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

As a short note to my opponent the whole “PF style” thing was just an offhand comment, lol. Nothing really about the debate itself, just following the rules. But I digress: I will first begin by addressing framework, then moving to Pro’s case, and then jumping back to my own. Framework Please note that Pro has accepted the framework presented by me. He has explicitly agreed to bear the entire BOP, but has also dropped my specific framework, that he needs to 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),” or else he has lost the debate. Because he has dropped this, extend this argument from last round, and flow it to me through the end of the debate. This is because Pro did not address it in R3, and, per the rules, attempting to bring in a new argument on framework in R4 would be abuse. Therefore, my framework stands, and Pro must prove that the entire industry should not have sequels entirely across the industry. Pro’s Case Contention 1 - Call of Doody Judges, this contention is largely irrelevant and must be flowed out of the debate for a number of reasons. First and foremost, although Pro does try and provide some impact with this contention, ultimately, any possible impact of video game sequels rests solely on the assumption that Pro’s own personal feelings about the game: namely, that it is not only a poor quality series, but is also bad for the name and reputation of video games. However, this impact also fails because Pro offers no relevant statistics or proof that the reputation of Call of Duty, let alone video games at large, is being diminished specifically because of the prevalence of Call of Duty sequels. Additionally, Pro has not provided any sort of link by which to judge this impact. He talks about how the reputation of video games are trashed by sequels, but doesn’t give a link between reputation and the “health” of the industry, if you will. Further, he here has failed to actually define WHAT a healthy industry looks like. Further, even if this could in theory be proved, Pro has failed to demonstrate that the impact of this contention is strong enough to fulfill his BOP and the framework. What I mean by this is that although, assuming the above issues ARE resolved, Pro has still ultimately failed to demonstrate why the shortcomings of a single game series’ sequels warrants an across-the-board cessation of sequel-creation. In short judges, upon reflection, you must find that Pro’s first contention is not strong enough to stand. Contention 2 - Lack of imagination leads to stagnation. Now, judges, when looking at this contention, once again you should see that Pro fails to meet his mandate according to the framework, and even the BOP. First, Pro makes the mistake of conflating correlation with causation. He presents two trends, and immediately declares a causal link. However, as it should be known logically, correlation does not automatically indicate causation. Unless Pro can prove a direct causal link, this contention should be considered too weak to stand and irrelevant immediately, and ignored. However, even if you accept a potential causal link, as Pro does attempt to demonstrate by throwing a source at the correlation to call it a causation, the contention still fails for a simple reason: the impact of this contention is overblown and nonunique to video game sequels. Indeed, applying the very same source Pro used, the article acknowledges the fact that, while there is an illusion of stagnation, the fact of the matter is that it is widely accepted within the industry, and by the article itself, that any stagnation we might see is cyclical, in that as a console generation reaches its end, developers tend to stick to established IPs. However, similarly, with each new generation, there is a boom in new IP [1]. What this ultimately means is that this contention, and the resolution itself, is nonunique, in that any issue with a prevalence will ultimately be solved with each new generation of video game console, meaning that there is no reason to affirm the resolution at all, let alone the fact that is, per the framework, fairly drastic. But lastly, this contention fails for another reason on top of all this: Pro does not link video game sequels with a lack of imagination in any explicit capacity, relying on what seems to be only an implicit link. This is insufficient, and, because this link is crucial to the integrity of the contention, the contention must be considered failed. However, offensively, cross-apply my impact from Contention 1a of my case. Indeed, affirming the resolution if anything would create a lack of imagination, imposing an arbitrary restriction on an, at heart, artistic community/industry. In short, Pro’s case ultimately falls apart upon close analysis, having insufficiently provided either large enough impacts to warrant affirmation, insufficiently demonstrated these impacts, or simply insufficiently provided clear enough links within his own case to reasonably affirm. My Case My framework has already been covered above. Contention 1a - Video games are an art form, and should be treated as such. Extend this argument through the debate, as Pro accepts. Contention 1b - Art uses sequels effectively, and so do video games. Pro fails to effectively rebut this point in that he implicitly places the BOP on me to show that art uses sequels effectively all of the time, whereas in reality, the debate has been agreed to be framed the opposite way. Now, Pro makes use of far too many generalizing statements, declaring that most sequels are of poor quality. However, not only is this a weak and unsubstantiated thing to do in and of itself, but it also entirely misses the point of this contention. Because, as Con, I am to negate the resolution, the point of this contention was to demonstrate a strong capacity for art to use sequels effectively, which, through Pro’s verbage, seems to have been the case. The impact of this contention is that if we are to value video games as art, as in C1A, then it is restricting to affirm the resolution in the face of such capacity for effective sequels. Therefore, extend this argument. Contention 2a - Video games allow for a wider audience... Pro’s response to this contention, judges, is weak. He agrees with the contention, but argues that these new gamers are not part of the entire industry, parents view games negatively, and that gamers game less and less. However, what Pro fails to realize is that if a person plays a single game, they by definition are contributing to the industry at large, just from purchasing that single game, making it arbitrary to set the entire industry as the goalpost, but also showing that that goal is met anyway. Cross-apply my refutation of Pro’s C1 to the issue of parents (a lack of source and lack of impact). Pro also makes essentially baseless and rhetorical games that the industry is failing, and that gamers aren’t gaming. However, he provides no actual basis for these claims that aren’t nonunique, or even supported with sources. So, extend this argument as well. Contention 2b - Community Extend this argument too, due to concession by Pro. Conclusion In short, judges, not only does Pro’s case fail for myriad reasons above, spelling a loss for Pro, but my case ultimately stands for the above-mentioned reasons. The resolution remains negated. Reference [1] http://www.mcvuk.com...