Instigator / Pro
6
1320
rating
264
debates
40.91%
won
Topic
#5144

THBT: On balance, the majority of Light Yagami's killings in Death Note were unjustified

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
2
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 8 points ahead, the winner is...

Savant
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Rated
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Minimal rating
None
Contender / Con
14
1702
rating
21
debates
100.0%
won
Description

Original resolution:
You choose the topic

Agreed resolution:
THBT: On balance, the majority of Light Yagami's killings in Death Note were unjustified

Light:
https://deathnote.fandom.com/wiki/Light_Yagami

Death Note:
https://deathnote.fandom.com/wiki/Death_Note_(object)

Round 1
Pro
#1
Thank you for accepting the debate.

Topic:
"THBT: On balance, the majority of Light Yagami's killings in Death Note were unjustified."

I am Pro.

Now, I didnt watch Death Note. I dont know who Light Yagami is.

But yes, his killings were unjustified because they probably werent self defense.

And since morality is arbitrary, I can just pick any moral value.

I pick that its wrong for Light Yagami to kill people.

That makes all of his killings unjustified, assuming he killed people and not some other life forms such as animals.
Con
#2
Framework:
Burdens
PRO argues that morality is arbitrary. Since the BoP is on them, this is akin to a concession, since it would not show that their proposed system of morality is the one Light Yagami ought to follow. In this section, I intend to not only propose an alternate moral framework, but to defend it as the superior one.

This debate should be judged on the basis of utilitarianism. This holds that an action that would otherwise be immoral becomes justified if it leads to a net benefit for the greater good.

Existence of Threshold
Many actions, such as driving a car, owning a knife, or drinking alcohol, are justified despite posing some risk to innocent people. We know that the court system will convict some innocent people, but it’s necessary for the common good. Furthermore, actions that would sometimes be unjustified, such as speeding, become justified in extreme situations. Speeding poses risks to innocent people, but if you’ve been stabbed and need to get to the hospital quickly, that risk is acceptable. The government infringes on liberties all the time and goes to war despite knowing that there will be civilian casualties, but these sacrifices are necessary. Most US soldiers in WW2 were drafted, but this was necessary to end the Holocaust and put a stop to Hitler’s expansion. As evidenced by these examples, a harmful action is justified so long as it is necessary to prevent greater harm.

Objections to Utilitarianism Debunked
Objections to soft utilitarianism usually take the form of convoluted thought experiments that don’t actually represent the framework well. For example, Judith Jarvis Thomson argues that forcibly taking one person’s organs to save five people would be unjustified, despite being a net benefit. But such an action would not be a net benefit, because when this action was discovered, it would inevitably lead to distrust of doctors and the medical system and therefore less people being treated.

A much simpler scenario would be asking someone “would you press a button to save five people even if it killed one person?” And when we take practicality into account, the correct answer is of course yes—one person’s death, while tragic, is not as bad as five people dying.

Hence, if hypothetical scenarios become too convoluted, they are not a good representation of soft utilitarianism or of Light Yagami’s actions, which led to a net benefit.

Moral Duties
We must also take into account moral duties. For example, if I see a child drowning in a pond and don’t save them, I clearly bear responsibility for their death. Morally speaking, it would not be different from killing them—saving and killing are both making a choice about whether someone will live or die. Killing 1 person to save a greater number of people involves a conflict between the duty to save and the duty not to kill, but these are really both part of our duty to keep others alive when given the choice. Thus, sacrificing the smaller number of people is the logical thing to do, since it prevents a greater amount of death.

My Case
I will use the following modus ponens to affirm the resolution:
  • P1: Killing 1 innocent person is justified in order to save more than 1 person.
  • P2: Light Yagami saves more innocent people than he kills.
  • P3: Therefore, the majority of Light Yagami’s killings were justified.

1. Justifications for the Death Note:
Criminals vs. Innocent
Light Yagami targets criminals, making up the vast majority of his killings. Infringing on the liberties of convicted criminals to protect the innocent is clearly justified, even if you don’t accept utilitarianism—otherwise prisons are no different from kidnapping innocent people.

New World
In E2, Light Yagami states his motivations clearly: “I protect the innocent and those who fear evil.” Even if Light Yagami had only killed innocent people to achieve his goal, it would be justified by net benefit.


2. Death Note Net Effect:
Crime Rates
Due to Light Yagami’s actions, violent crime rates were reduced by over 70%. This dramatic effect was first observed when his killings first began. Given approximately 475,000 homicides annually, this means that Light saved approximately 332,500 people per year.

War Deaths
Light Yagami was active for 6 years and ended all wars during his reign. Since Light was operational from 2006-2011, this means that Light averted the deaths of an approximate 209481 people. This brings the average lives saved per year to 367,413.

Saved vs. Killed
According to one analysis, Light Yagami directly or indirectly killed about 46,500 per year [1], a mere fraction of the 367,413 people he saved every year. That’s not even counting all the other crimes he prevented, and we should also note that many of the people he killed were going to be executed anyway, since Light targeted criminals. Therefore, Light Yagami’s actions resulted in a net benefit.

Effect on Innocent people
Some studies suggest that about 5% of convicted criminals are actually innocent. This is probably a high estimate, since the Innocent Project is not a neutral source, but I will accept it for the sake of argument. Again, practicality demands that convicted criminals still be punished to protect the innocent, even if 5% of convictions are false.

To put this in perspective, I have graphed the number of innocent people Light killed alongside the number of innocent people he saved. For the sake of argument, I included L, Rey Penber, and Naomi Misora with the kill count even though they were not innocent—they wanted to stop Light, which would have resulted in the deaths of many innocent people. The bar on the right is the number of innocent people that Light saved. The bar on the left that you can barely see is the number that he killed. The term for that is “statistically insignificant.”

Round 2
Pro
#3
Okay, lets begin.

Since the BoP is on them, this is akin to a concession, since it would not show that their proposed system of morality is the one Light Yagami ought to follow.
False. "Ought to" is arbitrary, so if I decide that the dude ought to follow, he is ought to follow.
Arbitrary does not equal to doesnt exist.


This debate should be judged on the basis of utilitarianism. This holds that an action that would otherwise be immoral becomes justified if it leads to a net benefit for the greater good.
And my opponent wants you to believe that this is a superior morality to follow?
You donating a kidney leads to greater good. So lead by example and donate a kidney. Also, you have to adopt as many children as you can, invite homeless into your home, and never spend money on luxury such as the internet which you are using now.

Now when we see that the moral system proposed by my opponent is the one he himself fails to follow because he uses internet, I suspect we will be rejecting my opponent's system in favor of mine.

Now, let us vote. Who is in favor of following my opponent's moral system? No one.

My opponent uses a failed moral system which was abandoned everywhere in the world in favor of selfishness.

Selfishness is a moral system anyone can follow, as to follow it, you simply do what you want and expect others to do what you want.

People unite under selfish interests. No one wants to accept arbitrary values proposed by my opponent. In fact, the very act of him debating here goes against his system, as he could have used that time to help old people or volunteer for something that brings more good than pointless debating about anime.

My side is simple. It doesnt require you to stop using internet.

I want for that dude from anime to stop killing.

That is the moral value.

The topic is about if specific killings are unjustified.

What does it mean to be unjustified?

Does it mean that I think its unjustified?

I do think those killings are unjustified.

Does unjustified means that they are unjustified according to some moral value?

I already gave moral value which makes them unjustified. The moral value is that that anime dude shouldnt be killing even one person or thing.

Does unjustified means that voters think its unjustified? They can think that using the moral value I gave.

Now, there is a new problem for my opponent. He took a moral standard that uses greater good in real world.

All the killings the anime dude has done had no positive impact on the real world, but violent anime can make real people who watch it to be more violent.
So the only impact those killings can have on real world are negative ones.

Many actions, such as driving a car, owning a knife, or drinking alcohol, are justified despite posing some risk to innocent people. We know that the court system will convict some innocent people, but it’s necessary for the common good. Furthermore, actions that would sometimes be unjustified, such as speeding, become justified in extreme situations. Speeding poses risks to innocent people, but if you’ve been stabbed and need to get to the hospital quickly, that risk is acceptable. The government infringes on liberties all the time and goes to war despite knowing that there will be civilian casualties, but these sacrifices are necessary. Most US soldiers in WW2 were drafted, but this was necessary to end the Holocaust and put a stop to Hitler’s expansion. As evidenced by these examples, a harmful action is justified so long as it is necessary to prevent greater harm.
My opponent uses circular logic.

He assumes that action which causes harm is justified at the start, and then concludes that action which causes harm is justified.

However, my selfishness wins here easily.

If you had to choose to be in infinite pain for all eternity, or to have 2 other persons be in infinite pain for all eternity, you would choose the other two. So would I. So would anyone.

Because everyone is selfish.

Everyone is so selfish that they prefer to buy a new smartphone over sending food to starving children.

My opponent may find a few people here and there who are not selfish, but really, the majority of people are selfish and only care about themselves.

Selfishness is the only morality that doesnt require you to sacrifice yourself.

So since personal survival or personal interests are most important to you and every human, it follows that my system is prefered over what my opponent is offering you.

We must also take into account moral duties. For example, if I see a child drowning in a pond and don’t save them, I clearly bear responsibility for their death.
Wrong. What really happens is that you are afraid society will judge you, so you save a child for selfish reasons.
To claim that you are responsible for something you didnt cause and would have happened without you even existing, is nonsense.


Morally speaking, it would not be different from killing them—saving and killing are both making a choice about whether someone will live or die.
Wrong. The difference is action and lack of action. Now, since you like saving people so much, why dont you donate a kidney along with all your money?

Selfishness keeps looking better and better.


Killing 1 person to save a greater number of people involves a conflict between the duty to save and the duty not to kill, but these are really both part of our duty to keep others alive when given the choice. Thus, sacrificing the smaller number of people is the logical thing to do, since it prevents a greater amount of death.
So why dont you sacrifice yourself? Or is this one of those "its good as long as its not me who has to be sacrificed" things?
Now, my opponent used the word logical, but his morality is purely arbitrary. He arbitrairly selected the standard, and used arbitrary reasons to support it.

Its like me saying "Anime dude is unjustified because Sun exists.

Sun obviously exists. Thats a fact. But me using that fact as a reason for anime dude being unjustified, is arbitrary.

Also, my opponent again uses circular logic.
He labels certain action as justified, and then concludes its justified.

Its like me saying anime dude is unjustified because I want him to be unjustified.

My opponent keeps repeating: "action that prevents most deaths is justified because it prevents most deaths".

Its really just a bunch of text going in circle, where conclusion is also a premise.

I will use the following modus ponens to affirm the resolution:
  • P1: Killing 1 innocent person is justified in order to save more than 1 person.
  • P2: Light Yagami saves more innocent people than he kills.
  • P3: Therefore, the majority of Light Yagami’s killings were justified.
I have already offered a more suitable moral system for each individual.
My system doesnt require you to sacrifice yourself.
But my opponent's premise 1 does require you to sacrifice yourself.
Now, my opponent did nothing to defend his premise 1 except circular reasoning, where he used examples of premise 1 as a premise and also as a premise assumed that the examples were justified, and then made a conclusion that premise 1 is justified.
Its circular reasoning because examples of premise 1 and premise 1 are one and same, and he never explained why his examples are justified. He just stated they were.

Its like me saying I should get everything I want because I got smartphone. In that case, those anime killings are unjustified because I dont want them to happen.

My opponent dropped that morality is arbitrary. Therefore, he forfeited this debate as arbitrary morality makes killings unjustified from an arbitrary standard which I happen to have.

Infringing on the liberties of convicted criminals to protect the innocent is clearly justified
Nope. Man can commit a crime. That doesnt mean you get to rape him, cut off his hands, or torture him needlessly.

Due to Light Yagami’s actions, violent crime rates were reduced by over 70%.
In anime. Anime isnt real. So crime reduction wasnt real either. But even if it was real, using it as a reason to justify something would be arbitrary. Most people break speed limits all the time. So most people do violent crime. I guess your anime character would have killed lots of car drivers to reduce violent crime of breaking speed limit. Its violent because people die from it, if that was not obvious.
Now, what if my arbitrary standard was that I dont want a reduction in crime rates? Then his killings, again, are unjustified according to my standard.
And I dont even need to disprove my opponent's standard. I merely have to present my own standard under which those killings were unjustified, because with arbitrary morality almost all things are unjustified from some standard. Since the topic did not say objectively unjustified, it follows that I dont need objective morality for those killings to be unjustified. They are unjustified according to my own standard.

Now, if anime was more cute and less about killings, maybe I would watch it. There, even more reason for those killings to be unjustified.
Also, anime promotes violence towards criminals. While in anime, that may reduce crime rates... in real life, it increases crime rates because violence breeds violence, and even just violence can breed unjust violence. I am guessing families of those innocent convicts could seek revenge. So anime was even misrepresenting facts about killing criminals

Now,
since my opponent conceded that morality is arbitrary,
since anime killings had no greater good in the real world and even motivated people to violence as violent anime and movies usually do,
since my opponent provided no reasons why his examples are justified but used circular logic,
since there is no reason for voters to accept my opponent's arbitrary standard that he himself fails to follow,
since we are all selfish or at least most of us are,
since I presented two more consistent moral systems: selfishness and arbitrary value of anime dude who shouldnt kill even one person or thing,

It follows that voters must vote me.
Con
#4
Framework:
“And I dont even need to disprove my opponent's standard. I merely have to present my own standard under which those killings were unjustified, because with arbitrary morality almost all things are unjustified from some standard. Since the topic did not say objectively unjustified, it follows that I dont need objective morality for those killings to be unjustified. They are unjustified according to my own standard.”
The goal of a debate is to show the resolution to be true. In this context, objectively unjustified just means “actually” unjustified, which is obviously implied by the resolution. If the topic was “the sky is blue,” it would not matter whether Pro thought the sky was blue. People having an opinion does not make that opinion true. For the resolution, or anything else, to be true, it must actually (i.e. objectively) be true. At the very least, Pro must show why voters should accept his moral framework.

“Selfishness”
Pro argues that we should use the moral framework of selfishness as opposed to utilitarianism. He does not elaborate on it much, but this would clearly imply that acting in one’s interests is justified. Since Light Yagami had an interest in executing people with the Death Note, then his actions are justified. Pro wants “that dude from anime to stop killing,” but under the framework that Pro provides, Light Yagami’s killings are justified, which is the debate resolution.

“since I presented two more consistent moral systems: selfishness and arbitrary value of anime dude who shouldnt kill even one person or thing”
These contradict each other, and I have shown that practically speaking, utilitarianism makes more sense than either of them. The one thing both of Pro’s frameworks have in common is that they result in outcomes much worse than my framework. Voters should note that actions which cause a lesser number of people to die are logical. Since utilitarianism is not arbitrary and Pro admits that his framework is arbitrary, default to mine.

“Selfishness is a moral system anyone can follow, as to follow it, you simply do what you want and expect others to do what you want.”
“Anyone” includes Light Yagami. Light Yagami did what he wanted. Under Pro’s framework, Light Yagami’s actions are justified.

Utilitarianism
Pro accuses me of using circular logic, but I am simply using a reductio ad absurdum. If the ends never justify the means, as Pro is proposing, then no one can ever drive a car, own a knife, or even own any sharp objects. In fact, no one should ever breathe either, since breathing releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and contributes to climate change. Pro basically bites the bullet here, saying that basically nothing is ever justified (which he contradicts about two paragraphs later.) Clearly, Pro’s moral framework is a ridiculous one that favors no one.

But if we did accept all of that and conclude that breathing is not justified because it contributes to climate change, then Light Yagami’s killings were simply self-defense or defense of others, since they stopped people from breathing.

But Pro just concedes that actions causing harm are justified under his framework of selfishness. In fact, Pro says that any action causing harm is justified, including causing 2 other people to suffer for all eternity. That sounds a lot worse than what Light Yagami did. Voters should accept my framework of utilitarianism, under which Light Yagami’s actions are justified. But if they instead accept Pro’s framework of selfishness for some reason, then Light Yagami’s actions are still justified.

“you have to adopt as many children as you can, invite homeless into your home, and never spend money on luxury such as the internet which you are using now.”
Pro’s argument for selfishness is a non-sequitur. Even if I personally were not acting in line with utilitarianism, it would not prove that utilitarianism is false. Maybe I am just a bad person and willing to accept that.

But this is also a misrepresentation of my argument. I’m not saying that individuals must do everything in their power to improve the greater good, just that working toward the greater good is always justified. I use the example of the drowning child because it doesn't require a significant sacrifice on your part to save them. Writing names in a notebook also doesn’t require a significant personal sacrifice.

“The difference is action and lack of action.”
Pro is just missing the point. My argument is that lack of action and action have no practical difference in the scenario of the drowning child—both of them result in the child dying. Morally speaking, why should we prefer one system to another if both of them result in the same thing?

Hence, refusing to save when it does not require a personal sacrifice is wrong prima facie. Killing someone is also wrong prima facie. If given the option to kill 1 person to save 5, there is no perfect outcome, but the outcome in which less people die is preferrable.


1. Justifications for the Death Note:
“That doesnt mean you get to rape him, cut off his hands, or torture him needlessly.”
I agree. This is why I said that infringing on the liberties of convicted criminals to protect the innocent is clearly justified. A better comparison would be punishments against criminals that are necessary to reduce crime, since that is what Light Yagami is doing. Obviously letting criminals go free is not the right thing to do. Hence, punishing criminals to protect the innocent is justified, and so are Light Yagami’s killings.

“Most people break speed limits all the time. So most people do violent crime. I guess your anime character would have killed lots of car drivers to reduce violent crime of breaking speed limit.”
Breaking speed limits on its own is not a violent crime. It results in a fine, not jail. Light Yagami did not kill minor criminals, and of the ones he did kill, he excluded people who regretted their actions or had extenuating circumstances.


2. Death Note Net Effect:
“All the killings the anime dude has done had no positive impact on the real world, but violent anime can make real people who watch it to be more violent. So the only impact those killings can have on real world are negative ones.”
This is not true. Violence in movies and TV decreases violence in real life, since watching violent movies serves as a substitute for actually committing violent acts.

But this whole tangent is irrelevant anyway. Obviously, the resolution is referring to the morality of Light’s actions in the world of Death Note. If Pro wants to argue that “Light Yagami isn’t real,” then neither are his actions, and his actions cannot be unjustified. So this is akin to Pro just conceding the debate.

“While in anime, that may reduce crime rates... in real life, it increases crime rates”
This is irrelevant, because we are discussing Light’s actions in the world of Death Note, and in the world of Death Note, crime rates decreased. If we treat the world of Death Note as not existing for this debate, then Light’s killings were fiction and cannot be unjustified. In which case the resolution is false.
Round 3
Pro
#5
The goal of a debate is to show the resolution to be true. In this context, objectively unjustified just means “actually” unjustified, which is obviously implied by the resolution.
My opponent doesnt have a dictatorship upon defining what words mean, especially not so late in debate.
Objectively does not mean "actually". Objectively means independent of an opinion.
Where word "actually" can include an opinion. For example, me actually thinking its unjustified.

If the topic was “the sky is blue,” it would not matter whether Pro thought the sky was blue.
But the topic is not "the sky is blue". The topic is about those killings being unjustified. I already defined unjustified as that which is arbitrarily considered wrong by me or that which I think is wrong. Since my opponent didnt object to either definition, he conceded to it.

Therefore, the topic is effectively about if I think those killings were wrong or not.

People having an opinion does not make that opinion true. For the resolution, or anything else, to be true, it must actually (i.e. objectively) be true.
My opponent again tries to change the topic.
If the topic was "I think that something is something", all I would have to do to prove it would be to demonstrate that I think so. And that is what I did, because given my definitions unobjected to by my opponent, thats what the topic is.

At the very least, Pro must show why voters should accept his moral framework.
Voters already accepted my framework. As I said, most people are selfish. Its your framework that they will not accept in real life, as to do that, they would have to donate their kidneys and turn off internet which would make them unable to vote for you.

Pro argues that we should use the moral framework of selfishness as opposed to utilitarianism. He does not elaborate on it much, but this would clearly imply that acting in one’s interests is justified. Since Light Yagami had an interest in executing people with the Death Note, then his actions are justified. Pro wants “that dude from anime to stop killing,” but under the framework that Pro provides, Light Yagami’s killings are justified, which is the debate resolution.
The topic is not about killings being justified from Light's opinion, but from my opinion or voter's opinion which is based on my moral value.

Light is not me or voter on DebateArt.

My opponent didnt object to the definition of unjustified, which as copied from round 2 states:

"The topic is about if specific killings are unjustified.

What does it mean to be unjustified?

Does it mean that I think its unjustified?

I do think those killings are unjustified.

Does unjustified means that they are unjustified according to some moral value?

I already gave moral value which makes them unjustified. The moral value is that that anime dude shouldnt be killing even one person or thing.

Does unjustified means that voters think its unjustified? They can think that using the moral value I gave."

So the only entities deciding whats unjustified are me, my one moral value, or voters by using my one moral value.

These contradict each other, and I have shown that practically speaking, utilitarianism makes more sense than either of them. The one thing both of Pro’s frameworks have in common is that they result in outcomes much worse than my framework.
This is obviously incorrent and a blatant lie. My opponent's moral framework requires you to donate a kidney, adopt bunch of kids, quit using internet, invite homeless people to live in your house, give away all your money...
My moral value of those anime killings being wrong doesnt result in anything bad, since it doesnt ban or order any real world action. So to say that my opinion on anime dude is going to cause more chaos in your life than what my opponent is proposing you do is nonsense.
My moral value of selfishness, where I get to decide if anime character is unjustified, also wont have any effect on your life.

Voters should note that actions which cause a lesser number of people to die are logical. Since utilitarianism is not arbitrary and Pro admits that his framework is arbitrary, default to mine.
My opponent chooses utilitarianism as his value, and then contradicts himself by saying its not arbitrary(that he didnt choose it).

So since my opponent cannot explain to us how did he choose utilitarianism without choosing utilitarianism,
and since almost no one would choose utilitarianism when its him who has to be sacrificed for the great good,
and since its objectively good for your survival to avoid sacrificing yourself,
I win.

“Anyone” includes Light Yagami. Light Yagami did what he wanted. Under Pro’s framework, Light Yagami’s actions are justified.
We already established that the definition of unjustified does not include Light's opinion, but mine. Kinda selfish, I know. Thats how selfishness works.
I never made a claim that anything which someone does is justified. I merely pointed out that anyone can follow selfishness, while almost no one can follow what you propose. It was a ridicule of your values.
Also, voters can use selfishness to dictate that those killings were unjustified, since selfishness morality allows them to put their opinions as facts.
And again, unjustified was already defined as that which I consider wrong.

Pro accuses me of using circular logic, but I am simply using a reductio ad absurdum.
So you are using it in the form of circular logic where premise is conclusion.

If the ends never justify the means, as Pro is proposing
I never said such a thing. I simply said that ends dont always justify the means, and I proved it with example of infinite torture.

Pro basically bites the bullet here, saying that basically nothing is ever justified
I said "according to some standard". Not according to my standard, of course.

 Light Yagami’s killings were simply self-defense or defense of others, since they stopped people from breathing
You mean the animated people? And Light Yagami isnt alive or even a person.
And killing people because they breathe would mean he would have to kill everyone, especially the factory workers.
Thats why killing because of pollution isnt considered self defense. You kinda get more likely to be killed if you run around killing people. 
For pollution, you can simply move to less polluted country, somewhere in forest maybe.

But Pro just concedes that actions causing harm are justified under his framework of selfishness. In fact, Pro says that any action causing harm is justified, including causing 2 other people to suffer for all eternity.
No. Pro never said that all actions that cause harm are justified.
The given example was a ridicule of your values, and you didnt object to it.
I already defined what unjustified means. There is no need to repeat myself so much.

Even if I personally were not acting in line with utilitarianism, it would not prove that utilitarianism is false. Maybe I am just a bad person and willing to accept that.
Well, there you have it. He rejects his own moral system while thinking others should accept it.
What this proves is that utilitarianism is unacceptable for most people, even those who preach it. So there is no reason for voters to accept such system, because if they did, not only would they have to donate kidneys, but they would have to turn off their internet making them unable to vote for you. See how your system works against you?

I’m not saying that individuals must do everything in their power to improve the greater good, just that working toward the greater good is always justified.
My opponent contradicts himself again. He was the one who said that not saving a child is same as killing a child.
Then he says that people dont have to do everything in their power to improve the greater good?
You not donating a kidney would kill someone, by your logic.
You refusing to adopt children would also kill someone.
If working towards the greater good is always justified, then by logic not working towards greater good is unjustified.
They cannot both be justified, as that would make every action justified and your moral system would make even less sense than it did few comments ago.

My argument is that lack of action and action have no practical difference in the scenario of the drowning child
I already explained the difference. The result being same does not negate the difference in causation. Contrary to popular belief, effort matters too.

If given the option to kill 1 person to save 5, there is no perfect outcome, but the outcome in which less people die is preferrable.
Not if you are the one who suffers, as proven by your rejection of your own moral system when its unsuitable for you.

This is why I said that infringing on the liberties of convicted criminals to protect the innocent is clearly justified
Again, no. You dont get to execute all criminals to protect innocents. No country on Earth does that.

Breaking speed limits on its own is not a violent crime
I already explained that it is, because it kills people. You missed that.

This is not true. Violence in movies and TV decreases violence in real life,
You are using a source from 2004 done on a small group of people. Rejected. Violence in societies has increased since 2004.

watching violent movies serves as a substitute for actually committing violent acts.
Actually, they tend to arouse you to beat people up. Kinda like how porn resulted in so many people developing fetishes and so many rapists.

If Pro wants to argue that “Light Yagami isn’t real,” then neither are his actions
I am arguing that reductions in crime rates in anime dont help humans. Or persons. Or people.
Light is a fictional character, but his acts of violence can inspire real persons to copy them.
His actions arent beneficial for us. They are only beneficial for fictional characters in anime.
You do understand that anime characters are fictional?
They living or dying only matters if it affects real persons.

Anyway, out of characters. Was fun. Bye.

Con
#6
I’ll get right into the main points of this debate, since there aren’t many of them, and since I’ve already addressed many of the points Pro is bringing up in R3.


What determines if an action is justified?
“Justified”
Best.Korea defines unjustified as “something Best.Korea considers to be unjustified,” which doesn’t work because it’s using the word in the definition. To determine what this definition means, we would again have to define the word “unjustified,” and our definition becomes “something Best.Korea considers to be something Best.Korea considers to be unjustified,” and then “something Best.Korea considers to be something Best.Korea considers to be something Best.Korea considers to be unjustified” and so on. All this definition does is just kick the can further down the road.

Knowing what Pro thinks can tell us whether Best.Korea actually thinks Light Yagami’s actions are justified but not whether those actions actually are justified. The debate resolution concerns the latter.

If Pro thinks people are allowed to choose any moral framework, then so can Light Yagami. Then his actions are not unjustified, since they have been justified by his moral framework.

Utilitarianism
I explained that utilitarianism leads to better outcomes. Pro does not object to my statement that people being alive is a good thing and that we should prefer that good things happen. Pro seems to agree that moral frameworks should work in practice, and utilitarianism, in practice, leads to the best outcomes.

Extend the drowning thought experiment, use of cars, use of draft in WW2, actions of the government, alcohol, the necessity for speeding in emergencies, pressing a button to save people, etc.

“My opponent's moral framework requires you to donate a kidney, adopt bunch of kids, quit using internet, invite homeless people to live in your house, give away all your money”
I already explained that this is not what I am advocating for. I didn’t say that altruistic actions are morally obligatory if they require significant personal sacrifice (as in, significantly more than writing in a notebook.) I said that actions are justified so long as they contribute to the greater good.

“And killing people because they breathe would mean he would have to kill everyone, especially the factory workers.” /  “Thats why killing because of pollution isnt considered self defense. You kinda get more likely to be killed if you run around killing people.”
The breathing example was a reductio ad absurdum of Pro’s position. If harm is always bad and we should never weigh impacts against each other, then breathing is wrong in the world of Death Note for contributing to global warming, and Light’s killings were justified self-defense/defense of others. We’re not talking about people Light Yagami didn’t kill—if it was somehow unjustified that Light didn’t kill factory workers, that is irrelevant to the resolution.

Pro says that you’re more likely to be killed if you run around killing people, but writing names in a notebook on its own does not make one more likely to be killed (some of Light’s killings aroused suspicion of him specifically, but certainly not the majority). This also does not rebut the claim that if any form of harm is wrong, and breathing were immoral, that Yagami’s actions would constitute defense of other innocent people.

But this is getting off track. Obviously a moral framework where breathing is not permitted is unrealistic and impractical. Instead, we should weigh impacts. If the positive impacts of an action outweigh the negative impacts, then that action is justified. Breathing contributes a tiny amount to global warming, but obviously it is still justified.

“Selfishness”
People being selfish does not necessitate using this as a moral framework. People do all sorts of things that are unjustified, like kicking each other in the shins. But again, this framework permits people to do anything they want, and it would permit Light Yagami to kill people.

“We already established that the definition of unjustified does not include Light's opinion, but mine. Kinda selfish, I know. Thats how selfishness works.”
Why should we prefer your definition of selfishness to mine or Light Yagami’s? Why should voters? So far, Pro has provided no reason to prefer his interests to anyone else’s. Hence, use utilitarianism, since it weighs everyone’s interests.

“Also, voters can use selfishness to dictate that those killings were unjustified, since selfishness morality allows them to put their opinions as facts.”
Pro is basically just telling voters to do whatever they want. I encourage voters to vote for the best argument and hence on the basis of utilitarianism, since it is the only consistent moral framework that has been established.

“I simply said that ends dont always justify the means, and I proved it with example of infinite torture.”
Pro proved no such thing. Pro argued that needless torture is wrong, and I agreed. That’s irrelevant to the debate resolution, though, since Light Yagami didn’t go around torturing people for fun.


Who did Light Yagami Target?
Criminals vs. Innocent
Light targeted convicted criminals, as the courts do. He targeted people who had already been sentenced for violent crimes. Despite Pro’s claims, he didn’t kill people for speeding—when people talk about “violent crimes” in the show they are not referring to speeding. Even if Pro thinks people should use the term “violent crime” to refer to speeding, that is just irrelevant to what we are discussing.

Letting criminals go free is bad. Pro does not dispute that we punish criminals to protect the innocent, he just argues that we should not go too far. I agree—as I stated, we should only punish criminals so long as it helps the innocent. I’m not advocating that we torture anyone for fun.

“You dont get to execute all criminals to protect innocents.”
Pro asserts that this is unjustified but does not defend it. Also, Light didn’t kill all criminals, just a lot of the violent ones. It’s not at all a reasonable comparison.


What was the Impact of the Death Note?
Killed vs. Saved
Again, this chart should basically sum up the entire debate. There’s no reason to advocate for letting over 2,000,000 innocent people die because of much smaller negative effects that are insignificant in comparison. Cars crash, but we still drive. Wars have casualties, but we still fight genocide. We cannot let perfect be the enemy of good. Light Yagami got results, and those results were overwhelmingly positive.

Fictional vs. Real
The world Death Note is what’s being discussed for the purposes of this debate—if Pro wants to retreat to the defense of “it’s fictional,” then Light Yagami did nothing unjustified because he doesn’t really exist, and the resolution is negated.

Effect of Violent Movies on Crime
Falls outside the scope of this debate anyway, but note that Con calls my study wrong with no evidence and does not give any data or source of his own. Con says that “Violence in societies has increased since 2004.” but does not explain how this would suddenly flip the effect of violent movies and shows on crime. Voters should therefore default to the evidence I provided.


Conclusion:
We must be practical and weigh the positive and negative impacts of the Death Note against each other. Pro does not propose a way of doing this, but I do. Light using the Death Note objectively made people better off—everyone is better off in a world where they are less likely to be killed. If Pro is as selfish as he claims, he should prefer that world.