Saito is a better role model than Kenshin.

A splendid debate! No trivial topics like the existence of God or freedom of the will here. The series is about Kenshin, not Saito. Kenshin is certainly the more sympathetic character, and the more multi-dimensional. This debate is not about that, it is about whether Kenshin's indecision or Saito's rational determination is the better role model for dealing with crisis. CONT 1 1) Con claims that Kenshin takes no extra risk by crippling his early opponents rather than killing them. The problem is that doing just enough damage to cripple an opponent risks either not doing enough to quell future threats or failing entirely and losing while withholding lethal force. In the case of Jinei, Kenshin would have to rely upon being successful in just attempting to cripple as the risk of losing, and also that Jinei would not learn to wield a sword with the other hand or pose a threat in some other way with the other arm. There was also the risk that Jinei was not really as badly injured as it seemed. The same is true of Shishio. The risks are making a mistake and not adequately crippling him or losing the fight entirely due to holding back fatal strikes. The story reveals that Shishio had superhuman recuperative powers, magnifying the risk. One might argue that Kenshin might never make a miscalculation, but our debate is about role models. Every police and military force teaches that if life is at stake, shoot to kill, not to wound. It is too risky to do otherwise. 2) As to Shishio being subject to rehabilitation, especially in the light of the clip in which Shishio thrusts his sword through his faithful woman companion to surprise Kenshin, well, I think any parole board would have trouble after that one. It's purely a debater's assertion that of course rehab is possible. Moreover, we know from the subsequent scene of Shishio setting out to dominate hell after his death that defeat did not prompt him to mend his ways. Shishio was as evil and arrogant as ever. Pro contended that defeat would prompt rehabilitation, but it did not. As to Jinei, the history of rehabbing guys with a skull head and red glowing eyes is poor. Taking the risk of trying to merely injure a glowing-eyed miscreant, and fortuitous circumstances is not a good model. The cases of Aoshi and Soujiro were different, because Kenshin was able to recognize that they were not truly evil. Kenshin had the ability to "read souls," which aided his fighting. So that's fine for Kenshin, but again it is not a role model for people without that ability. The role model for those without mystical powers who are charged with saving lives from immediate danger is "shoot to kill." It's too risky to stop short. 2) Pro argues that because Kenshin in mentally stronger than Saito, because Kenshin sticks to his semi-pacifist pledge despite all logic to do otherwise. True. Kenshin would be still stronger mentally if he became a full pacifist and stood by and watched his friends get killed. That would be really hard to do. The debate is not about who is mentally stronger, it is about who is better role model: Kenshin's risk-taking in indulging his philosophy, or Saito's logical decisiveness in pursuit of justice. CONT 2: The anime reveals, through a remark by the old doctor in Episode 31, that by the time Kenshin leaves for Kyoto he has been living with Kaoru for nearly a year. Yet Kenshin is still unable to commit emotionally. We understand Kenshin's tragic past, but the results of a tragic past is not the stuff of role models. Kenshin is the hero of the story, so of course he gets a flashback to emphasize his will to live -- and not Saito. the story makes it clear that none of Kenshin's allies are lacking a will to live, despite their not meriting flashbacks. Moreover, all of them are placing their lives at great risk for the sake of the future of their society. No one gave up or only claimed to stick it out so long as they were not injured. Kenshin, however, was the only one worried about escaping without killing Shishio, an unwise concern. CONT 3 1) Con contends, "Once we move past the idea of recruiting Kenshin, the execution of such a plan is hardly a feat. All Saito had to do was fight Kenshin to test his strength, only to then tell him about how he was needed in Kyoto." Kenshin himself refutes that assertion. As he says goodbye to Kaoru, Kenshin explains, "The battle with Saito taught me that deep inside there is still the Battosai that will never go away." Kenshin then moves from avoiding battle that might cause his dark side to re-emerge to being determined to cope with his Battosai spirit. He moves to the realization that he must live with his dual nature. His decision to go to Kyoto was for the higher good of his country, but also to avoid having to work out the resolution of his dual nature in the presence of his friends. Kenshin rightly felt that would be dangerous. Just telling Kenshin of the need to go Kyoto would not have worked. Saito knew that a necessary precondition to Kenshin being useful was to awaken the Battosai within. To accomplish that, he had to put Kenshin in an apparent life-or-death situation. To increase the drama of the battle, at that point Saito had been painted as being thoroughly evil. Only later do we learn that Saito had been working as an undercover agent to expose the evil-doers with whom he was associated. The purpose of that plot twist was to make it appear to the viewer that the lives of Kenshin, Kaoru, and Sanosuke were in great danger from Saito's apparent evil. After the true motivation is revealed in the Police Commissioner's office, Kenshin walks collegially with Saito and asks what Saito is going to do. Saito replies, "It's simple. Go to Kyoto." At that point, we know that Kenshin understood the plan behind Saito's provocations. 2) In the clip of the fight between Sanosuke and Saito, it appears that Saito attacked Sanosuke's shoulder wound. Saito even lectures Yahiko that it is fair in battle to strike the opponent's weakness. However, the appearance of attacking the wound was an illusion. After the fight, Sanosuke reflected upon what had happened, thinking, "That creep [Saito] was humoring me the whole time. In the whole flurry of punches not one landed on my wound. He missed my wound on purpose with that first punch too." Saito ended the fight prematurely saying, "If you feel that strongly, then go to Kyoto." Sanosuke leaves for Kyoto saying, "I'll get stronger. I have to get stronger." Saito was not confronting Sanosuke in the first place for the purpose of stopping him. If Saito had wanted to do that, he could have easily killed or permanently disabled him. Clearly Saito's purpose was to make Sanosuke aware that he had to get stronger. Saito's plan worked. 3) Whether or not a "refreshed" Kenshin could have defeated Shishio alone is irrelevant. It would have been unwise for Saito to have planned that Kenshin could do it alone, or that he (Saito) could do it alone. He got both Kenshin and Sanosuke to the showdown with him, and both of them fully prepared to fight. If Kenshin had a plan to do everything alone, that was a much inferior plan. The Japanese origins of anime lead to stressing the value of group efforts, and this was an example. 4) Saito remains focused on what is important. He is stoic and rational. He seeks justice and is not deterred. Saito's paradigm is Davy Crockett ("Be sure you are right, then go ahead.") Kenshin's is Hamlet ("Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune or to take arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing end them." ) In a crisis, you want Davy Crockett with you, not Hamlet. Kenshin is more charming, more interesting, and more sympathetic, but Saito is the role model for dealing with crisis. The resolution is affirmed.