Man, you're unbelievable LOL, I said in 3 separate occasions I've heard it a million times used in another context which is I thought you used it in that context too. English is my third language, yet I'm using it way better than you because I actually give a shit about what I'm saying and how I'm saying it.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt, I asked you to get back on discussion, I asked of your opinion again and again but you seem to only care about preserving your ego.

You're trolling me at this point, I'm out.

You're as bad as him then because even though you admitted it's a semantic error you made, you keep blaming others like it's unbelievable for your holy posts to confuse people.

There's a distinction in their depiction not their violence since video games can't be violent. You keep misphrasing your statement even now and you're not even realizing. Stop.

So you can't understand why I confused your entailing point when your initial point was obscured and you're calling me the worst debater. LOL.

You're pretty much on par with numerous people on GS on debates. You (plural) keep misphrasing your statements and get emotional when people take your statements for granted and most of the people in this category all insulted my character in the end just like you're doing. I should've known the forums here are as shit as giantbomb's.

lol and what the shit is a gerg hahahahah

Dude you fucking made a distinction between violence in video games and depiction of violence in video games, if you can't own up to your own posts or at least try to phrase them as a person who knows his shit then don't blame people that conclude you do not know your shit. Just because it's common doesn't mean it's isn't false and isn't as commonly misused.

I would think that you thought it affected adults because you literally asked OP "if it affects children, why doesn't it affect adults?".

You're cowardly backpeddling, pull your shit together or stop taking part in debates.

If you think there aren't liberals and conservatives alike who think video games are ACTUALLY LITERALLY violent and harm society, you're just wrong. I'm arguing this point RIGHT NOW with another poster, don't even try putting the blame on me when you deployed their rhetoric.

And I didn't say you said the RATING affects adults, I said that PERHAPS or PERHAPS not you said that the depiction of violence in video games affects adults (you absolutely stated that for children which is ok).

I didn't twist nor did I misrepresent your argument, you're blaming me for your incorrect use of words.

What point is your last point, can't find it.

EDIT: Wait if it's about games like that not being good for society, you have the whole science department and every research EVER done on the subject absolutely against you, you don't even want to go there, it has been debunked literally a billion times. Besides, saying certain kinds of art are bad therefore should be banned without a lick of evidence isn't even borderline fascist, it's completely fascist.

But you can't use wrong phrasing and expect people to see what's in your mind and not what's in your writing.

Anyway, the one who injected kids into the argument was you though not OP. No matter what kind of violence depiction there's in a video game, it shouldn't make a difference at all when it comes to adults and their actions in real life. OP is right in this regard.

We could discuss children playing violent video games if that's your interest but you can't misrepresent OP's argument like that.

Dude I already addressed your post as if you meant "depiction" mainly because I wasn't referring directly to you and I already answered.

But let's do it again, I don't want to misrepresent your argument so as I can understand you are saying that Hatred portrays depictions of violence more graphically than GTA (which is up to debate but I'll agree).

If you are saying that because your main point is "children shouldn't play it", I'm ok with that, I don't really care about it.

If you are saying Hatred is immoral because it depicts violence, I wholeheartedly disagree for reasons I shouldn't even mention.

If you're not saying anything besides the difference in depiction, it's my fault for assuming that you did.

HAHAHAHAHAHA oh no you ain't gonna slip away from me so easily, the semantics on this one are important because you dichotomized DEPICTION of violence and CONTAINMENT of violence.

You said GTA "----CONTAINS---- violence but it doesn't ----DEPICT----- it as graphically", you made a distinction between containing and depicting. Don't try to backpeddle on this one, you can't. Just admit you are wrong like any self-respecting adult (I assume) would do.