There has been no greater fictional contrast of brothers morally than that of the Uchihas.

Firstly, let me point out the aim, at least in my view, of debating. It is pedagogical. That is, it focuses on education and edification. That is the primary aim of debating: educating the debaters and especially the audience. As such, if any argument is unclear, unsubstantiated, or in any way done in such a way to stop a certain demographic from understanding, whether it be from unclear language or restricting who can judge through jargon or reference to assumed knowledge, then that should be a point against the debater who is being unclear. In other words, debates should be open to all, so if they are not clear or the case isn't clearly substantiated, then that is the debaters, not the judge's fault. With that in mind, I shall construct my case. Firstly, I want to outline the plot, so I shall take a quick summary from another source: "This novel explores the big questions of life through the story of a highly dysfunctional "family": three sons basically neglected and abandoned by their father Fyodor. The oldest, Dmitry, is engaged to the beautiful Katerina Invanova yet irresistibly drawn to Grushenka, the same woman his wealthy lecherous buffoon of a father is lusting after. To make matters worse, Dmitry has given up rights to a future inheritance to finance his extravagances and now feels his father is cheating him. Perhaps the half brothers he is just getting to know can help resolve these problems. Ivan is a highly educated man who rejects the ideas of a creator God and an immortal soul. Alexey, the youngest, is a gentle spiritual man, apprenticed to the local monastery."[1] Now I shall concentrate mostly on the contrast between Dmitry and Ivan. Dimitry Ivan Christian Based Morals Evident by his mentioning of God around four thousand times, being a priest, and basically the entire plot. Atheist based moral system “it's the world created by Him I don't and cannot accept.” Again, Christian based morals when the best actions come from following God. “All is permissible” his moral system is nihilistic. “All is lawful”. “ I'm even pleased that I'm falling in such a humiliating position, and for me I find it beautiful. And so in that very shame I suddenly begin a hymn” Dmitry argues that humility is a great virtue. "Viper will eat viper, and it would serve them both right!" Dmitry when describing Ivan summarises his view in this quotation: strength is the true virtue, not humility or weakness. This is another direct contrast. Men are naturally able to become good. This is evident by his view that we should be merciful to criminals so they reform themselves, and so men are naturally able to be reformed and be good people. “I may find a human heart in another convict and murderer by my side, and I may make friends with him, for even there one may live and love and suffer. One may thaw and revive a frozen heart in that convict, one may wait upon him for years, and at last bring up from the dark depths a lofty soul, a feeling, suffering creature; one may bring forth an angel, create a hero! There are so many of them, hundreds of them, and we are to blame for them.” “People talk sometimes of a bestial cruelty, but that's a great injustice and insult to the beasts; a beast can never be so cruel as a man, so artistically cruel.” We are evil and cruel people by our very nature. “If they drive God from the earth, we shall shelter Him underground” He has faith in God, and thus faith in being moral by following Him. Not believing in God is wrong. “Listen! if everyone must suffer, in order to buy eternal harmony with their suffering, pray tell me what have children got to do with it? It's quite incomprehensible why they should have to suffer, and why they should buy harmony with their suffering.” He has a distaste and hatred for God as the least moral person for suffering. Moreover, happiness is the measure of goodness and suffering is the measure of bad. “The Legend pits two theories of parenthood against each other,” he writes, with Christ’s resurrection of the little girl as “a metaphor for the view that fathers must deliver children from the killing effects of parental oppression.” (Michael Holquist, Dostoevsky and the Novel) Dmitry supports Christ and supports the idea that Christ is for equality of the people and freedom rather than the oppressive Inquisitor Ivan suggests. “They will finally understand that freedom and earthly bread in plenty for everyone are inconceivable together, for never, never will they be able to share among themselves.” Ivan argues the Inquisitor (who says this line) is what morality does to people: it enslaves them to a totalitarian man who forces them to choose between freedom and survival. (All quotations are from the text The Brothers Karamazov unless stated from a different source) With that in mind, and I hope that is enough to make clear why Dimitry and Ivan have many more important and many more in sheer number moral differences. I also wish to point out how their moral differences are greatest as they have had the most impact. Freud named the novel among Hamlet and Oedipus Rex as the greatest masterpieces of literature that ever existed. It is constantly classed as the single best piece of literature ever created. It is famous worldover, and influenced Einstein, Wittgenstein, Heidegger... too many to mention.With that, I'll pass over to my opponent for rebuttals to my case. Thank you.