Violent video games should be banned

My opponent, Pro, has forfeited the final round. I will view this as a concession since he has broken his own rules for the round structure by forfeiting twice now. Regardless, I promised to provide rebuttals to his original arguments in my previous round and will now deliver on that promise. RebuttalsMy opponent opens his round by making this claim:"There are multiple surveys and scientific evidence that playing violent video games can change the way our minds act and can change our perception of right from wrong."I take it that this is his main point for his position and will now rebut the studies he shared to support his claim.I. Norwegian man/Call of DutyHis first source is not a study at all, in fact, it's a dailymail article which touches on the Norwegian man who went on a shooting-spree, killing 77 people in the process. My opponent uses the fact that he played Call of Duty to prepare himself as a reason to ban all violent video games. This is an absurd action by my opponent. Firstly, we don't know which Call of Duty game he used, but still, let's take a look at the big picture here - Call of Duty, as a series, has sold over 139,600,000 copies of games. [1] That's over 139 million. This is one man. So, in this case, only 00.00000072% of Call of Duty players have committed a shooting spree while using the game as practice. This is such a small percentage that the motion to ban the game and any others like it due to this one man's actions is laughable at best, and wholly unjustified by Pro at worst. Ultimately, the fact that one man utilized a video game for practice holds no weight whatsoever in this debate when we look at the grand scheme of things. There has been no evidence given by Pro to show or prove that such video games as Call of Duty is a net detriment, when in reality there are only a handful of cases of mentally unstable individuals, who unfortunately utilized these games for furthering their own twisted ends. II. 23 yr old stabbing victim/GTA 5The second source utilized by Pro is, again, not a study, but rather an article from independent magazine. This funny thing about this source is that the people committing the crime are stealing the games from the victim, not the other way around. So far, Pro has been arguing that those who play the games are the ones doing bad, but now it seems like it's the people who want to play the games that are doing the bad things by stealing the games from other people. How can we be sure that the thieves were influenced by these games? Wouldn't it have been the game-owner who'd have done the robbing since, you know, he played and owned the game? Ultimately, this source is useless in furthering Pro's position because it gives no weight to his previous claims whatsoever. Just an un-related story that happens to feature a victim who owned the games. III. US institution for mental healthcare and The American Academy of PaediatricsMy opponent finishes his round by sharing a statement from these institutions which says:"People who see a lot of violence are more likely to view violence as an effective way of settling conflicts. People exposed to violence are more likely to assume that acts of violence are acceptable behavior. Viewing violence can lead to emotional desensitization towards violence in real life. It can decrease the likelihood that one will take action on behalf of a victim when violence occurs."There are several issues I have with such a statement. First and foremost, there is no evidence given by Pro that shows that this statement was a response to violent video games. It's more reasonable to assume that this statement has to do with anything related to violence, be it violence in the family home, at school, work, on television, etc., and without direct attachment to violent video games, there is no reason for me to accept that this quote is fully applicable within the scope of this debate. Secondly, I covered how video games have age-restrictions for purchase, and also falls into the responsibility of the legal guardians of minors, thus the games themselves cannot be held accountable as it was a failure of the guardians and distributors to properly guard impressionable minds from such material. Lastly, in the quote we see language such as, "more likely", "can lead to", "can decrease".... you see, these are all assumptions, none of them are purported as fact. Statements such as "more likely" means probability, possibility, and is not, in any way, a guarantee of causation. Thus, ultimately, such a quote also falls short of holding any real weight in this debate. In closing, I have now provided rebuttals to each point raised by my opponent, Pro. Furthermore, Pro has failed to provide any rebuttals to the arguments I presented previously, nor did he follow his own rules in regards to round structure due to his multiple forfeits. For these reasons, I urge a vote for Con. Thank you. Sources[1] http://www.statisticbrain.com...