Video games can actually be beneficial

The burden of proof is entirely on my opponent to uphold the resolution. If he can't do this without reasonable doubt, the debate goes to me.My opponent still wants you to believe that I'm playing semantics. I'll refer back to the resolution.Full resolution: "Video games can actually be beneficial" Actually: ""1. as the truth or facts of a situation; really.""My opponent points out that this can be converted to "Video games can truthfully/factually be beneficial"My argument is that nothing can be truthfully or factually beneficial unless humanity has objective purpose. If humanity cannot be shown to have objective purpose as a logical possibility, whatever is "beneficial" is entirely subjective and cannot be predicated on actuality, truth, or facts. Therefore it's logically impossible to assert that video games can actually (really, truthfully, factually) be beneficial if there is no such thing as actual, true, or factual benefit. "First, fact means "something that actually exists; reality; truth".(1) Since empirics show us what actually is within the real world, it"s a display of something that actually exists. This is sufficient to meet his standard of factually beneficial." That's the problem - it is logically impossible for something to have factual benefit if there really isn't such a thing. If humanity exists for no reason, nothing could be actually, truly, or factually beneficial for a human to play video games. What can truly or factually benefit something that exists for no reason and for no purpose?Second, true means "being in accordance with the actual state or conditions; conforming to reality or fact; not false".(2) Empirics are sufficient to meet this because they show you exactly what"s happening within the real world, i.e. reality. Nothing could empirically prove that video games can have actual benefit if the data is meaningless (shows it to be factually beneficial to what end?)My opponent says that "our subjective values and beliefs are always capable of being wrong" and " Even if we aren"t aware of our objective purpose in life, that doesn"t mean that there isn"t an objective purpose in life.First, subjective values and beliefs cannot actually be wrong if all values and beliefs are subjective. In order to show that subjective values and beliefs are actually wrong, there must be an objective standard to measure the wrongness of this against. Second, I argued that my opponent must show that humanity having objective purpose is logically possible in order to show that video games can *actually* be beneficial. I stated this in R1: "The burden of proof rests on opponent so he must show that objective purpose for the human race is logically possible in order to show that video games can *actually* be beneficial."Moving the Goalposts My opponent says that the acceptance of my rebuttal depends on whether or not you buy the argument that humanity has objective purpose. This is false because in order for video games to *even possibly* have actual, true, or factual benefit, something factually, truly, or actually beneficial must exist. If humanity exists for no reason (has no objective purpose) the possibility of actual, true, or factual benefit is logically impossible.My opponent cannot show objectivity using empirical data - this just shows consensus.If humanity exists for no reason (has no objective purpose) the possibility of actual, true, or factual benefit is logically impossible. The full resolution states: "Video games can actually be beneficial". Thus, this is what my opponent had to uphold with his burden of proof. Since he has not given any argument for logical possibility of humans having objective purpose, his resolution cannot be upheld. Since he has not met his BoP, the debate goes to me by default.Vote con!:P