Grand Theft Auto 5 is too inappropriate for people 20 and younger

Unfortunately, Pro has failed to address my criticisms against his case, and thus fails to uphold his BOP. I, hence, extend my criticisms and arguments. Let us now look at Pro's other case. Pro's Case:"I would like to introduce a recent event that took place to support my claims. Recently, a young adult killed his father and younger brother. While in police custody, the police were able to find that his actions were inspired by a video game, which took the young adult's simple feelings about his parent and sibling to an entirely extreme level. He felt the need to kill his family over a small argument. "While this case is obviously a tragedy, it fails to prove Pro's assertion. It is an anecdotal fallacy [1], as it takes an isolated event and tries to prove a larger assertion or case with it. Pro has not shown how this is true for people like 18-year-olds, or a majority of people of age groups under 20 (again, he needs to argue that this is inappropriate for a large portion of each age group, or else he is just showing it is inappropriate for some). Again, this isolated event does not tell the story for every person 20 and under, nor does it explain how GTA V is different from other privileges society entrusts 18-year-olds with (joining the army, owing property, going to college). Furthermore, I take issue with Pro's assertion that the police can determine that it came from a video game. How can that infallibly be known? What if the malefactor told this just to get out or distract from his actual reason? At any rate, this is irrelevant, as Pro did not present a source to back up this argument, so we have no proof of it even happening. Pro could simply be making up this story out of thin air. With this, I ask that this whole point and story be dismissed per Hitchen's razor [7 of R2]. "The police were also able to find out that his favorite character in the game was Trevor, a crazy man who would kill someone in an instant with no rational reason; not even for a criminal"While the character of Trevor is indeed troubling, this point doesn't, one, address my point about responsibilities in R2, two, mean much of anything in the scope of this debate, or, three, prove that this game is inappropriate for this group. "For this reason, I would like to add, that teenagers, of any age, are likely to learn from this game. These people are at such a young age, where their brains are still developing. "While I don't dispute the fact that people 20 and under's brains are still developing [2], it doesn't mean much. People's brains develop throughout their lives. The brain of an 18-year-old is different from someone who is 21; the brain of a 38-year-old is different from someone who is 41. Pro still fails to show why we can't trust people 20 and younger, like people older than 17, with GTA V. There are bad apples all over the place, but a couple don't ruin the entire bundle. We trust 18-year-olds to fight in wars, shoot enemies, watch their friends be shot right before them and sustain actual injuries, both physically and mentally, but Pro still argues that GTA V is too inappropriate. How is war, one of the most horrific experiences a person can face, any less inappropriate than GTA V? Pro never address this and hence fails to uphold his BOP. I ask that all of Pro's arguments in the comments be dismissed, as they have no bearings on what happened within the confines of this debate. Conclusion:Pro was plagued by his resolution. Pro could not explain why GTA V is too inappropriate for a large amount of people 20 and under. He fails to address my criticisms of his case nor uphold his BOP, which he solely carried. Because of this, Pro fails to make convincing arguments and fails the debate. Pro couldn't show why GTA V is more inappropriate or not suitable for those 20 and under when they have other responsibilities and privileges that they are granted by society (such as those mentioned in R2). The resolution stands negated. Vote Con.1. . https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...2. . http://www.livescience.com...