The Gamer's Dilemma Is Both Compelling and Surprising-Until You Read

The Gamer's Dilemma is both compelling and surprising-until you read about it, it probably never occurred to you that virtual murder might be morally problematic (or that virtual pedophilia might be morally okay), and it's really hard to say where Morgan Luck's argument goes wrong (if it goes wrong at all). When an argument is both compelling and surprising, how should you respond? Should you stick to your guns, assuming that there must be something wrong with it because it's so surprising? Or should you accept it because it's compelling? Or is some other response called for? Defend your answer.