The surviving members of "Laughing Coffin" should've been put on trial upon awakening from SAO
Debate Rounds (4)
If a player was killed within the game, the VR device would emit deadly microwaves in the player's brain and kill the player in real life. Players within Sword Art Online (SAO for sake of shortness) were able to kill other players within the game, causing the VR device to kill their victim in real life.
Within SAO there was a Guild (that is, an alliance of players) known as "Laughing Coffin", which consisted entirely of players who would "PK" (Player-Kill) other players. As the information above would infer, their victims were killed in the "real world" by the VR's microwaves.
Upon awakening in the real world, a player named "Kirito" testified to Japanese authorities the events which had transpired inside SAO.
The resolution of this debate is thus:
Upon awakening in the real world, the former members of Laughing Coffin who survived SAO to its conclusion should've been put on trial in a criminal court.
This excludes those who were with the Laughing Coffin guild for the sole purpose of infiltrating it with intent to participate in opposing it.
And despite the fact that "Sword Art Online" is a work of fiction, for this debate both parties will assume that the actions described and portrayed in the franchise actually happened, so that this debate isn't automatically ended on the spot by Con saying "SAO isn't real so this whole debate is null".
First Round is for acceptance. Burden of Proof is on Pro.
I accept. BOP is, indeed, on Pro.
In Episode 1 of the Sword Art Online anime series, the creator of SAO, Kayaba Akihiko, announced that if a player died in the game, the NerveGear (the Virtual Reality console on which SAO was played) would fry their brains. He stated this in front of all the game's players. If a player was somehow not present to hear that announcement, he or she would've heard about it soon enough.
Thus, the members of Laughing Coffin and all "red" players were informed of the fact that a player's death in SAO would mean their deaths in real life. That is, they knew the consequences of the act of killing another player within SAO.
Also, later on in the series it is revealed that many of them at the time refused to believe that players who died in the game actually died in real life.
However, as Kayaba Akihiko was telling the truth about them being trapped in the game, it should've been reasonable to assume that he was also telling the truth about player deaths. Also, even if it were unclear whether or not he was telling the truth, the fact that they risked it anyway with nothing important to gain for their actions means they were guilty just the same.
Now, I shall begin
1. They were responsible for the real life deaths of their victims
The NerveGear's "microwave" function was such that it would not kill a player in real life unless one of these conditions was met:
1. The NerveGear console was disconnected from a power source for more than 10 minutes
2. The NerveGear console was "cut from the system for more than 2 hours (a concession which allowed for the players' real life bodies to be moved to hospitals)
3. The player in question was killed within the game
4. Somebody in the real world attempted to remove the NerveGear console from the head of a connected player
Thus, unless one of those conditions was to be met, by the nature of its programming the NerveGear could not kill a player.
Compare that to a gun. Accidental misfires aside, a gun cannot kill unless the "condition" of somebody aiming the gun at a target and pulling down on the trigger is met.
Regarding the condition of a player being killed in the game, another player was capable of making this condition come to pass, which would cause the NerveGear to kill the victim, resulting in the death of the said player.
If a person causes the "conditions" needed for a gun to kill someone to be met, with intent to kill, then such a person is charged with murder, even though it was technically the gun that killed.
So, why is a player killing another player in the game, which causes the NerveGear to kill them in real life, any different? These two actions should be considered in a similar light, and the punishment for either action should be the same.
2. They are dangerous to society
Kirito once said (and I paraphrase):
"What you do in this world determines what kind of person you are in real life".
Well, that sums up Shinkawa Shouichi, AKA "Death Gun".
He was one of the 10,000 players who got trapped inside Sword Art Online. Within the game he became a member of Laughing Coffin, and presumably he killed many players.
About one year after he awoke in the real world, he and his brother (who was not a SAO Survivor, but admired his brother for having been a killer), along with a third conspirator who had also been with Laughing Coffin, formulated a plot to kill the players of another video game, Gun Gale Online (GGO).
It is clear that Kouichi's choices within SAO determined what kind of person he would be in the real world. He killed people within SAO and thus he became twisted to the point where he was willing to kill people in real life. There's no telling whenever a Laughing Coffin member could "snap".
3. Deterrence for players in possible similar incidents in the future
In the aftermath of the SAO incident, it's likely that increased regulations were put upon VR consoles. The "Amusphere", which was the NerveGear's successor, did not have that same ability to try a player's brain.
However, it is still possible that in the future somebody may repeat what Kayaba Akihiko did. In the event of this happening, one of the best deterrents to Player Killers in that game is the assurance that if a player kills another player, resulting in that player's death in real life, whenever the murderer awakes in real life he will be sent to prison for murder.
I hope that I have provided a decent case. I await my opponent's response and I wish him good luck.
Thanks to pro for accepting. Since BOP is on him I'll be spending most of my time attacking his arguments and poking holes in them, but I'll also present arguments of my own.
"Do you think it is possible to stop a player's heart with a bullet fired from within a video game?"
Because the answer, as found in season two of SAO, for this was no, I negate.
Before I start, a note about the debate at hand. Since we're assuming the events of Sword Art Online (abbreviated as SAO) happened within real life, the trial would be taking place in Japan, since this is where SAO took place. This means that we need to look at Japanese law over American law. Any argument about legal structure, laws, or legal procedures that isn't specific to Japan isn't relevant to the situation at hand.
Let's start with his first argument: The Laughing Coffin (abbreviated as LC) members were responsible for the deaths.
1. This is blatantly not true. The problem with his argument is that he assumes that it's the fulfilling of the conditions that places the guilt of the death. The problem with this assumption is that, were those conditions not exist, it doesn't matter how many players LC kills: they wouldn't die. Thus, the person who created the conditions for which players can die is ultimately responsible. Ironically, that person wasn't a LC member. Who'd have thought.
This is also why his gun analogy fails. A gun can only kill someone if, yes, someone points the gun at someone and pulls the trigger, but you also need the bullets to actually be shot out of the gun. If I provide a gun to my three year old child, it doesn't matter what happens to that gun--it won't go off. If I provide the bullets for the gun and load the gun, then I would be establishing all the conditions necessary for my child to shoot itself. Therefore, were the conditions for forced death on player death not in place, it wouldn't matter how many of the people LC killed: they wouldn't die.
2. Even if his argument is true here, it doesn't actually mean that the LC is responsible for their IRL deaths. We don't arrest people who've killed other people in a game of Call of Duty. The same principle applies.
3. Even if we did arrest people for something like this, trying them is impossible. Kirito's testiment wouldn't actually be sufficient evidence to show guilt: it would be Kirito saying "He did it" and the LC member saying "No I didn't". Furthermore, even if the LC member were to plead guilty, Japanese prosecutors are still required to submit evidence of guilt(1), evidence which just wouldn't exist since the death happened in a place where no evidence can be gathered (i.e. in SAO). Moreover, don't buy that Kirito's testimony is actual evidence, because the amount of studies that show how unreliable eye-witness testimony is is absolutely staggering(2)(3)(4).
Now onto his second argument: That the LC are a danger to society.
1. His cherry-picking examples are flawed. He picks out a single member of the reported thirty or so members(5) of the LC to show that all thirty of them are unstable and prone to just snapping when in reality. His generlisation fails in this scenario.
2. Turn this argument against him. His own words show that "[Kouichi] killed people within SAO and thus he became twisted to the point where he was willing to kill people in real life." This means that, if killing makes them have the potential to snap, we would be trying literally every main protagonist since they participated in the raid on the LC which resulted in the deaths of both Crusaders and LC members(5). This is even more true for Kirito, who almost kills Sugou at the end of the ALO story arc(6). If his measure punishes good guys, it's clearly flawed.
Now onto his third argument: Deterrence
1. There's literally zero warrant for why this would deter people from killing players in game.
2. This wouldn't deter anyone. Criminals don't think they'll ever be caught if they commit a crime, otherwise they wouldn't do the crime(7). Other criminals weigh the risks and decide they can probably get away with it, which again shows that deterrence doesn't really work for criminals.
3. The internal logic behind this argument contradicts his first argument. Why do we need to deter criminals from killing players in games again? Because someone might make a game where people can die playing it again. This places the responsibilities for the deaths on the creator, rather than the players who are killing in the game.
With his arguments refuted, I will present my own counter-arguments.
Argument One: Impracticality/Infeasability:
There's multiple levels in which trying criminal video game players for a crime they commit in game isn't feasable.
First, refer back to the japanese law argument that I made where, even if the criminal pleas guilty, they still have to provide evidence showing guilt. Such evidence doesn't exist within the real world and such evidence would be impossible to retrieve from within the game. It would be impossible to actually try the LC members since there wouldn't be any evidence to try them with.
Secondly, refer back to the argument I made that shows the number of innocent players that would be caught up in the net of Pro's plan simply because they were forced to kill in self-defense. We'd be doing more harm than good.
Third, there's zero brightline for how we would even try something like this. Murder? Manslaughter? There's no explanation given by Pro as to how this would actually go down, and without it it's dubious whether or not such a measure would even work.
Argument Two: An Alternative:
The argument here is simple: let's not try the members of the LC, but rather rehabilitate them. They were forced to stay within a virtual reality for years and some pretty awful things happened over the course of those years. Instead of punishing them for being some of the unfortunate people to be caught up in such a whirlwind and degeneration of events, we should be focusing our efforts on reforming them into normal members of society. Not only can teenagers be rehabilitated(8) (which is the primary age group within the game), but rehabilitation has been shown to work wonders for reducing recidivism rates and saving money on prison costs overall(9) (if you're arresting less people, that's less money you have to pay to maintain the prisons). It's simply the better option.
(1) - http://en.wikipedia.org...
(2) - http://www.scientificamerican.com...
(3) - http://www.simplypsychology.org...
(4) - http://people.howstuffworks.com...
(5) - http://swordartonline.wikia.com...
(6) - http://swordartonline.wikia.com...;
(7) - https://books.google.com...'t%20think%20they'll%20be%20caught%20if%20they%20commit%20a%20crime&f=false
(8) - http://www.thedailybeast.com...
(9) - http://www.nytimes.com...;
The capacity to have a player killed in real life was set up by Kayaba Akihiko. I admit to this; it was never any secret. Without his device in place, fulfilling those conditions would not result in anyone's death. I acknowledge his part in the deaths. Indeed, he has the greatest responsibility for the player deaths, and without him none of it would've happened.
I don't know what the part involving the young child is about; the members of Laughing Coffin were fully aware of what they were doing. Let's make it a more realistic scenario:
A man (representing the LC member) wants to shoot up a school (the other players who are not with LC). However, he is not able to do so because the law won't allow him to possess a gun (the real world law deters him from killing in real bad). However, a man (Akihiko Kayaba) gives him a gun and locks the doors to the school with the psychopath inside (traps the players inside the game, gives the Psychopath the means to kill another player by setting up conditions that will result in the player deaths if he follows them, outside of the law's watchful eye).
Kayaba set up the conditions, and the scenario for the killing to happen. However, the deaths happened solely because of the LC players made the choice to cause those conditions to follow.
If we are to follow my opponent's logic, throwing somebody off a cliff to their doom should not be illegal because it was gravity that directly killed them and the pusher simply made the conditions for gravity to kill the victim come to pass.
This line of reasoning is absurd, to be frank.
By no means is Kirito the only witness. Several THOUSAND players survived SAO. At least 2 of them would be able to testify that the person in question was with LC, seeing as within the game wanted posters were put out to identify LC players. The Japanese Government has been implied to already know who all the Laughing Coffin veterans were.
This is irrelevant, overall.
I concede defeat in the category of deterrence. This portion of the debate alone.
I have already shown that evidence is not a problem. They were with LC, and thus they likely killed someone (otherwise, would LC let them join?) Besides, if you're fighting for ISIS, even if you haven't killed anyone, just being a member of ISIS makes you guilty. Hundreds of former players could confirm someone was with Laughing Coffin; what more evidence is needed?
Oh, and earlier on in the debate, my opponent pointed out that Kirito and other "good guys" killed people within SAO. Seeing as they were basically playing the role of executioner (when done under the law it is not paramount to murder), and also a defender (they came simply to arrest the Laughing Coffin members whenever they attacked; by this point Kirito's actions were in self-defense), I don't see what the issue would be. Kirito was simply trying to arrest murderers, and perhaps under the "law" of SAO he'd execute them for their crimes, but what he did was nowhere near morally equivalent to the actions of the Laughing Coffin members.
However, even if I were to concede that Kirito and the other protagonists were murderers, it would change little, as this debate is about Laughing Coffin.
We could debate whether or not the law should seek rehabilitation or justice for murderers, but even if I shared your stance on this, it would make no difference.
What is a trial? Well, a trial is whenever a court examines the case of the alleged crime of an individual and, if the individual is found to be guilty, decides on what is to be done about it.
If somebody was arrested for drunk driving and the judge sentences/court orders them to rehab, it's still a trial. In fact, without such a trial, the law cannot force them to undergo rehabilitation.
Let me be clear: the title of this debate is NOT "The former members of Laughing Coffin should be put on trial and sent to prison". In fact, because of this, if there was no proof that somebody was with LC, he would be cleared of all charges during the trial (key word being trial), so that still would provide no problem for Pro.
My opponent has accepted a position which is nearly impossible to defend, and as a result the arguments that he has been able to develop have no solid foundation. I have just destroyed the foundation of nearly his entire case, and here's to hoping that he can recover his case during the next round. I await his response.
My opponent's responses are just insufficient to warrant back for the arguments I'm presenting against him. Let's go down the flow:
Argument One: Responsibility
First, extend out the second response I make that killing in the real world isn't equivalent to killing in real life. We don't arrest people for PKing other people in World of Warcraft or for going on a killing spree in Call of Duty. Just because someone died in a technical mishap while playing a game doesn't mean that the two acts are equivalent. He's 100% dropped this argument, so hold it against him. Don't let him respond to it in the last round since it'd be a) a new response which is unfair for me to have to deal with and b) he had the chance to respond to it in his last round and chose not to, so hold the drop against him.
Second, my opponent is confusing what actually killed the players in SAO. None of the players autopsy reports showed being stabbed by a sword or falling off a cliff or dying to packs of monsters as their cause of death. They all died from damage to the brain associated with an electromagentic pulse from the Amusphere on their heads. This places the responsibility of the deaths on one of two parties: Angus, the company that designed the Amusphere, or Akihiko Kayaba, the man who designed the game to interact with the Amusphere's in such a manner. And given that the company never intended for the devices to be used lethally, they can't really be held criminally responsible. That leaves the responsibility, and thus the only thing the courts are going to look at, on the hands of Akihiko Kayaba, not the LC members. /debate
Third, extend out my argument about how trying them is actually impossible to do in Japan. He tries to respond back to this by saying we can assume that the US and Japan share similar legal systems, but I've already showed a specific difference that cripples the ability to even try LC members. Extend out the wikipedia argument I show that says that even if the LC members were to confess, in Japan prosecuters still have to submit evidence showing guilt before the suspect can even be tried. This is absolutely damning to my opponent because the only possible evidence he could provide would be a) heresay ("He says I'm LC, I say I'm not.") and b) entirely unreliable. Refer back to the argument that I make about how eye-witness testimony is highly unreliable, meaning that it won't hold up in a court of law.
This argument is the first place you're negating the resolution. I'm showing you that not only are the LC members not responsible because killing in a video game =/= killing in real life, not only am I showing you that the actual person resposible for the deaths is the creator of SAO, not the players in the game, but that even if we were going to hold them responsible, it would be impossible to try them because the evidence required to try them simply wouldn't exist. He's doing an insufficient job of responding to the arguments I'm making here, so hold this against him. Don't let him respond to any of the things he's dropped here because it's unfair to me and he had the opportunity to do so and didn't.
Argument Two: Danger to Society
Extend out the turn I make here about how if killing was what made the LC members a danger to society, then we'd also be forced to try and arrest literally every single major protagonist in the show because, at one point or another, literally all of them have killed someone. Prefer my interpretation since I'm quoting the literal text of what he said ("It is clear that Kouichi's choices within SAO determined what kind of person he would be in the real world. He killed people within SAO and thus he became twisted to the point where he was willing to kill people in real life.") to show that it's the killing that's making people twisted. This would mean that every single protagonist would also be a danger to society. By his logic the LC members can simply testify against them, since he values witness testimony so highly, so they would be convincted. This puts my opponent in a double bind: either witness testimony is important and we imprison every single protagonist in SAO, which causes the resolution to create more harm than it solves by imprisoning innocents, or that witness testimony isn't as important, and then it's impossible to take the LC members to trial, which negates the resolution. Eithe way, he loses off of this argument.
Argument Three: Deterrence
Don't let him just kick this argument. Extend the third point I made about deterrence about how the internal logic of this argument implies that the members of the LC actually aren't guilty, but rather the creator of the game is guilty. There's no reason to deter people from making another death game unless we're holding the people who create the death game responsible. He doesn't respond to this and it's an internal link turn to his first argument, which is the crux of his entire case. This dropped turn is reason enough to drop him and vote con. Don't let him try to fix this game-over mistake in the last round.
Counter-Argument Two: Rehabilitation
Extend this out as an alternative to a trial. Instead of trying them in a criminal court, we bypass the entire court procedure and have all members of SAO who are orange or red (meaning that they've commited a crime and/or killed a player in the game) enter rehabilitation to reform them into a productive member of society. They've all been through a multi-year traumatic experience that none of them signed up for, and as such we shouldn't be punshing them for something they never fully signed up for in the first place. We should be trying to help them and reshape them so that they can return to normal life as quickly as possible. This solves for the potential harms of LC members "snapping" and becoming psychotic killers. His only response is that we need to have a trial in order to send them to rehab, but this doesn't make sense. People sign up for rehab on their own all the time outside of a trial, so clearly a trial isn't necessary. Skip the trial and go straight to the rehab, which will work in making them better.
My opponent's cockiness is misplaced: the arguments I'm making are clearly showing why we shouldn't have a trial, how having a trial wouldn't even work, and that there are better things we can be doing for the former players of SAO than to try them. He's making far too many drops throughout the debate to have any hope of sufficiently responding back to the warrants I'm showing. Hold these drops against him because they're critical to his failure on the debate. Dont let him make any new responses to the arguments and refutations I've made or come back to any of the dropped arguments he dropped because a) he had the chance in his last round to respond to them and didn't do so, which means it's entirely his fault that he dropped them, and b) it's unfair for me to have to hold to not making new arguments in the last round while he's free to make all new kinds of responses and arguments in the final round and if I don't respond to them I lose. These drops are the reason he's going to lose.
Before I continue, there's another matter which I would like to briefly clarify on.
Nowhere in this debate was it stated by the instigator or by the acceptor and agreed upon by the instigator that neither side may post new arguments in the last round. However, common courtesies must be considered here.
There is no valid reason why I cannot post new content in the last round. No matter what I post here, Con is ultimately the one who will post last, giving him the opportunity to rebut anything I say here.
Whatmore, he seems to be using this to try to prevent me from saying anything in the last round. This is absurd, and I shall absolutely post as I otherwise would've had Con not spoken up. I shall not introduce entirely new contentions, but I will defend the Pro position on the contentions already being argued over, as well as respond to the arguments of my opponent.
This is not a conduct violation by Pro and it should not be treated as such by potential voters.
Now, I shall finish contending for my side of this debate.
Contention 1. Responsibility
My opponent keeps bringing up the gameplay of conventional video games, as if the situation of SAO was equivalent to this. Let me be clear: Sword Art Online was called the "death game" for a good reason. Players died playing the game, and that is how the game was designed. It should be considered differently from normal video games; the fact that SAO was technically a video game does not mean that killing in SAO is comparable to killing in other video games. A normal video game does not kill people in real life, so it's not even relevant here.
My opponent's reference to "technical mishaps" is meaningless. A "technical mishap" implies an accident. The deaths were not accidental. Also, if in a normal video game someone knew that his actions would result in a "technical mishap" but he did said action(s) anyway he would be implicated in the death, even if it was the result of a glitch within the game.
It is not the wording of the law that really matter, but rather the spirit of the law. That is why hiring a hitman to kill someone is still considered murder, a point that I have made with countless (okay, more like 2 or 3) examples.
Also, my opponent keeps trying to shift the guilt towards Kayaba Akihiko and not the Laughing Coffin members; why shouldn't Kayaba AND the Laughing Coffin members collectively be held responsible for the PK deaths perpetrated by Laughing Coffin?
"What killed the players" is irrelevant. The programming is only that: a program. It cannot kill unless something or somebody within or outside of the game acts in certain ways. By Con's logic, Kayaba Akihiko did not kill them; he only made the device and programmed it to kill. In the case of PK deaths its act of killing players was due to the device and the game being "misused" by PKers such as the members of Laughing Coffin. Again, we must abide by the spirit of the law rather than its specific wording, as no lawmaker could've written down rules for every specific situation that would arise.
(P.S. This has no bearing on the debate, but it was the NerveGear, not the Amusphere; the latter wasn't developed until after the death game started.)
My opponent then brings up the Japanese legal system, and how there must be certainty of the evidence beyond reasonable doubt that certain players were members of Laughing Coffin.
Con's interpretation of this law is probably off; if witnesses alone are not good evidence, then countless criminals would've gotten away with crimes that they didn't get away with, as any criminal wearing gloves and not leaving behind hair or blood could break into a home on a street without security cameras in broad daylight and rob somebody; they'd never be convicted according to my opponent's interpretation of Japanese law, as even 39 witnesses would not be good enough.
In the case of Laughing Coffin, there would probably be many witnesses to their crimes.
Besides this, it's probable that the outside world had some way of seeing what went on inside SAO; for instance, in Gun Gale Online, another VMMORPG, there was a "live feed" during the "Bullet of Bullets" tournament. This is merely speculation, but it's reasonable to assume that such a live feed existed inside Sword Art Online.
People (usually; those who weren't known must've not yet killed anyone otherwise they'd be easily identifiable as Red Players) knew who was and wasn't with Laughing Coffin.
Contention 2. Danger to Society
My opponent has failed to respond to what I've said concerning this. Extend arguments.
An individual who killed in self-defense or out of necessity, in contrast to a murderer, is more likely to become traumatized rather than "twisted".
Besides, like I've said, whether or not the protagonists are guilty or dangerous to society doesn't change anything here.
Contention 3. Deterrence
I have forfeited to Con on this point because this argument was faulty. It ultimately was not vital to my argument, and dropping this is just a minor defeat for me. Were there no deterrent value to the trials whatsoever, this wouldn't affect the validity of everything else I've said here.
As I have stated, a trial is the determining of an individual's guilt and, if found guilty, what should be done to them, be it punishment or rehabilitation.
The courts cannot put somebody in rehab unless there is a good reason. Con has suggested that every Sword Art Online survivor be rehabilitated. In the sense that their bodies were re-trained after 2 years of inactivity and minors were sent back to school to catch up on missed school, this did indeed happen. However, the rehabilitation in question is a psychological rehab, to handle the changes in personality caused by being forced to live for 2 years straight inside SAO, with one's life often being in real danger.
Not every SAO Survivor required this. Asuna, for instance, didn't seem to be traumatized in any way by living in SAO. Neither did Klein, the black bartender guy, Silica, "Liz", or others. Even Kirito, who was very much so affected by SAO, did not need rehabilitation. It'd be pointless to make them all go throw rehabilitation like that. Thus, each case should be examined on an individual basis...In a trial setting.
HOWEVER, let's look back upon what I said in the previous round:
"We could debate whether or not the law should seek rehabilitation or justice for murderers". I felt that I could make a decent case even if I opted towards the rehabilitation route, but I could just as easily take the justice route. I have already shown that the former members of Laughing Coffin are guilty of murder, and if justice is to be seeked they should stand trial for their crimes.
The prosecutor has made his case; after the defendant makes his case the trial's outcome will be decided by the jury. Back to you, Con.
My opponent chooses the final round to respond to the drops arguments. Regardless of whether or not it's "specified in the R1 rules", extend out the reasons I provide multiple times throughout my last round as for why he shouldn't be allowed to do that. This means that you're cleanly extending across the following points:
All of these in and of themselves are reasons to negate the resolution we have in front of us today. He never responds to these points, or his responses are just insufficient to actually address the point I'm making. This is literally the farthest down you have to read, but if you want to see me respond to his final round points anyway, just keep reading.
His distinctions he's trying to draw between SAO and normal video games are entirely arbitrary. People call Dark Souls a death game because everyone dies in it a ton, but we don't arrest people who play that. The only possible distinction that could be drawn from the two is that it's the NerveGear killing people who died in game, which places responsibility on the NerveGear and, thus, Kayaba, not LC members. This is something he makes no attempt to refute until further down, which I'll get to in a second.
His attempt to place blame onto multiple parties is pointless and silly. It's like saying if I drive drunk and slam into a schoolbus full of children, then we blame the schoolbus manufacturors for not making a sturdy enough bus, along with me. It's just nonsensical. The blame for the deaths is on the NerveGear for killing the people, and the game was solely and specifically designed to interact with it in such a way as death became a possibility, placing sole and entire blame on Akihiko Kayaba.
And on his misuse argument, this doesn't actually make sense. The only distinction between SAO and not only other video games, but other games in the show (ALO, GGO), is that if you die the NerveGear kills you. Otherwise PKing is totally acceptable, so we can't look to PKing being the causal factor. Without the NerveGear being made the way it was and without the game being designed to interact with it in the way that it did, no one would've died playing SAO. This makes Kayaba solely responsible.
Not to mention that literally everything I just responded to is an entirely new argument, so you aren't weighing it to begin with.
Danger to Society:
His claim that I didn't respond to the self-defense distinction is just blatanlty wrong. Extend the analysis I give that his own argument gives credence to the fact that killing took place, not the circumstances of the killing, which makes his self-defense distinction non-sensical. Read his own argument where it says "He killed people within SAO and thus he became twisted to the point where he was willing to kill people in real life." which doesn't take circumstances into account. Pro's logic is that if you killed someone in the game, you're a risk to society, which includes literally every protagonist. Then extend out how jailing the heroes of SAO would only cause more harm than good, which isn't something my opponent responded to at all. If trying to try LC members means you have to try good guys and imprison them, the wrongful punishment would outweigh the good you're trying to do, which means we shouldn't try the LC members.
As such, this round is really simple:
- He's dropped way too many of my points for him to have any kind of offense going for him in the round.
- His only attempt to salvage the debate comes in the last round and he didn't respond to my arguments as to why he shouldn't be able to do this.
- I responded to his new arguments anyway, so I'm still winning on that front as well.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: There's not too much to cover here. If Pro is at all successful, then that leads to justice (albeit I don't really get impacts for justice) and prevention of future possible harms. Con, however, shows me that any trials will have to include heroes from the series since they couldn't delineate based solely on guild, that there would necessarily be some confusion as to who is actually guilty, and that it's better just put them through rehabilitation. I find the confusion aspect is really what makes me uncertain about anyone getting tried and put away, but if anyone is, it's certain that the heroes of the series will also be tried and, likely, found guilty under the same criteria. Con tells me that's worse, Pro doesn't respond. As long as I believe that to be the case, the justice argument falls away, and any benefit to locking them up becomes secondary to the damage being done to innocent players. Therefore, I vote Con.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Vy vill vote von vis vater!
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.