I'm sorry, I have to add a rant about The Debate as well. I'm so mad about it.
First of all, I appreciate the idea of making the grand final fight a debate. It is a brilliant and hilarious twist on that trope. However, the thing about writing a debate is that you actually have to put the thing on paper. If it is not breathtakingly clever in it's own right, readers will k n o w. No suspension of disbelief is going to make up for poor execution. Which brings me to my problems with The Debate.
To start us off: "I did this thing in the past but I have since come to the realization that it was wrong" is a valid argument, a great one, even. Make it, Jasnah.
More importantly however, this should not be a moral debate in the first place. The basic politics on which to rest morale do not even check out. Taravangian offers Fen an agreement, yet he famously does not care about agreements. The entire setting of The Debate was just proven to have been a ruse. The whole siege situation they find themselves in is exactly because Taravangian does not care to uphold promises. Taravangian twisted his words like a fey and did not keep to the agreements at all, except in the letter. How would any of his promises have merit to Fen? He already showed how willing he is to exploit loopholes. Nothing short of a long, intricate, twice-checked contract should even be expected to do anything. Agreeing to something this vague is pure idiocy.
Taravangian did not win this debate, I know that. I was there. Do not try and tell me otherwise.
Also, Tarry mansplaining utilitarianism to what is supposed to be the greatest scholar of her time is aggravating in an entirely diffent way. I'm sure that was the authorial intent here, but it's still hard to bear.
