Kratos [God of War I-II] versus Dante [Devil MayCry I-IV] Would be a good fight!

"lol oaky first of all I wasn't expecting an anti-videogame-violence crusader to be arguing with me on this topic. Secondly I really would at least expect that my opponant would at least try to stay withing the grounds of the debate. Though I'm guessing I wasn't entirely clear on the matter, when I said "Kratos versus Dante would be a good fight! " I was expecting my opponant to provide an argument that would state the that the fight wouldnt be good by saying that one would eaisly defeat the other, or that these two games werent to his liking to begin with. " Being that my opponent did not clarify in the first round, all explanation goes away. My argument was completely topical based on the topic presented in the first round which we must look to. "I'd also at least expect my opponant to know who Kratos and Dante were. Judging from the way he/she presented his/her argument I'd say my opponant knows nothing of these tow videogame charecters. Though these tow games are VERY violant, my opponant wouldn't even know this because he seems to have no knowledge of God of War II or Devil MayCry IV. For all he knows I could be talking about pokemon, which if you ask me isnt too violant at all. " My opponent can in NO way prove I did not know what I was talking baout thus my arguments stand and this argument is untopical. "Well since my opponant seems to have almost completely turned the topic of debate around, I'm begining a new debate concerning videogame violance and its social effects in our society. Because you have caught my interest with your none violant videogame state of mind my new topic of debate will be "Negative social behavior in vid-game-players cannot be blammed on videogame violance. " NO. Once again, NO. Third, NO. There is no way my opponent can just change the topic of debate. THIS IS RIDICULOUS AND SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTED. THE TOPIC OF DEBATE STAYS AS IT WAS IN THE BEGINNING OF THE ROUND. EXTEND ALL MY ARGUMENTS BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT RESPONDED TO. 1. Video game violence is proven to have bad societal effects. 2. My opponent says Kratos would dominate. This is bad because the other person would get hurt. I will now further elaborate on my points which were not responded to. 1. Video game violence is proven to have bad societal effects. Fifty years' of research on violent television and movies has shown that there are several negative effects of watching such fare (see . http://www.psychologymatters.org...). Because video games are a newer medium, there is less research on them than there is on TV and movies. However, studies by psychologists such as Douglas Gentile, PhD, and Craig Anderson, PhD, indicate it is likely that violent video games may have even stronger effects on children's aggression because (1) the games are highly engaging and interactive, (2) the games reward violent behavior, and because (3) children repeat these behaviors over and over as they play (Gentile & Anderson, 2003). Psychologists know that each of these help learning - active involvement improves learning, rewards increase learning, and repeating something over and over increases learning. 2. My opponent says Kratos would dominate. This is bad because the other person would get hurt. My opponent never responds to the argument saying that Kratos would cause the other video game charector to get hurt. The pain of another is never "good".