I challenge L-M, choose your poison.

IN RESPONSE TO CON's OBSERVATIONS: RE: "ought implies some kind of an obligation to read this manga. This means my opponent has to prove why this option is THE option i should take upon conclusion of this round." Not so fast. Ladies and gentleman, my opponent is attempting to pull a fast one through making use of the term "upon." However, I would ask that you not be deceived by his cheap parlor tricks. I had foreseen "time" being an issue in advance hence why the resolution only concerns the time AFTER the debate concludes (my opponent's wording would only be reasonable if I were to have said "WHEN THIS DEBATE CONCLUDES or something similar). In other words, my opponent could very well read the Liar Game manga when (or if) he retires or any other time at which he has free time at his disposal. RE:"PRO has the burden not just to prove that reading the manga is good but there is some reason that i must read the manga in a desired world." Going strictly by the resolution, it simply states "my opponent ought to read all available English translated issues of the "Liar Game" manga." I'm not necessarily obligated to prove it is good. My only burden is to prove that you (my opponent) ought to read it (which I've done so on the basis that you are an intellectual and that it appeals to your intellectual interests). IN RESPONSE TO CON's CASE RE: "if I ought to walk the dog, then not walking the dog would be morally reprehensable (or at least criticizable). Thus if it is not ciriticizable for me to refuse to read all copies of "Liar's Game," then i would win the round." #1. Just because it implies that you must take an action, it does not mean that not taking action would be criticizable. Let us refer to the definition of "ought" provided by the highly credible oxford dictionary: http://dictionary.reference.com... "3. used to indicate a desirable or expected state." An example of this would be the following: "You ought to have been there; it was great fun." Now by this definition, do we really see any hint of criticism or implication that the individual who wasn't was being morally reprehensible? Of course not as choosing not to have a good time alone is not something which our society would display critical behavior towards. The case is the same here with me claiming that my opponent OUGHT to read the Liar Game manga. I am saying that he will benefit from it, but I am not saying that not reading is criticizable. #2. To pacify my opponent and hypothetically agree with him . . . We must keep in mind that things which are criticizable are merely things which one can find fault with. The key factor here is fault. Fault varies on quantity; there can be a large amount of fault just as there can be an insignificant amount of fault. In this case, I could find fault with my opponent for not taking the opportunity to investigate something which caters to his interest after having been precisely told about it. I could easily measure this fault and compare it to the amount of fault there is in a paper boy barely missing one's door mat when tossing papers or the amount of fault which there may be in spilling a small insignificant drop of grape juice on the floor by accident.. In other words . . . fault which is very much dismissible. "RE: B. My free time is my own business. No one criticizes me for not doing an activity they like because I am my own person. As long as my free time is not directly harmful to anyone (I like stabbing people) then i can not be criticized for my actions." 1) See above. 2) Actually, you can be criticized for doing something which is not directly harmful to anyone. To criticize is merely to find fault with. As long as we can conclude you are worthy of fault, you are indeed criticizable. Of course, I expect more from my opponent (should he truly continue this portion of the debate) than for him to simply insist that he is immune to criticism when committing to actions that do not affect others simply. This is merely a claim; it is not an argument. RE:"Thus, since individuals dont have to have obligations to themselves to make sure they take appropriate actions, obligations are only applicable to multiple individuals. This means there has to be an impact on someone else for it to be considered an obligation." CON's whole rationalization for this conclusion is absolutely fallacious, but given that I only have a little over 2,500 characters left, I'm only going to dismantle his argument by rendering it useless to his position. If all I have to do is demonstrate that him acting would indeed affect other people, then I'd like to point out that him reading the Liar Game manga (found on the website I pointed out) would not only benefit the website's owners (the more hits they get, the more ad revenue they receive, hence enabling them to get even more manga series . . . perhaps even more similar to "Liar Game), but would also benefit in that his interest would increase the manga's popularity. With a higher level of popularity, the author would be more inclined to create chapters more frequently and the manga would also have the opportunity to become an anime. Furthermore, there may even be a sequel (and perhaps films). I would further like to point out that if the series is more popular, more people will have the opportunity to know about it, hence it can cater to even a greater crowd. "RE:no one will know if i do or do not read it. Therefore there can not possibly be an impact and thus there can not possibly be an obligation." It matters little if people know whether or not YOU particularly read it; WHO you are is not important. It's WHAT you're doing. You're contributing by giving the manga website hits, which helps increase it's popularity which helps do the things which I've said above and effect many many people. :D "RE:" if there is a better thing for me to do with my time at the conclusion of the debate, then by my opponents framework of "you ought to do something that is benificial/fun for you to do" then i ought to take the action that is MORE benificial or MORE fun since these actions will be mutually exclusive." Fortunately, a specific time frame is not built into the resolution. Ergo, dismiss these additional activities, ladies and gentleman. :D RE: THERE ARE TWO ALTERNATIVES THAT WOULD LEAD YOU TO VOTE CON: CON presents two alternatives, but both of them damage his position. The first one fails in that PRO previously speaks of having better things to do right now at the moment, hence suggesting that he couldn't afford to read the manga quickly. Thus, he shouldn't be expected to read the manga during this debate's time frame. The second one (WHICH IS A VOTING ISSUE) fails in that it concedes to my position (as I've pointed out, the resolution includes no specific time frame). GOING BACK TO MY CASE: 1. 2 word: Playing semantics. Just see my oxford definition of ought. 2. Nah, it's a premise. You're an intellectual. The series caters to intellectuals. Therefore, you ought to read Liar Game. Short and simple. :D 3. My opponent has already claimed to have better things to do at the time, thus . . . 4. Cross apply my rebuttal on this matter. 5. Manga series don't fall under the same genre (this is the same for text based books, films,etc) and are as diverse as any other form of entertainment. This makes basing current actions off of past experience illogical. As for advance knowledge, this is the importance of reviews. Reading a review can accurately help one determine if they would enjoy something in advance. In R1, I provided a review of Liar Game (to which CON has done nothing to counter). If PRO cannot counter the actual review (which concludes the manga would intrigue him), he cannot logically refuse to read the series based on its merits and win the debate. And that'll do it for now.