THBT: On balance, Logan Paul should return to Japan to atone for his actions.

I thought of that as well. I didn't want to go down the route.

Here's why:
If they couldn't forgive him, and it would also hurt the people of Japan. I could leave pro with many things like, "if someone hurt you, wouldn't you want them to apologize?". So now I got to prove that it would actually hurt the people for someone to apologize. What I mean by that is, would they welcome him back within time or is he already welcomed?

Next, number three would be based off luck that pro actually concedes to the fact people wouldn't accept it. Otherwise, I would go down that route. However, that can be rebuttaled quickly because many people did accept his apology. So, by saying it's not likely that people would accept his apology especially after even atoning further would be easily rebuttaled. I expected pro to find a way around that, so I played the safe side.

Further, I added off pro for number three because it rebuttaled him. As said, I wasn't going down that route as my main points.

I also fully read number one again. And while I didn't address not being welcome in Japan, for reasons, I did fully address it would hurt his image more and it would hurt him mentally.

You probably meant 'Pro' not 'Con' but I see how you saw it. I disagree with you, it ends up as a trap on Pro because you can then pivot to the Kritik angle from that.

You did number 3 after Pro himself brought it up (for reasons beyond me, as you only had to ask questions to bury Pro in that angle).

One thing, regarding:

"That Logan Paul is anything but welcome in Japan and could be hurt if he returns there (and ruin his image more).
2) That what he did wasn't quite as bad as Pro makes out if you see it in a different light.
3) [Kritik] That atoning for it is implausible or at least very improbable and him going to Japan would only seem superficial as they will not forgive it."

Number one wasn't addressed because it leads pro into backing me into a wall. I already thought of that, but here's the problem I can come across. "If he isn't welcome, that means there must be something he has to do to atone." I wasn't going to give that to pro in any way, just in case voters get led into that path.

Number two, it was mild. I talked about freedom, and if people view cultures that way, they can. That was my way of saying it all that.

Number three, I did clear that. My rounds did talk about if they did not accept his apology, how would atoning even work? Could he really atone? I already cleared through that as a backup.

Thanks for the vote, but just wanted to let you know.

RFD (1/3)

I wish to begin my RFD by quoting Con's closing statement:

"Pro doesn't consent that he's supporting "Logan Paul should return to Japan attempt to atone for his reputation."
Pro doesn't show evidence why Logan Paul must specifically return to Japan in order to atone.
Pro tries to bring "moral duty", but Logan Paul already has completely "moral duty"."

This was a brilliant summary of Pro's fatal flaws throughout the debate. Pro seems to have constructed a case that assumes that if Logan did something, then he automatically ought to go to a location and do something *beyond atoning* even, since Pro never quite establishes what atoning even means.

Source-wise, both debaters relied a bit on YouTube but only Con used an actual news from an acclaimed source like BBC. This was used to back the fact that Logan Paul has already taken steps to improve his image and at least indirectly atone for what he's done by helping others. In contrast the 'step up' from YT links for Pro was merely what seems like an amateur blog post, not even professional blog post, summarising what Logan Paul did as opposed to something relevant to proving he ought to go back to Japan to atone for it.

RFD (2/3)

I also note that one of the most crucial aspects of the debate ended up being that Logan Paul already has apologised, which was what Con used YT to prove, whereas Pro only used it to establish what Logan Paul had done and to instead provide the very link that Con used against him; that Logan Paul had already apologised. I am not penalising Pro heavily for the backfiring, merely summing up all the source usage and why I objectively see Con's use of sources as superior.

Right now, I will note that I am applying Tabula Rasa here, I can already think of 3 angles Con failed to take:
1) That Logan Paul is anything but welcome in Japan and could be hurt if he returns there (and ruin his image more).
2) That what he did wasn't quite as bad as Pro makes out if you see it in a different light.
3) [Kritik] That atoning for it is implausible or at least very improbable and him going to Japan would only seem superficial as they will not forgive it.

I note that these angles were not taken by Con and am shocked that in my eyes Con won by not taking any of these stronger/superior angles.

The debate instead comes down to 3 fundamental concepts:

1) Atoning versus completely resolving.
2) Whether physically visiting Japan to apologise on top of his already-present apology is necessary for atonement.
3) If atoning is even viable (despite Con not Kritiking it, Pro shot himself in the foot hard by some things he raised)

On the first concept combined with the third, I see neither debate explain what 'atone' is specifically defined as, the entire debate but Bella raises the point that it is not equal to completely resolving. The further issue is the following:

"Because the damage they have done is irreparable" is a statement by Pro, which if you scroll up was one of the angles I mentioned that Con didn't Kritik with despite it being so strong had Con done so.

Pro also says this: "Proven himself how? His actions to good causes seem to be coming from a place of maintaining his good image and trying to save face than from an authentic position of true regret & remorse."

RFD (3/3)

Which links to the first angle I mentioned combined with the third (Kritik) angle. I am not saying that I involved that in my voting but I am seeing Pro actually lay the groundworks for extremely brutal decimations to his case that Con didn't even think to bring up.

Con leverages these both, respectively, with some rhetorical questions and defensive statements:

(1)
"So, what can Logan Paul do? That specifically makes him return to Japan and that he hasn't already done? (I do see you offer steps, and I will regard later in the debate).

What makes them different?

Elon Musk has quite the postion and more power to raise awareness, I don't see him doing that? Because he shouldn't, it's his money."

(2)
"What do you think your ways of presenting ways of attempting to atoning would be?
Wouldn't atoning in your standards, be the same way? Trying to save his face? Regardless of his intentions, the same thing applies to your reasoning."

The second was not my style, too passive in delivery but it began to gape open a permanently bleeding wound in Pro's 'structure' or 'body' of argumentation. If Logan Paul would go and visit Japan why would they forgive it more than now? Wouldn't that seem like him going out of his way to save face and his image/brand? Pro's own logic begins to muddy the waters with respect to what atonement even means or how to qualify as atoning rather than saving one's image.

The entire debate continues with Con essentially asking 'why does he need to visit Japan if he has already apologised and donated to a suicide prevention charity'? Pro's replies all assume that the reader would automatically presume that visiting the nation of Japan is a necessary and effective step in the atonement for what he has done.

Since neither debater establishes the exact definition and qualification for atonement, I lean to Con on the idea that apologising and donating seem to qualify as 'atonement' since it seems to be linked to apology and forgiveness and Pro never pushes another definition down other than apparently visiting a country is arbitrarily part of atonement.

I have no idea how smart you are trying to seem but I will screenshot it on top of link it so people can laugh at this situation even if seeing this years later.

https://i.imgur.com/FArzxJA.png
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3492/posts/402093

You posted that 2 days ago, buddy. Have a nice time, I'll go quiet now.

Insightful observation, Not-Sherlock.

Have you recently discovered the sky is blue?
Or did you need time to process it?

Right okay... glad you realise you lose rating at least.

Lost rating is temporary & reversibly retrievable.

You can lose rating Lancelot. Lol.

He fixed the glitch.

Thank you for taking the time to vote on this!

@MyOwnVote
Though I mention The Widow’s Offering,
Maybe also should mention,

"Warning Against the Teachers of the Law
38 As he taught, Jesus said, “Watch out for the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and be greeted with respect in the marketplaces, 39 and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. 40 They devour widows’ houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. These men will be punished most severely.”
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2012&version=NIV

Sure The Widow’s Offering makes one think of how much a person is 'actually giving of themself, philosophical,
Rich man through the eye of a needle and all that,
Easy for people to take 'advantage of giving in others though,
Not really 'good for poor people to be even poorer,
Though 'general idea of giving is good, 'is held by society.
Society ought also want those givers to be helped themselves.

Would you guys be interested in voting on this?

I didn't.

I messaged Barney this morning, but he didn't see it until after you posted your round.

why did you wait until I posted the round to get the squidgame debate deleted?

Okay.

Do you mind leaving this up? I'll probably accept later.

He has since scammed people of 1.8 million USD so far on a grand scam thing with other criminals, preying on his own fans.

Logan Paul and his brother are just scum. His brother at least can box well.