude, ignore the semantics, vote off of literally the only piece of resolutional evidence provided and vote pro. Sources: - http://tinyurl.com... - http://tinyurl.com...