During or after this debate concludes, my opponent ought to read the "Liar Game" manga

Yet, I can say without a doubt that currently Liar Game has failed to interest me in the least. This is because my opponent has failed to remember his original spearhead point: Liar Game was supposed to appeal to me as an intellectual. Having explained that only philosophy that is on the forefront of intellectual thought or new to me is appealing, Liar Game isn't even close to intellectually appealing for me. My opponent makes a good effort in his case to convince me to read Liar Game, but he makes a few important errors: ==================== Cross Examination ==================== 1). Ah, but you see, I specifically stated in my response that I only like anti-hero's of the sort that KILL :). If you've read every single chapter of Berserk to date, then you would know that Guts (the protagonist) does a whole lot of killing - not being a con artist. Kyo, the protagonist of Samurai Deeper Kyo, actually has a carnal pleasure when he kills, even though he is a "good guy". It is these types of characters who appeal to me; their twisted methods of killing their enemies and striking fear into those who have yet to die is great to watch. However, do notice that this does NOT intellectually appeal to me, as it has nothing to do with philosophy. And since my opponent specifically stated that Liar Game would be intellectually pleasing to me, then this point becomes useless for him. 2). No further discussion needed. 3). Dropped by my opponent since it's not needed. 4). Let's for the sake of argument assume my opponent is correct in representing Akiyama's philosophy. Even then, this claim boils down to being absolutely trivial in respect to common sense. Of course we should doubt everyone to a certain degree, forming relationships is much like forming beliefs. When people believe something, it's mostly because they believe it's likely to be true - even though there's a slim chance it's not. Likewise, even though everyone has different degrees of trust in different types of relationships, there's is or SHOULD be some form of doubt - simply because no one's personality is ABSOLUTELY rigid and predictable. There is always the chance someone will go crazy, or has been putting up a facade the entire time, no matter how improbable. This kind of trivial truth is of no intellectual appeal to me; it's stating the obvious. 5). This series, though woven with some intellectual ideas, has no philosophical ideas that are original or intriguing, and thus no intellectual appeal. Remember, to intellectually appeal to me it must either be original or foreign (in the sense that I have yet to know about it) philosophy, or a new argument/case for some philosophical school (new arguments for God, new arguments for functionalism, etc. ). For example, I am currently reading a lot of metaphysics, and to be exact the debate between actualism and possibilism. I have until recently never known about these ideas, and it's absolutely intriguing. On the other hand, the thesis that there should be a certain degree of doubt in every relationship is painstakingly common sense, and boring. ===================== Questions concerning elements of "Liar Game" ===================== 1). My opponent her has dug his own hole. He admits that "the purpose of this manga is not the same as a peer reviewed article or even a philosophy book. Rather, the purpose is mostly to entertain the readers. " I ABSOLUTELY AGREE. This is why Liar Game will not intellectually appeal to me! Your entire case crumbles on this concession. You see, I agree with you that Liar Game can serve as a different means of intellectual appeal. Unfortunately for you, my personal preferences when it comes to intellectual appeal is sealed mainly in philosophy, which Liar Game fails to satisfy. 2). Sure, let's assume your reading of Akiyama's philosophy is correct. In fact, since you are much more knowledgeable about his character, I'd say you are right. However, this serves nothing than to affirm the triviality of his claim. Furthermore, this is practically out of the bounds of philosophy but rather sociology - Akiyama is telling us how to interact with people, in what one can say is the wisest way (to doubt them). 3). My opponent mistakes something being intellectually BENEFICIAL and something being intellectually APPEALING. Since my opponent is arguing for the latter, learning things that I am not interested in (I've declared my major, I know what I like intellectually) is not a way of appealing to me. ". .. he shall have a good time refreshing himself while being entertained by the plot and characters. " ----> This is irrelevant to the point of being intellectually appealing. Now, if you'd argued that Liar Game would appeal to me via it's plot and characters, then maybe we'd have a different conclusion in this debate. 4). Berserk is definitely not philosophically appealing, and I definitely don't read it for intellectual appeal. I do it mainly because I like watching violence, something most people can echo along. This is no problem for me because in this debate, you specifically stated that you are trying to convince me to read Liar Game for intellectual reasons, not because it's violent or what not. ===================== Conclusion ===================== This is the main reason why I shouldn't read Liar Game: it's not intellectually pleasing, and since my opponent has yet to find another element of it that would possibly appeal to me, I shouldn't read it.