The surviving members of "Laughing Coffin" should've been put on trial upon awakening from SAO

First of all, I would like to discuss my "cockiness", though this has no real bearing on the debate itself. Nowhere did I state that I am a superior debater to Con (in fact, on at least one occasion outside of this debate I have admitted that the opposite is true). Rather, the debate resolution is one that is quite difficult for someone to argue against as Con. He might as well have been Pro on a debate called "People who use guns to kill people instead of using their hands should not be treated as murderers". I'm not saying that Con is a bad debater; rather, it's the fact that he is Con on a debate of this resolution. Before I continue, there's another matter which I would like to briefly clarify on. Nowhere in this debate was it stated by the instigator or by the acceptor and agreed upon by the instigator that neither side may post new arguments in the last round. However, common courtesies must be considered here. There is no valid reason why I cannot post new content in the last round. No matter what I post here, Con is ultimately the one who will post last, giving him the opportunity to rebut anything I say here. Whatmore, he seems to be using this to try to prevent me from saying anything in the last round. This is absurd, and I shall absolutely post as I otherwise would've had Con not spoken up. I shall not introduce entirely new contentions, but I will defend the Pro position on the contentions already being argued over, as well as respond to the arguments of my opponent. This is not a conduct violation by Pro and it should not be treated as such by potential voters. Now, I shall finish contending for my side of this debate. Contention 1. Responsibility My opponent keeps bringing up the gameplay of conventional video games, as if the situation of SAO was equivalent to this. Let me be clear: Sword Art Online was called the "death game" for a good reason. Players died playing the game, and that is how the game was designed. It should be considered differently from normal video games; the fact that SAO was technically a video game does not mean that killing in SAO is comparable to killing in other video games. A normal video game does not kill people in real life, so it's not even relevant here. My opponent's reference to "technical mishaps" is meaningless. A "technical mishap" implies an accident. The deaths were not accidental. Also, if in a normal video game someone knew that his actions would result in a "technical mishap" but he did said action(s) anyway he would be implicated in the death, even if it was the result of a glitch within the game. It is not the wording of the law that really matter, but rather the spirit of the law. That is why hiring a hitman to kill someone is still considered murder, a point that I have made with countless (okay, more like 2 or 3) examples. Also, my opponent keeps trying to shift the guilt towards Kayaba Akihiko and not the Laughing Coffin members; why shouldn't Kayaba AND the Laughing Coffin members collectively be held responsible for the PK deaths perpetrated by Laughing Coffin? "What killed the players" is irrelevant. The programming is only that: a program. It cannot kill unless something or somebody within or outside of the game acts in certain ways. By Con's logic, Kayaba Akihiko did not kill them; he only made the device and programmed it to kill. In the case of PK deaths its act of killing players was due to the device and the game being "misused" by PKers such as the members of Laughing Coffin. Again, we must abide by the spirit of the law rather than its specific wording, as no lawmaker could've written down rules for every specific situation that would arise. (P.S. This has no bearing on the debate, but it was the NerveGear, not the Amusphere; the latter wasn't developed until after the death game started.) My opponent then brings up the Japanese legal system, and how there must be certainty of the evidence beyond reasonable doubt that certain players were members of Laughing Coffin. Con's interpretation of this law is probably off; if witnesses alone are not good evidence, then countless criminals would've gotten away with crimes that they didn't get away with, as any criminal wearing gloves and not leaving behind hair or blood could break into a home on a street without security cameras in broad daylight and rob somebody; they'd never be convicted according to my opponent's interpretation of Japanese law, as even 39 witnesses would not be good enough. In the case of Laughing Coffin, there would probably be many witnesses to their crimes. Besides this, it's probable that the outside world had some way of seeing what went on inside SAO; for instance, in Gun Gale Online, another VMMORPG, there was a "live feed" during the "Bullet of Bullets" tournament. This is merely speculation, but it's reasonable to assume that such a live feed existed inside Sword Art Online. People (usually; those who weren't known must've not yet killed anyone otherwise they'd be easily identifiable as Red Players) knew who was and wasn't with Laughing Coffin. Contention 2. Danger to Society My opponent has failed to respond to what I've said concerning this. Extend arguments. An individual who killed in self-defense or out of necessity, in contrast to a murderer, is more likely to become traumatized rather than "twisted". Besides, like I've said, whether or not the protagonists are guilty or dangerous to society doesn't change anything here. Contention 3. Deterrence I have forfeited to Con on this point because this argument was faulty. It ultimately was not vital to my argument, and dropping this is just a minor defeat for me. Were there no deterrent value to the trials whatsoever, this wouldn't affect the validity of everything else I've said here. Rehabilitation: As I have stated, a trial is the determining of an individual's guilt and, if found guilty, what should be done to them, be it punishment or rehabilitation. The courts cannot put somebody in rehab unless there is a good reason. Con has suggested that every Sword Art Online survivor be rehabilitated. In the sense that their bodies were re-trained after 2 years of inactivity and minors were sent back to school to catch up on missed school, this did indeed happen. However, the rehabilitation in question is a psychological rehab, to handle the changes in personality caused by being forced to live for 2 years straight inside SAO, with one's life often being in real danger. Not every SAO Survivor required this. Asuna, for instance, didn't seem to be traumatized in any way by living in SAO. Neither did Klein, the black bartender guy, Silica, "Liz", or others. Even Kirito, who was very much so affected by SAO, did not need rehabilitation. It'd be pointless to make them all go throw rehabilitation like that. Thus, each case should be examined on an individual basis...In a trial setting. HOWEVER, let's look back upon what I said in the previous round: "We could debate whether or not the law should seek rehabilitation or justice for murderers". I felt that I could make a decent case even if I opted towards the rehabilitation route, but I could just as easily take the justice route. I have already shown that the former members of Laughing Coffin are guilty of murder, and if justice is to be seeked they should stand trial for their crimes. The prosecutor has made his case; after the defendant makes his case the trial's outcome will be decided by the jury. Back to you, Con.