Saito is a better role model than Kenshin.

1. My first contention was, "Kenshin's determination to never kill places his friends, including Kaoru, at unnecessary risk. It puts the future of the country at unnecessary risk." Con misstated my contention as "SAITO HAS NO PROBLEMS WITH KILLING HIS ENEMIES." I did not assert or imply what Con supposes, and moreover it is untrue that Saito has "no problems" killing people. Saito is completely devoted to justice and never killed anyone unjustly. Kenshin's evil enemies all end up dead. They arrive at their death by various means including suicide. In the case of the most evil Shishio, Shishio conveniently explodes at exactly the right time. The death of the bad guys protects his friends and country from further harm, which clearly would have resulted had they all not committed suicide or exploded on cue. Using Kenshin as the role model, the message would be "you can count on evil dudes to explode all by themselves, so it is safe not to finish them off." Such a strategy poses the enormous risk that the bad guys won't do themselves in. Con disapproves of my phrase, "what needs to be done." Con further argues, "Whereas Saito doesn't have mental fortitude to prevent himself from killing even the evilest of opponents, Kenshin in fact does. Saito is simply taking the easy way out every time he kills." That might be a good argument if there were borderline evil-doers who Saito unjustly dispatched. That was not the case. It being an anime, the bad guys who are dispatched, either by Saito or by Kenshin's lucky explosions, are not borderline cases of naughty behavior. They are full-blown homicidal maniacs. Does Con believe that Shishio did not need to be killed? Might Shishio have been rehabilitated by proper counseling? Shishio had super powers that would have allowed to him to always escape prison, so he had to be killed. In other cases there were lives in immediate jeopardy that fully justified the use of deadly force. Con argues, "The ideals which Kenshin uphold are better for the world than Saito's as they are they don't continue or promote the cycle of hatred which is promoted through Saito's ideals." The assertion that Saito's ideals promote hatred is false, and Con provided no evidence of Saito either hating anyone or promoting hatred. Saito had the consistent attitude of working for justice and never acted otherwise. 2. Con points out that in the manga (graphic novel), Kenshin eventually marries Kaoru. (In the manga, Kenshin also dies at age 39 of tuberculosis.) The last episode of the anime implies a continuing relationship with Kaoru, but not marriage. This debate is about the anime, not the manga. Plot lines are frequently altered when an anime is made from a manga. In any case, my argument is "Kenshin is forever vacillating, unable to commit to his love for Kaoru, way past the point where he ought to." The anime makes in clear that Kenshin's degree of commitment to Kaoru is not keeping up with his true feelings. Kenshin might have committed to his love relationship short of marriage by expressing his feelings, but he did not do that. Kenshin's is not a good role model compared to Saito's model of commitment by marriage. My recollection of the anime time line is that the story unfolds over about two and a half years, so it's not as if he and Kaoru were just going to the movies on Saturday nights. They went through continual life-or-death struggles together. Intense situations should produce strong bonds quickly. Kenshin was a poor role model in his vacillation. That's true even if there were some other reasons, perhaps tradition, that postponed marriage. Kenshin was psychologically damaged by a previous tragic marriage. That makes him an interesting character, but not a good role model. 3. Con argues that Saito did not originate the idea of recruiting Kenshin to defeat Shishio. If true, that's irrelevant to my point, which is that Saito developed the strategy for recruiting Kenshin and, moreover, for getting Kenshin to further develop the skills Kenshin needed to accomplish the defeat. Saito goaded Sanosuke by claiming that Sanosuke was weak and incompetent, and that if Sanosuke were to attempt to help in defeating Shishio. However, the story reveals that Saito's true motive was to get Sanosuke to promptly prepare himself. Saito read Sanosuke's character correctly, knowing that the goading would inspire Sanosuke to greater achievement, rather than give up. Before, Sanosuke left for Kyoto he fights Saito to show he is skilled enough to be helpful. Saito allows it to be a fist fight, which is Sanosuke's greatest strength. Saito beats Sanosuke badly, but it's revealed that Saito did not attack Sanosuke's previously injured right shoulder. Attacking that shoulder would have not only ended the fight quickly, but would have probably taken Sanosuke out of the picture completely with respect to fighting Shishio. Saito agrees to let Sanosuke go to Kyoto, albeit in a grudging way that provokes Sanosuke to continue on the path of improving his skills. Subsequently, Sanosuke sets out for Kyoto, knocking down trees with single fist blows and repeating to himself that he must get stronger. (This is anime, so knocking down trees with a fist blow doesn't necessary put you in the class to combat real villains.) On the way to Kyoto, Sanosuke meets Anji and is motivated to enter into the life-endangering training that puts him in the shape needed to aid in fighting Shishio. Saito fights Kenshin to a draw early-on, when Saito is recruiting him, so it's not clear who is the better swordsman. Moreover, my point was about strategy, not tactics. Whether Kenshin was the better swordsman or not, Saito had the strategy for getting him to fight for the just cause. That's a good role model regardless. Kenshin's defeat of Shishio was the culmination of a group effort in which Shishio was kept fighting for so long that he exploded. Kenshin didn't plan that, it happened fortuitously like all of the other self-immolations that preserved Kenshin's ideals. Saito didn't know exactly how Shishio defeated, but he did know it would take both he and Kenshin and everything else that could be mustered, and Saito engineered that to happen. Kenshin was a loner without a plan. Con says, "[Saito] even tells Shishio that it doesn't matter if he dies after his battle; killing Shishio is all that is important. Now considering the fact that Saito has a wife at home whom my opponent claims he is committed to, it is most peculiar that'd he say that." There is not the slightest evidence that Kenshin was concerned about sacrificing his life to save the world from evil. He left Kaoru just as Saito left his wife, both risking their lives. The difference was not concern over their lives, but rather with Shishio's life. Kenshin was willing to risk plunging the world into evil in order to preserve a personal vow not to kill. Kenshin's concern put his loved ones at risk for the sake of his personal vow. In anime, the main evil villain is often shown to have some redeeming characteristic. In the Kenshin series, Shishio's redeeming characteristic is unswerving devotion to a cause. The literary purpose of comparing Saito to Shishio is to elevate Shishio, not to diminish Saito. The comparison also highlights the fallacy of moral equivalence. Unswerving devotion to cause is in fact an admirable characteristic by itself, but it is subordinate to whether the cause is good or bad. It depends upon how it is used. If the message is in doubt, Shishio is shown in hell, setting out with determination to reorganize the place for his own purpose. The hint is that in the context of hell, Shishio's determination might make an improvement. In stark life-or-death confrontations, the best role model is to avoid unnecessary risk, commit to the cause, and depend upon a strategy, not just tactics. Above all, don't assume your opponent will explode when necessary.