You cannot steal virtual goods, and it is not morally wrong to do so.

A review of Pro's second round will show he only referenced the lack of a moral agent. At this point, all points from my round 1 contention float. I addressed the issue of a moral agent in round 1 and will elaborate more fully and rebut Pro's argument. Moral Agent: Pro tells us the avatar and the player are the only two potential moral agents. I will stipulate here that the avatar is in no way a moral agent. The player, on the other hand, is a moral agent. Pro attempts to disengage the player from the avatar by asking rhetorically whether we would hold a player morally responsible for "killing" avatars in the game. This, however, is a false equivocation. I made clear in Rd 1 that allowing players to steal via a special ability like pick pocketing would be fine. The player is simply playing the avatar and using the tools the game provides. In this case, stealing is simply part of the character class so no moral implications could be found to be violated by playing the avatar thief. Stealing from an avatar by means of accessing account information illegally does have moral implications. The two ways a person can steal in game items from another is by accessing the account of the targeted player (which is also a violation of the ToS) or committing an in game scam, violating the ToS. . http://www.wow-europe.com... Accessing another person's account is a violation of the terms of service for WoW and using software to learn another's private information is a violation of the law. In game scams are a violation of the ToS even though they require a remarkable level of stupidly on the victim's part. I see no other way to steal from another person in the game. The moral agent is indeed the player and the avatar is the tool and is especially so when the thief sells the items for real money. The tool in no way alleviates the player from responsibility. I stated this in Rd1 and Pro alluded to this concept in Rd2. Voters, Pro must show how a player who uses illegal methods to access another's account, then uses that account to get items to sell for future monetary gains is not making moral decisions. "Killing" avatars in game is very different than stealing account information. The ninja cannot get items FROM another player without this information or without violating the ToS. I have a level 80 Hunter. I have 4 pieces of tier 9 armor on my avatar and I have over 20,000 wow gold. Tell me Pro, how can anyone take these items from me without accessing my account? In addition, Pro specifically mentioned selling the items for real money. Selling in game items for real money is a violation of the terms of service. . http://us.blizzard.com... See 8c. The player agrees to these terms of service before playing the game. Using the criteria pro offered, I showed the player commits an act starting with a bad maxim, "I will cheat". Killing players in game is not cheating as it is a portion of the game. I in no way indicated that game play acts such as killing, rolling on non usable items, or stealing by use of in game abilities can be said to be morally wrong. Pro, again, brings the point forward that the items are not real; therefore, they cannot be stolen. Pro dismisses value as a criterion to show the item can be stolen. I disagree and so does the Model Penal Code: Section 223.0 (6) "property" means anything of value … tangible and intangible personal property. " The in game items belong to Blizzard Entertainment and the items can be sold outside of the game so they have value; therefore, they can be stolen. They need not be tangible. Lastly, the thief is stealing my paid for time on the game by accessing my account which prevents me from playing. Pro never addressed this point and numerous others from Rd 1. Virtual goods can be stolen as I have shown, and stealing virtual goods requires a player to gain unauthorized access to another's account thereby violating the agreed upon Terms of Service for the game and the law or committing an in game scam violating the ToS. The person committing such acts is morally wrong as I have stated clearly in Rd 1 and the player is indeed a moral agent as she must make the decision to break the law in order to gain access to the virtual goods. The entire process must be examined in totality and such an examination will show the moral agent – the player, to be morally wrong. Pro cannot satisfy himself by looking at the transfer of virtual goods only and declare such items as imaginary. At this point in the debate, Pro has not met his burden, has not addressed many of Con's contentions, and has not upheld the resolution.