developers should be allowed to put as much violence as they please into their games

It's clear that this debate is not unbalanced, or at least not as unbalanced as the debates I have come to earlier (the ones I mentioned in my first argument). I could never be so happy to lose; don't misinterpret that, though, there is still one more round left and I intend to use it. I apologize with my point on the ESRB system; I was going somewhere, but lost my train of thought. (Awkward. I'm still not the best at debating.) I was trying to cover the adults and children independently; the kids are the real fear here, which is why most people talk about them when violence comes up. At an early state in development, the kids are more impressionable from the rest of the world. They are more likely to carry experiences from their childhood into the rest of their lives than they are to carry experiences from adulthood. The idea is that if an adult comes across a situation that requires his or her personal decision making skills, they will be more apt to handle it. If not, the adult was doomed from the start. The journey of life is already filled with potholes. That is an unavoidable fact. Even without games, there will be potholes, and some of them would be . People are capable of falling into one pothole and learning, then trying to prepare for new ones. No one can fall into just one pothole, learn a little, and never fall into one again. At a young age, it is a parent's job to limit (but not eliminate), these potholes. At an adult age, it becomes the adult's problem. If the adult doesn't know how to handle them, he or she will learn behind the wheel. Should we try to make these potholes more visible? Definitely, otherwise even if the adult learned something (supposedly from a different pothole), he or she wouldn't be able to fix the problem. But that's not really what we're asking. The prompt is, "developers should be allowed to put as much violence as they please into their games". In other words, should we take out the pothole entirely? The answer is that no matter what we do for this pothole, there will still be thousands more. We should make sure we are prepared to deal with them. In terms of "Spec Ops: The Line", I do understand that the game, not even just the final monologue, is made as a jab at how games portray war. I must say that you did a good job countering this one, and I doubt that I could use this specific game as an argument. But this isn't the only game that can use violence seriously. Take "This War Of Mine", for example. This game is not a jab at the FPS or the gamers that play them. It, instead, uses violence to show the horrors of war, in a way that other mediums can't. Thus, it is still possible for a game to use violence correctly. And beyond that, if violence was taken out of games, it wouldn't fix the problem of poorly crafted games. Most of these games are bad because the AAA developers that make these games are spending so much money making sure that the games look nice because some gamers can't understand if we'd go back a few steps to make a game that doesn't have beard stubble that grows in real time, or other things along that line. And even those few that allow themselves to take that step back spend extra time and money making sure that the gameplay works, or writing good story. But the problem is that if such a game winds up existing, they can no longer afford to innovate, because innovation in such expensive games is a risk. If the innovation was a bad idea (i.e. the WiiU), then they wasted millions of dollars and only got hundreds back. I'm not saying gaming can't continue to grow and evolve And, as a closing note, while I know the debate is not yet over, I still would just like to say GG now, at the risk of not being able to say it later. You put up a good argument, regardless of who wins.