THBT: On balance, the majority of Light Yagami's killings in Death Note were unjustified
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 8 points ahead, the winner is...
- 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
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)
the majority of Light Yagami's killings in Death Note were unjustified
Fun topic!
Self Defense:
Pro builds an implicant case that IF self defense, THEN justified. Therefore NOT self defense, NOT justified.
Exceptions:
Con argues that things should would intuitively not be justified, are justified by duress.
Moral Duties:
Someone's been watching The Good Place!
I wish this section had gone on longer, possibly with use of the Batman/Joker (Batman using his superpowers to bring The Joker back to life, makes him morally responsible for the likely death toll) and/or Superman/Zod (had Superman let Zod murder the planet, he would be at fault) scenarios.
Net Benefit:
Con argues that since Light does greater good than harm, he is justified.
He does very well in this by arguing both sides, the innocent's Light killed being arguably not, and IF assuming their innocence then it's still justified. The graph was an entertaining piece of evidence, even if a sub-optimal type of graph for this comparison.
Pro counters with a hypocrisy kritik against utilitarianism, and says we should instead use Ethical Egoism. He does not show why Light should refrain from killing people under Moral Egoism, and ironically that was the main fault shown of Light that he subscribed to Moral Egoism.
Con embraces Ethical Egoism, and reminds us that Light wants to kill those people; therefore under pro's own moral system it is automatically justified.
And pro for some reason doubles down on this without first defending why it would favor him...
Real World Impacts:
Pro was clever here, arguing that it's just a show so the deaths don't inherently matter, but since anime violence is the cause of real violence it is automatically unjustified for the writers to portray that... I am praising the attempt take weight away from the fictional lives saved. However, the absence of evidence hurts this (in addition to being counter to the spirit of the debate).
Con counters with Berkeley study which shows the opposite. He additionally counters that were we to dismiss Light as a cartoon character, it would mean all his actions are justified for lack of any net harm; this is why debates such as this should stay to the spirit of debate, rather than desperate tactics to ignore it.
Frankly, I think this is pretty lopsided. Pro basically ignores anything and everything about Light except the very broad strokes, so the details are rendered irrelevant almost from the outset, which is disappointing. More on the frustrating side, though, is Pro's decision to retroactively modify the resolution in his second round, and then accuse Con of doing the same thing in the subsequent round. It's honestly baffling because Pro does not, as far as I can tell, state in his first round his interpretation of the resolution beyond just including it verbatim. He then goes on to argue in subsequent rounds that only his opinion really matters... or I guess my opinion as a judge? I honestly am having a hard time deciding which he's going for. If it's the first, that only Pro's opinion on this matters, then I don't know why he's bothering to argue the rest. It doesn't matter, right? Pro's opinion is decided and that, according to him, ends the debate. He "selfishly" (I don't understand how it's selfish) believes that Light shouldn't kill people. That's not really a moral framework, but it's something, I guess.
Meanwhile, if Pro really is focused on audience interpretation of what they selfishly believe, then I have trouble understanding why that yields a vote for Pro. I'm a voter. I've been told to embody my own selfishness in my vote. I don't want bad things happening to me. Fine. I've also been told that Death Note isn't real, so Light's not coming after me, so he's not unjustified because he could come after me. I've been told that other people might come after me following his example, but Con presents data that suggests the opposite and I don't see a response to that data. So if I'm being selfish, I want more violent media because that is an effective outlet for people who might otherwise pursue violent ends. My selfishness, my aim to protect myself, yields a vote for Con.
And none of that even covers the utilitarian angle from Con. I'll note that he's the first to provide an interpretation of the resolution and burdens, so if the issue here is that someone is trying to reinterpret the resolution by adding words, while I could say that both sides have done a bit of that, Con is also the first to do it and arguably is justified in clarifying the resolution in the absence of any clarity from Pro. More importantly, I don't see an adequate response to utilitarianism. Pro's response starts and ends by arguing that people are selfish and don't act in a utilitarian manner. Fine. Is and ought are two different things. The reality that people won't act in a manner that follows utilitarian ethics when presented the opportunity in many cases doesn't mean utilitarian ethics is wrong, it just means we tend to act selfishly. Appealing to common choices doesn't demonstrate an ought to me. It doesn't explain why we should be selfish, it just tells me that I am more likely to be selfish. I can agree with Pro's position that selfishness is more common and that even Con is a flawed human being who doesn't adhere to utilitarianism while still seeing it as a strong justification for Light's actions. And if, as Pro suggests in R2, there are no lives saved and there is no utilitarian benefit to be had in the Death Note world, then utility only matters insofar as people commit violent acts in the real world more or less based on Light's character. And, again, as Con pointed out, the data correlation suggests less.
Ergo, whether I'm being selfish or embodying utilitarianism, I'm voting Con. All that leaves me with is whether I should just go with Pro's opinion because... I guess he has it? I'm not sure, and every time he keeps mentioning how it's either his opinion or the voters', it just confuses me further. I'll be selfish and value my opinion above his, which, again, yields a Con vote. Also sources to Con for actually providing some insight into Light as well as data to support his argument.
No worries!
Sorry, I don't think I'm going to be able to get to your vote in time. If you want feedback, reach out to me via DM and I'll tell you what I think.
There was a decent live action trilogy. If memory serves, the first movie focused much on Light murdering police. The second wrapped things up in a much smarter way than the manga (L willingly sacrificed himself to win). The third was an extension of that ending, sharing nothing but themes with the original work.
There was also a terrible Netflix film, which might as well be called Emo Note.
Thanks for voting!
Thanks for voting.
I cant really get myself to watch anime.
If ever arguing this again, I suggest focusing on motives. Those people being saved was not the goal, being worshipped was. He was a religious terrorist.
Also, watching at least one episode would help a lot.
Sure, I've got no problem with that
I am okay with that.
Would you like the title and description changed to reflect the agreed upon resolution?
The current vote can be considered something to complain about. It reveals ideas about the debate as well.
You could write that you were verbose in the "vote" section. It's very established, not very constructive.
I prefer not to attack votes.
I dont see the point in debating if I am going to make myself debate voters as well.
Plus, my arguments in debate were kinda saying that voters can vote in any way they choose due to arbitrary standard, so whats there to complain about?
So your criticism is that I’m verbose? Good note. Very constructive.
The problem that I have got from "whiteflame's vote" is the yapathon you've created.
I have stated it.
If you’ve got a problem with my vote, then state it. I’m not interested in whatever this is.
For some reason, Savant has a jedi-supported forcefield around his votes.. the "council of debaters" have gathered around the pearl that Savant lies within.. his jedi-supported forcefield around his votes that he has always specified or almost always specified.. allows him to empower the "debate ratio force" up to maximum potential.. leaving Savant.. invincible.
Whiteflame appears to have professionally created a yapping documentary within the "votes" section.
If it were me on the Pro side here, I'd argue either deontology (not a big fan of it, but there are some workable arguments) or gone more along the lines of "absolute power corrupts," the latter of which is more in line with how the show goes. The kind of deification Light eventually takes on, both in the eyes of others and in his own eyes, is dangerous and could have gotten far worse if he hadn't been taken out. I think focusing on the long term implications of how this power would have molded society in the Death Note universe and how it would twist other Death Note users and their actions were strong directions to take, but they required reading into the material in some detail.
Thanks for voting!
Thank you for the vote.
If any of you wonder why I went with selfishness and arbitrary morality, its because none of the popular moral systems were working in my favor, except one.
Human rights system worked for my opponent, since most people agree that its justified to violate rights of criminals to protect innocents.
Justice system worked for my opponent.
Consequentialism, if focused on saving lives or reducing pain, both worked for my opponent.
The survival of the nation system also worked for my opponent.
There was just one moral system that is popular and that worked for me, but I didnt go for it.
I could have used the pacifist approach, and say that "all killings are wrong" or "we shouldnt kill anyone". So killing criminals too would be wrong.
However, that would force me to defend many uncomfortable positions, such as that it was wrong to fight against Hitler in WW2, that we shouldnt imprison criminals, that self defense is wrong, and many more.
So despite my choice in debate being strange, I dont see what other options could have worked for me.
Also, I did google about the anime. While I found many opinions that Light was evil, I found no explanation as to why his killings were evil. In fact, the only explanations I found were the ones justifying killings.
So yeah, maybe I should have focused more on violent anime causing violence in real life, but overall it was a good debate regardless.
The debate seems to me that Best.Korea is logically forcing Savant to ride his flaming "Circular logic" warding.
Point is that Best.Korea is making more logical sense than Savant in this debate.
5 days left! All votes are appreciated.
Bump
Should be good to do it. Just remind me in a week.
You are good I am going to accept in a moment. I just wanted to make sure I spend quality time with my wife on her day off. Good to take a break from a screen once in a while. I am about to accept!
Plz vote if you get the chance!
"with a time limit of at least two days"
Well, I can put any time limit you want. If its standard debate and not rated, time limit can be up to two weeks.
How do you want the character limit?
If you want you can start tomorrow with a time limit of at least two days. I am sorry I am late on this, I wanted to close out my last debate before this and your opponent for this debate accepted before me lol!
Do you want me to make the debate "The Bible is Stupid and wrong"?
Are you available to debate it right now or do we debate later?
Yes. I am Pro for any topic you choose.
Yes, I would debate that.
Nonetheless, I will give you the topic so you can start in the first round...
"THBT: On balance, the majority of Light Yagami's killings in Death Note were unjustified."
Best.Korea is PRO. I am CON.
I assume you are arguing as Pro and I am arguing as Con for whatever resolution I pick?
Would you debate the topic on “The Bible is Stupid and wrong”? I’ve seen you debate this a few times and would be interested in this challenge.