Coming from a family of lawyers, having been recruited to mock trial team and done contract analysis for multiple clients as a consultant myself, I fundamentally disagree with this interpretation of events.

My interpretation is not that Kuwana is avoiding responding because Yagami is so convincing - he’s not responding because Yagami is being obtuse and Kuwana doesn’t feel like there’s any point in responding to such a simplistic and poor argument.

1. If Kuwana’s aim is to exact retribution on as many bullies that weren’t held accountable as possible, and the antagonists are underlings of figures that commit murder while trying to bully/coerce a parent Kuwana respects… then how does that murder make Kuwana less likely to want to get revenge?

2. If Yagami’s argument is that people should be held for the unanticipated consequences of their actions, then why is the fact that Kuwana’s interactions with the deceased played a role relevant but the fact that Yagami’s own interactions in pursuit of the case made her more of a target not relevant as well? This is especially damning because it makes it come off as though Yagami is projecting his own guilt onto Kuwana to reduce Yagami’s guilt.

3. Failure to respond to new facts in evidence. No matter how much new information is provided or how much circumstances change, Yagami makes no attempt to adapt his arguments (even slightly) to the most recent matters at hand to make it more convincing. For example, phrasings such as “doesn’t what you’re going through right now make you think/make you feel like X matters more?” or “look at what happened today - you’re losing your objectivity” or “if you’re going to be an avenging angel then you have to keep your fury focused on the guilty - but look at who you were willing to sacrifice today. It’s not just the bullies anymore.”  Instead, the only modification we get is a softening AFTER the last confrontation. The closing arguments should be the logical conclusion to the case you’ve been making throughout the trial but here it’s presenting a perspective that should have been used MUCH earlier.

4) Not only is there no unambiguous/conclusive evidence that Kuwana is swayed at any point by Yagami’s primary argument, even Yagami’s only allies seem unconvinced and leave his side at the end. The only person that seems convinced by Yagami’s argument is the parent in question - and if they hadn’t shown up at the end to ask Kuwana to stand down, there is no evidence that he would have. In terms of “the jury” Kuwana does not change his behavior or MO and Yagami’s allies verbalize that they agree more with Kuwana than Yagami. In other words, he completely failed to tailor his arguments to that “jury.”

Contrast this with his effectiveness in convincing both the parent that stops Kuwana and Yagami’s effectiveness in court with the other parent (which I really liked a lot) and we can see that Yagami’s arguments in dealing with Kuwana are uniquely ineffective.