Resolved: Video Games should not have sequels as a matter of principle

Framework Once again judges, extend the entire framework argument, both BOP and the framework itself through to the end of the debate. Pro accepted the full brunt of the BOP, and effectively dropped the framework itself, tacitly accepting it. Therefore that too must be extended. As a brief reminder, of the argument, Pro bears the full BOP, meaning that if he doesn’t effectively prove his case, he loses by default. Further, the framework I provided in R2 was: “Unless Pro can prove that the video game industry should not make sequels for video games across the board (and thereby following the rule governing its behavior, as the definition of ‘principle,’ stipulates), Pro has not fulfilled his BOP and upheld the resolution in its entirety, and therefore cannot win the debate.” This framework is extended, once again, for the reason provided above. Pro’s Case Contention 1 - Call of Doody Extend this argument, Pro concedes this contention. Contention 2 - Lack of imagination leads to stagnation. Judges, Pro’s response to my rebuttal ultimately fails to adequately defend his now only remaining contention. This is due to a couple of reasons. First, Pro drops the argument that he inadequately proves a causal relationship between sequels and stagnation. He still only relies on throwing a single article at the issue to defend his position, one that, as described below, leaves us with a nonunique and lesser impact than the ones posited by myself. As such, the contention should fail immediately. Further, he still fails to provide an explicit link between sequels and a lack of imagination. Without this link, we have no reason to continue any further with this contention. However, if the above issues taken are not convincing, Pro still hasn’t addressed the nonunique argument properly. Here, the defense that he provides is abusive to the debate, and should be discounted. First, Pro clearly is attempting to shift the goalposts, declaring that now his position is merely that new IP is beneficial. This is simply a blatant lie. The resolution agreed to is an active statement that video games SHOULD NOT have sequels. He is NOT defending the position that new IP is beneficial. Second, though, Pro raises the very first contradictory statement to the framework I provided in R2, it is too little too late, as, per the rules, he cannot raise new arguments in R4, making it abusive to address framework now, even if only indirectly. And, on top of that, Pro dropped the framework in the last round, automatically accepting and extending it through to the end of the debate. It’s far too late, and abusive, to contradict it now. Third, the fact remains that any sort of impact Pro has provided is clearly nonunique to sequels, and is further quite small. Being cyclical, this impact that Pro attempts to argue is ultimately useless, as the impact is not lasting in any capacity. Con’s Case Contention 1a - Video games are an art form, and should be treated as such. Extend, as Pro previously accepted. I will note that this acceptance also includes the acceptance of the implicit criteria that video games should be treated as art. Contention 1b - Art uses sequels effectively, and so do video games. First, once again, Pro tries to contradict the framework that he dropped earlier in the debate. However, see the above statements on why this should be ignored: namely, he cannot address it after he dropped it and it was noted he dropped it, and that it’s abusive to allow him to argue it now. Second, Pro tries to, once again, unfairly shift the BOP to me. He goes so far as to say that it’s my case/BOP to prove that video games should have sequels, when this couldn’t be farther from the truth. My role within this debate, as Pro has agreed, is simply to negate Pro’s case and the resolution. In theory, I do not even have to make any contentions myself. Indeed, these contentions are purposed to do just that: negate the resolution by showing a capacity for sequels to be good, thus negating the drastic action Pro posits per the resolution, the definitions, and the framework that has extended thus far. As such, this attack is defended and the contention stands strongly. Extend it. The impact of this contention, to bring it back into perspective, is the violation of the criteria that games should be treated as the art they are: here, the implementation of an arbitrary restriction. Contention 2a - Video game sequels allow for a wider audience to be attracted to an IP over time. Pro’s attack here largely fails in that the importance of 2a is, in part, its link to 2b, which he conceded to. Basically, not only do we have an impact here of sequels expanding fanbases, but with contention 2b we see that larger fanbases increase a sense of community as a second, also strong impact. As such, Pro misses the point of this subpoint, and this contention should be extended. Contention 2b - A large audience engenders a large sense of community. Extend this contention due to Pro’s concession, and see above for its impact calculus. Conclusion In short, judges, Pro’s case fails in that he does not fulfill his BOP (which he accepted), nor does he fulfill the framework of the debate (which he dropped). His contentions relied largely on subjective opinions and nonunique, unlinked, and insignificant impacts, and his attacks against my case either missed the point, were weak in general, or were abusive. This alone negates the resolution per the framework. However, further, my case as Con still stands as alluded to just above. My case demonstrated several impacts, all of which had a lasting impact on video games unlike Pro’s: by affirming the resolution, we impose an arbitrary restriction on an art form that should be treated like all the others, we lose the means at attracting more gamers and larger fanbases, and we lose the ability of engendering a stronger sense of community among these gamers/fans. As such, and in conclusion, the resolution is negated once more. Thank you.