Death Note: Near's Defeat of Light Yagami Was A Fluke.

Welcome to the debate. I'd like to start up a few more Death Note debates, both series and philosophically related, in the future, as it's a series that I'm really passionate about. The first of these is a simple one, whether Near's eventual defeat of Light Yagami was a fluke or not. Standard rules apply.

Have fun.

I love Near!!!!

How dare you say that?

You can post your argument first.

I'd like to thank my opponent for accepting my debate, and without further ado, I'll proceed onto my argument.

Throughout the entire series, Light Yagami, Kira, has been a dominating force intellectually. He was able to outwit L, Near's predecessor, and most likely superior (although this can be disputed, but I won't go into that), and use his powers of Kira for the creation of a new world.

After his defeat of L, Near was given the task of solving the Kira case himself. Over a space of 4 years, he compiled evidence, all of which could be gathered due to L's groundwork. Without L's prior work, Near's lack of initiative (a self admitted flaw) Near would not, I believe, have been able to obtain nearly the amount of information that L had beforehand. While Watari did delete all the specific data, L's actions had led Near up to a point where he had a good idea of how Kira killed, and some of the details of his identity (after Light became L, which would've never happened had Near been the original L, it allowed Near to have strong contact with him, and gave him grounds for suspicion against Light Yagami when he found out that Soichiro Yagami had threatened to kill L's prime suspect and then himself, among other things that directly involved L).

But whether or not Near could have won without L's help isn't the point of this debate. Near's final victory, the one against Light, I do not believe was because Near 'outwitted' or 'beat' Kira. It was a simple mistake from Teru Mikami, who went against specific orders from Light not to act without his consent, and it was only through this that Near and his team were able to discern the possibility of a fake notebook. He didn't think of, as Light mentioned while ruminating about the current situation, whether or not the notebook might've been a fake, and didn't test it, as Light believed L would've done. While Near didn't hesitate when it came to legal grey areas, he didn't have the initiative to do such a thing, and needed a team around him.

My next argument is regarding Mello. Mikami wouldn't have even had the possibility to make the mistake that he did if Mello had not kidnapped Naomi Takada. Near, as he admits, has no control over Mello's actions, and the kidnapping came to him as much a surprise as it did to Light. With these circumstances, Mikami makes his error; he assumes that Light is in a position in which he cannot act, and thus goes to the bank, not checking thoroughly for tails, and brings out the real notebook to kill Takada. As Near says, 'an idiot could work it out from there'. If Mello had not acted, Near, not having the initiative to test for a fake notebook, would not have discovered that Mikami was hiding things, and indeed lost to Light.

So I believe that the blame can be shared about 50/50. 50% Mello's doing and 50% Teru Mikami's mistake. No mistake from Light Yagami, and no show of particular skill or brilliance by Near.

My opponent has forfeited this round, so I have no further comment, and for obvious reasons no rebuttal.

Once again, I have no further comment at this time, other than that I hope my opponent will post an argument.