Video games are not a significant factor in mass shootings.

Ave! TD wrote his arguments in barely comprehensible English, so I'm going to have to take guesses at what he's trying to say.NY Times ArticleTD_Cole gives us no actual evidence when he quotes this article. He simply quotes the author, who thinks the shooters were acting out video games. We're presented no actual reason to think that this is the case. It's only a bare assertion.Why would we think that the shoters were acting out a video game? We're never told. This argument is complete bunk, because there's no evidence given.It's silly to suggest that since all the shooters played video games, they must have been a factor. All of the shooters also breathed air and drank water. Would we consider these to be factors in the shooting as well?Of course, the article talks about various psychologists views on the issue, but not a single person or study on that article takes TD's side.ColumbineIt should be obvious that the Columbine shooters weren't acting out on some type of video game fantasy. The evidence resoundingly supports the idea that the shooting happened because Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold wanted revenge on the students at their school, particulary the jocks. Consider what Eric Harris said after entering the library during the shooting:"Everyone with white hats, stand up! This is for all the s$$$ that you've given us for the past four years!" and: "All jocks stand up! We'll get the guys in white hats!" [Wearing a white hat was a jock tradition at the school]From this, we can deduce that they wanted to kill the jocks, and that the jocks had 'given them s$$$ for the past four years'. The two shooters must have been bullied by the jocks at the school for their entire high school life, and wanted to take revenge on them. They didn't kill the jocks because it was in their video game. They killed the jocks because they hated them. The latter explanation is far more plausible.Studies on Video GamesTD_Cole gives us a link to various studies done on video games. At most, it shows us that there's a lack of consensus on the effects of playing video games. Not a single one of those studies had anything to do with the idea that mass shootings are caused by violent video games. How could this possibly prove his case to be true? It's irrelevant to the resolution.APA ResearchNothing was 'triggered' in anybody's personality from playing video games. I'm at a loss as to how TD_Cole interpreted the press release as saying that. The research shows that the personaltiy of the player effects the consequences of video game playing. If video games had any consequence, it's because of the person's personality. That's shaped by various sociological and biological factors, so there's no way that video game use had anything to do with it.Sandy HookI didn't, at any point, suggest that video games were a factor in the Sandy Hook shooting. I showed that blaming video games for Sandy Hook would be premature, because his motives are still being investigated. I also cited research which demonstrates that Lanza would be less likely to perform a shooting if he played video games in a certain way. How does TD_Cole interpret this as me admitting that video games were a factor?If TD_Cole thinks that violent video games caused Sandy Hook, then he should provide evidence for it. All we've seen in this debate are good reasons to think that blaming video games would be premature.AxiomTD_Cole doesn't say anything significant about the axiom I presented. Rather than accept it or rebutt it, he just gives the definition of the word 'axiom', as if had anything to do with the argument. The axiom has not been answered to, so I extend it.Abscene of evidence is evidence of abscene when evidence can be expected. There is no evidence that violent video games influence mass shootings, so that becomes a positive case against that idea. Ergo, we have a positive case in favor of the resolution based off TU_Cole's inability to present evidence.Vale!