Lalo Salamanca is the best villain of the BB/BCS franchise.

The most difficult aspect of this debate will be 'proving' the points to a nonwatcher of the shows. I am actually myself a partial nonwatcher especially to BCS. I did not ever watch much of it to see Lalo's era. I have experienced him somehow through YouTube Shorts and I already can tell you that he is nowhere near the tier of villain that many characters are, especially if depth and realism are factored in. Obviously, he's impressive in that he's attractive, intelligent, intimidating and more but he's so one-dimensional despite what Pro says.

What is a villain in BB and BCS?

This is a major issue in this debate. It's why Pro stuck solely to the more 'undeniable' villains to contrast Lalo to. For instance, the main character Walter White is actually a villain. This is because BB didn't base itself on the usual dynamic of a protagonist being a hero. Even more complicated is the fact that 2 characters I can think of, namely Saul and Mike, transition completely from being villain-sided in BB to being antiheroes in BCS or at least antivillains. This leads to problems in that my range of characters to choose from is both wide and yet can trip me up if voters side with Con disqualifying them.

Also Spoilers alert from here.

Howard Hamlin is a good example of a severe problem character since he's presented as a villain in BCS until a major twist reveals Chuck was the villain all along. These events lead to genuine problems because the shows both don't structure straightforward in that being close to the protagonist in no shape or form secures on further from villainy. In fact, Hank in BB is a good example of someone who is categorically an antagonist yet many would argue is a hero despite functionally being a villain if Walter White were the hero.

I will choose Gus Fring (GF) and Saul Goodman (SG). Even in BCS, Saul counts as sided against true benevolence, integrity, virtues etc. That's my view.

Aspect 1: Legacy

Lalo is only introduced to BCS in Season 4, episode 8. The entire 5 seaons of BB and much of 4 of BCS never once shows this character. It is not automatic that a villain that showed up more is better but what is automatic is that one that shows up less surely has to have far more to compensate for lack of screentime and legacy. GF and SG both are major characters in at least 1 series, for GF he's more major in BB and for SG he's more major in BCS. GF is a staple villain to the BB series and is still decently valuable as a background villain in BCS (adding depth to another villain or 2 sure but significantly gaining depth to his own backstory).

When you 'think' of BB villains, one of the first 4 to anyone's mind will include GF. For some it will be the first and for others the fourth but definitely in the first 4. The reason why I confidently state this, is that no matter who you consider iconic, GF is literally connected to them or simply is intimidating regardless and deeply imprinted on your mind. The only major villain group in BB that will come to mind who GF didn't have true relation to was the Neonazi gang with the leader and Todd being who'd come to mind. Even if you thought of them first, I guarantee you GF would be fourth to your mind whether you next thought of Hector or Mike Ermentraut. The type of person who'd think of Tuco in the top 4 still would have GF there instead of the Neonazis, in my opinion. I am generalising but this is important. GF is a staple villain, he's as fundamental to BB villainy as Hector is, just differently.

As for SG, if this was based on BB alone, I may have not chosen him in my 2. I chose him because BCS is included. He's a villain even if you love the guy, in fact he is what I'd define as an antivillain.

Lalo, in contrast, isn't legacy-worthy whatsoever if we are including BB in the equation. He solely is a major villain in BCS and only after well into season 4 does this begin to be true.

Realism and Depth

I am fusing 2 things together because I don't want to make the fact GF is gay as some standalone point since I'm representing 2 guys regardless. GF and SG are flawed characters. This is in fact what Pro picks up on, regarding GF. The reality is that neither of them are fully as charming as Lalo though SG comes close depending on circumstance. Lalo is this untouchable, hot, charismatic, plot-armoured to the brink of insanity kind of villain. Normally villains are plot armoured against but not Lalo. Somehow he knows stuff that should be implausible for him to have deduced knowing what he knew and constantly outsmarts, out this out that. In contrast, GF and SG have attributes that put them on a significant backfoot in life and overcome it in somewhat realistic ways if we ignore how unlikely their exact story is.

GF is a closeted homosexual raised in either Pinochet's Chile or even the corrupt government prior. His real name isn't even known (which becomes apparent in BB due to a scene with Hank). He was used and abused by the Salamancas and Don Eladio and is a literal villain so ingrained in villainy that multiple other villains either fear himor underestimate him and regard him as their own villain, for some far too late as they're screwed anyway. If it had not been for Heisenberg's wit to use Hector how he did to kill GF, GF would have destroyed Hector and proceeded to dominate the entire Meth trade in New Mexico, driving the Cartel out for good potentially. My point is that there's this depth to GF far beyond just being a textbook villain, he's this terrifying presence with a reason to his wrath and ways of operating. You actually somewhat understand him, but may never relate to him.

BCS reveals more about GF but definitely a lot more about Saul. SG is a character you just feel sorry for in BB. In fact this is his greatest attribute. He genuinely suffered in life and was backstabbed a lot. Whether we say he brought it on himself or not, he truly has justification to end up being the chameleon type of guy he ends up being. Unlike GF, SG's root motive is not revenge but survival and this strange urge to stay a lawyer even though he easily could have made it as a salesman instead and made a lot less enemies. SG and GF share that they aren't necessarily textbook hot yet they have a way of dressing decently and trying despite it. Both of them represent this strange dichotomy of being severely flawed and tragic yet supremely capable, masculine and formidable in spite of it.

What I loved about GF in particular is that usually gay characters are typically the bottoms, the flambouyant ones or over the top regardless. GF represented a conservative type of homosexual one we can fully argue was closeted especially after the love of his life died. It's very intriguing also that he's presented as someone you do not like, despite probably understanding the motives of.

GF is not there to make gays, Chileans (but the actor is actually mixed white and black and the white is Italisn which led to him seeming black-leaning latino mix) nor gangsters or anything he is look good. He is there to be a villain regardless of it. However, having that backstory and those attributes adds depth to him. SG has depth too. Lalo is some horror movie type of villain who keeps winning no matter what the characters do (at least up to a point, I don't care to spoil it or go into details, my opponent can discuss it).

Realistically, Lalo is a character that next to nobody can relate to. Even if you are attractive and a high functioning psychopath what exactly will make you look at Lalo and go oh yes, I totally feel he depicts my kind of struggle or a struggle I can get invested in watching and truly feel for?

The IQ and style of villainy.

I am not suggesting Lalo is low IQ. However, Lalo's approach is so plot-armoured and ridiculous. He simply operates so insanely effectively against all sane odds over and over. As I said he's like a horror movie villain stuck in a thriller or drama genre instead. In contrast, the way GF and SG utilise the information presented to them and operate in situations is actually high IQ.

GF's style of villainy has you genuinely respect his self-discipline and truly fear him especially when he executes his enforcer, Victor, for overstepping. This scene is so powerful because even Mike, GF's right hand mand, flinches and almost shoots as a reflex.

Warning, gore is in this scene, viewer discretion advised

Saul is smooth, bad at fighting brains over brawn much like GF but I think GF can fight better based on a few factors.

Lalo is just 'good at everything'. The reality is that it's unrealistic. People like Lalo barely exist at all and if they do, they're just not the kind of villain that's fun to watch. Oh wow this attractive, charming, lottery-winning-plot-armour character wins again and again ohhhh so amazing wow! Like give me a break.

Saul is deep.

You actually root for Saul at times on a genuine level. You never ever root for Lalo. You even root for GF when he's pitted against other villains often and want him to get revenge almost (you shouldn't ethically, but you find yourself rooting for him).

Salamancas are a dynasty. They're born into the trade. Inside the drug empire, being a Salamanca of the generation Lalo is is like being born a Duke/Earl/Count of a nation with Royals. GF had to claw his way in and had his own lover killed in front of him merely for outshining Don Eladio. GF genuinely did not even do a mistake. That is where you realise what a deep villain he is.

By the way... Gus Fring kills Lalo. LOL

And SG outlives them all even through BB. If it's about survival, Lalo aint it. Plot armour only lasts so long brother ;)

Saul Goodman Tribute

Gus Fring Tribute

Introduction and Conclusion

I am going to fuse my intro and summary this Round to save characters.

My issues with Pro's case are as follows: (I assume Pro is a 'he').

1. He oversimplifies characters to 'put into a box' that then enables him to work with the strawman simplified character. He does this both in favour of Lalo (LS) as well as against (GF) and Saul Goodman (SG).
2. He has arbitrarily decided what defines ‘best villain’ and not even dictionaries would support it. The main issue is in the ‘best’ but even in what he sees villainy as. He confuses it with prowess alone.
3. He simply outright lies about some aspects of GF and SG.
4. His idea of ‘depth’ is merely how many fake masks one can wear, rather than actual depth. This has led to a complete misunderstanding of which villain has most depth.
5. He ignored a major point I made about legacy and basically completely dropped the case, instead relying on a new thing called ‘fear factor’ which I will actually partly concede to and explain why LS suits horror better than drama-thriller which is what BB is meant to be.

I shall now proceed to explore them without retyping what they are.

1: oversimplifying characters

According to Pro, GF has only 2 ‘modes’ of being where LS has many. Apparently GF has only his apparently fake nice mask with ‘customer service’ and his ruthless kingpin persona.

This is completely false but I respect that Pro is misled rather than intentionally lying. Gus has significant depth to him if one pays close attention, in fact a lot more depth than LS who is actually closer to what Pro says GF is.

I don’t even think it’s simple to just call GF a psychopath. He presents as one but isn’t. He’s a sociopath instead and has masked deep emotions he still has present. If we analyse what he has with Mike Ermentraut as well as with one of his Chicken place employees, Lyle, GF actually is deeply emotional. It would, after all, be psychologically implausible for him to be as cold as Pro says and to then risk his entire empire on a vengeance quest for his gay lover that the Salamancas and Eladio think was just his old business partner.

What GF shows in the series is a variety. He may seem he is faking the nice part entirely but even that is carefully crafted. Instead, he’s terrified to let people in. This is in direct contrast to LS who I believe is a genuine full psychopath and doesn’t have genuine love as a capability of himself psychologically.

I believe GF also actually doesn’t see Law Enforcement as entirely dispensible. He seems to have a lot of complexity to him and I sincerely mean a lot. If you analyse how GF handled Hank and others, he seems to go beyond just masking and acting fake-nice with cops. He is a genuinely conservative-valued man at heart and seems to have an actual fondness for law enforcers. He does absolutely everything possible to ensure the least amount of cops ever get hurt in what goes down. We can chalk this up to merely being careful, as per Pro’s logic, however I think it’s something more and deeper. After all, GF easily could have handled Hank how the Neonazis did later. Part of why I am sure this is true is that GF chose Mike, an ex-cop. Yes, he was somewhat dirty and an ex-cop not a current but GF seems to have a depth to him even beyond just personality traits. Deep down he realises how filthy and terrible those he associates with are for society and SG has the same dilemma and depth. They both know deep down there’s something corrupt and wrong about the side they’re on but for SG survival and for GF revenge are primary motives that keep them enslaved to keep siding with the monsters. In contrast, LS literally is one of the monsters no if and no but.

2: arbitrarily decided what defines ‘best villain’

The best villain according to Pro seems to be the one that is simply scariest. It clearly comes about in his ‘fear factor’ argument later that because Lalo for Pro, induced most direct fear during his scenes on a consistent basis, that this makes him the best villain.

GF is scary in a literal sense, meaning that other characters fear him as much as LS or potentially more. As Pro points out, LS feared GF from day 1 or at least respected him as a highly formidable threat. Let’s not forget that in the end GF himself ended up killing LS.

The definition of best villain, in my eyes, is the villain that has the most overall incredible depth and legacy in the series. This could apply just as easily to ‘best hero’ or ‘best’ any subcategory of character except maybe a very specific niche where for instance being ‘best sidekick’ may actually mean how well the character supports the character he/she is a sidekick to.

The definition of a villain in the context of this debate is either:

1. a bad person who harms other people or breaks the law
2. a character in a book, play, film, etc. who harms other people

dictionary.cambridge.org

These definitions work better than the typical ‘opposed to protagonist’ dynamic since in BB and BCS that simply categorically does not work.

The definition of ‘best’ which applies here is:

1. of the highest quality, or being the most suitable, pleasing, or effective type of thing or person:

dictionary.cambridge.org

So, what really we are trying to establish is who harms other people, breaks the law and/or simply entertains while doing so, in the highest quality and most suitable, pleasant and effective manner.

To Pro, being ‘scary’ and formidable matter yet GF kills Lalo and SG outlives almost all villains throughout both series.

In fact, SG is incredibly unique because he is consistently bullied and hunted down by other villains yet consistently outlives them even pitting them against each other at times or at least utilising when they are pitted against each other.

LS may be good at what he does, but GF and SG are better at what they do and that’s just a fact.

If LS were better at what he did even ignoring the fact he gets killed, he’d have been ranked and feared like Hector or Tuco. Instead, barely anyone knows who he is. Now, Pro may argue that’s because he’s based mainly in Mexico and had to be extra careful in US as he’s a criminal. Regardless of the ‘why’, the fact is LS relative to Salamancas was not the most truly harmful, it’s pretty indisputable that Hector was. LS is actually an antivillain at times because he indeed isn’t willing to be ‘pure carnage’. He has a layer of rationality to him which is probably his single redeeming quality as a character morally speaking.

One minute Pro applauds Lalo’s careful intelligence, the next he states we’re dealing with a pure evil lunatic and that this makes him amazing. The reality is that what Pro actually is trying to admire in LS is his depth yet GF and SG have more of that.

outright lies

Lalo is the first and only villain to not underestimate Gus Fring.

What?

Not only does LS objectively underestimate GF as GF kills him but I never even suggested that LS was the only one to fear GF. Many characters feared GF. I said almost all villains either significantly feared him, underestimated him or both.

Characters who didn't underestimate GF are plentiful.

They include Nacho, Mike, Hank, the other Chemist Jesse ends up killing off, Saul and plenty more.

To suggest LS is the only character to not underestimate GF is absurd. Even Eladio almost didn't. Predicting that GF would self-poison to ensure Eladio gets poisoned and that he'd run away to puke it up, put himself inches from death and trust in a later dialysis to save him was something a bit unfair to demand Eladio to have seen coming.

GF was at times very underestimated, especially by Walter White (WW) and Hector. However, to suggest LS was unique for seeing him as a threat is simply false. Jesse in fact had a far higher appreciation for what a threat GF was than WW for some reason. GF wasn't simply easy to underestimate if you were in the drug world.

And if we want to discuss characters who got understimated a lot, SG takes the cake. Slippin' Jimmy (McGill) was consistently seen as easy prey.

Another major lie is that GF froze in fear. He did not freeze in fear, he froze as he predicted that LS wouldn't shoot him at that exact moment and was thinking about his next moves. If he had moved at all, LS would have shot him. I am not denying GF has plot armour but let's just look at this:

Watch this for a bit then skip to 1:29 and watch some seconds more

This is one of the most ridiculous cartoonish things BB and BCS ever did with any character. The reality is that LS is more akin to a comic book villain or horror movie villain. We enter almost sci-fi level telepathy, psychic powers and teleportation powers with him.

In contrast, GF and SG represent a struggle to maintain a facade needed to get by in both a criminal world and law-abiding (or in SG's case law-representing) way.

Also, If GF or SG had done that, they'd have left that guy alive but tied up and gagged. LS killed him and it's almost a negligible part of the scene.

skip to 7:45 or so

The way GF could bring out 'obedience' and reward it in both his non-criminal world and criminal alike is a skill LS fundamentally lacked. Almost all underlings of LS loathed him and secretly plotted against him. In contrast, GF and SG understood how to breed actual loyalty (for SG it stretched from Kim through to Huell and Patrick.

GF and SG had underlings they could genuinely turn their back on and rely on. They really, truly did. LS didn't other than his relatives and even they were largely sociopaths that would betray him if they could.

The entire fan theory of LS being gay is just pure fan fiction. GS is portrayed directly as a closeted homosexual in BCS even more so than BB. It adds a layer to him that Pro pretends LS had. I don't know if he was gay or bi but it's pure hearsay. For all we know he's asexual and only can get a thrill from threatening and hurting others.

Preface

At this point, I am unsure if Pro knows he is wrong and is simply trying to keep up the facade and not surrender or if he genuinely believes what he is saying.

There is so much in his Round 3 that seems to backfire even or be intentional misrepresentation.

Let's take the last thing he said and work backwards.

To emphasize Lalo's superiority, Saul and Gus Fring are even given their own personal nicknames by Lalo. Saul is Cockroach, Gus Fring is The Chicken Man and House Cat.

How on Earth does this emphasise superiority? Nothing about that means LS is above them. LS is dominant over SG for differing reasons but SG actually is capable of taming LS in his own way. For instance in this scene, the only reason LS agrees to let Kim go instead of SG is that he quite literally didn't want to fight it. He also knew that if he forced it, SG would potentially not do what he asked whereas he hoped (despite stated outright fear otherwise) that Kim would obey the orders, convinced by SG:

LS lets Kim go

In fact, in general, LS is held to respect SG in a way he doesn't respect many others. This goes beyond SG being useful, it's also that he quite genuinely respects the 'cockroach' survivalist way that SG operates (since LS was quite a cockroach himself).

Scenes that play out like this wouldn't happen with an average gf of LS's underlings. It was only permitted with barely any violence or volatile reaction because he knew if he lets Kim be, SG stays tame and reliable also.

GF' nicknames don't really matter. GF kills LS, GS also is someone LS reveres and fears as Pro admitted in Round 2, so what's the point?

Moving on...

I cannot tell if Pro is satirical when denying how utterly epic the death of GF was. That’s the type of death scene that is etched in the viewer’s brain for years. It’s a one of a kind death scene, you can genuinely call it one of the most iconic death scenes of any series except maybe sci-fi or horror genre.

As for SG’s lack of death what is Pro’s point exactly? Pro seems to imply that to be a peak villain you need an epic death rather than to out-survive almost all other characters. Let’s be crystal clear, SG doesn’t just survive, he is protected by law enforcement as a key witness. He was a literal large scale criminal lawyer for some very dangerous criminals and ends up outside of prison, protected. This is not supposed to be a badass ending, this is supposed to highlight that he’s a survivalist and very good at being one.

I would like to quote Hemmingway (in a quote that’s wrongly attributed to Einstein):

Everyone is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.

LS’s ending is not more epic than GF’s nor is it somehow ‘superior’ to SG’s.

RE: Lalo's Contingency Plan

So what? GF had many contingency plans as did SG. If we are discussing strategic elements of a villain, GF and SG rank top 2 of the entire series surely. In fact, why I chose them is they actually share quite a bit and represent a type of villain in BB and BCS that isn’t the norm; they despise most of the other villains and are in the ‘game’ of the drug world for differing reasons. SG is motivated by survival as he’s trapped in it and also some quest to be a lawyer instead of salesman in the first place, GF for revenge first and foremost and also I think he enjoys proving he can win, in and of itself. LS is in the game because his uncle and/or family coerced, groomed and/or blackmailed him from a young age to be in the game.

To suggest GF and SG lacked contingency plans is absurd. How do you think they outlasted LS and how did SG outlive almost all other villains?

It’s because they strategised extremely well.

The Assassination Attempt (and Nacho siding with GF over LS)

Something completely ignored by Pro, whom suddenly has fixated on that Nacho betrayed LS throughout Round 3, is that Nacho chose to stick with GF rather than rat him out to the Salamancas.

Why he chose this was 2-fold:

1.  GF had through his own ingenuity and resources discovered that Nacho intentionally switched out the meds of Hector in a failed assassination attempt that instead turned Hector into a vegetable.
2. Even if somehow Nacho got the Salamancas to forgive him for that, in exchange for sabotaging an assassination attempt by GF on LS, he knew deep down that GF would firstly hunt him down for life and was extremely good at doing so and secondly even if GF died, guys like Mike would avenge him without a second thought, dedicating many years and resources to it. Similarly if he stuck with GF and betrayed LS, he will be hunted down too but maybe somehow can evade blame for it or be protected by GF.
3. 
   

Why this matters is that Nacho didn’t just ‘choose’ to side with GF, it wasn’t loyalty GF relied on. GF engineered a no-choice algorithm whereby any reasoning by Nacho would land him on obeying GF unless Nacho was utterly insane. The situation was actually a no-win situation, either GF and Mike loathe Nacho for life (and GF may even have had automated emails/texts sent out once he died if he doesn’t turn them off, to assassins Nacho doesn’t even know of, naming any potential reason he died and Nacho knew his name would be on that list). GF was terrifying, he intimidated Nacho by raw superior strategy to both Nacho and the Salamancas.

What is Pro bringing any of this up for? It only adds to the fact that GF was a superior villain to LS.

Let's now quickly deal with the rest.

The definition of villain I use is sufficient. A villain is defined as:

a bad person who harms other people or breaks the law

a character in a book, play, film, etc. who harms other people

as per Cambridge dictionary

This means even if they are not malicious at heart, they are still a villain. In contrast it would actually be the case that one who is very malicious in theory but fails to do much harm ends up a nonvillain in actuality or one who channels the malice into a sort of antihero code can end up on the heroic side but maybe winds up an antivillain anyway.

Malice and viciousness don't define villains, they're attributes of some subsets of villain but others can lack it. A good example is Saul Goodman himself in fact BB and BCS have people who at times are motivated by family loyalty in the Salamancas and the Twins in particular don't seem fundamentally malicious but malignant due to heritage and circumstance that they chose to embrace rather than completely break away from at risk of their own life/lives.

Nacho was the only subordinate to betray anyone. And he betrayed both Hector and Lalo. Hector because he chose to. While Gus forced him to betray Lalo. But Con has no proof that any of Lalo’s other subordinates were planning betrayal. And The Salamancas would never betray each other because loyalty and honor were seen as a principle. Family was everything to them. Hector and The Twins took revenge when they assumed Lalo died.

not exactly true. For example Gus' chemist underling betrayed Walt and Jesse and had basically said 'let me learn what they do and you can get rid of them' but Jesse ends up doing the inverse to him.

What you mean is betray their boss/leader right? Well, actually this is still untrue. For example Lydia Rodarte-Quayle shifts loyalties fast from GF to WW through to the Neo-Nazi gang.

Hector being the oldest means he is the patriarch of the Salamancas, and has the most authority. Lalo being Hector’s oldest and favorite nephew meant he was the golden child and Hector’s second in command.

Even if Lalo genuinely was Hector's favourite, he is nowhere near as self made as GF and is a nepobaby in every sense.

Lalo is Hector’s equal and is a higher rank than Tuco, in terms of the actual Cartel organization.

Google's AI disagrees:

No, Lalo's rank is not equal to Hector's; Hector is ranked higher as the patriarch and a founding member of the Cartel, while Lalo is a nephew who works under him and is a highly ranked enforcer. Hector is referred to as "Don Hector" and was considered a superior figure even to other cartel leaders like Juan Bolsa, whereas Lalo is initially sent to Albuquerque to help run the family's day-to-day operations after Hector is paralyzed. 

Hector Salamanca: A founder of the Cartel, he holds a higher rank as the patriarch and leader of the Salamanca family. He is the senior, most feared member of his family in the hierarchy, even when he is incapacitated.

Lalo Salamanca: A nephew of Hector, Lalo is a high-ranking enforcer who later steps up to lead the family's operations in Albuquerque after Hector is paralyzed. While he is powerful and takes a leading role, his position is below his uncle's. 

Hector is higher in all ways.

Lalo commands more fear and respect than Hector and Tuco. Hector is constantly being emasculated, undermined, and embarrassed in front of his subordinates by the cartel leader, Don Eladio. Eladio insults Hector’s manhood, and Hector takes the abuse in silence. Better Call Saul Hector Salamanca Upstaged By Gus (3:41) When Hector is paralyzed and has to ring a bell to communicate, Eladio mocks him for being mute. Eladio Sees Hate In Gus' Eyes  (2:28) Hector finally gets fed up and then has a temper tantrum at Bolsa about Eladio treating Hector like a dog, while Bolsa calmly tells Hector to watch his mouth. And then Hector has a heart attack. Hector Salamanca Has A StrokeBut not Lalo, Lalo is the only one that Eladio talks to like an old college buddy and is actually Eladio’s favorite. Gus Fring fails to impress Eladio this time around with the amount of money he brings. Lalo is able to upstage Gus by earning the boss’s respect. Something that Gus nor Hector could do. Lalo's Gift For Eladio (0:25) The only people to fear Gus Fring are his lessers or subordinates. But his equals or superiors underestimate him, Lalo is the first equal to not do that.

If you don't fear GF, GF wins even easier against you.

I will begin with what my opponent never addressed.

1. SG outlives everyone, LS dies before BB ever takes place and is a no-name by then. Furthermore, It is GF that brings his end.
2. My definitions of villain never get addressed, instead my opponent brings his own definition in the third Round that is not sufficient challenge to the ones I present, which Cambridge Dictionary backs. Additionally, my opponent waited until the absolute final Round to mention that he believes SG isn't a villain because he himself doesn't have much malice. This is illicit debating and if I had as final speaker done the same, my rebuttal would be denied outright. I encourage all voters to dismiss it outright as he ignored my valid definitions which include Saul in them as a fully valid villain.
3. GF and SG are villains even among villains, especially GF. They see other villains as monsters and operate with a clear agenda that leads them to defeat many other villains along the way. For GF the motive is primarily revenge, for SG it's primarily survival. They both navigate with finesse and outdo many villains in villainy by superior strategy dedicated to the goal mentioned.
4. SG survives not only as a free man but as a free man protected by Law Enforcement. Similarly, GF ensured that Law Enforcement stayed on his good side and even had an ex-cop as his right-hand man educating him on Law Enforcement secrets along the way. SG was a lawyer and knew these secrets largely by his own profession. Why this matters is that LS, in contrast, is a villain in a more one-layered manner. His allies are villains and he sides very literally on the villain side of life. He was born into it so to speak, as a Salamanca, and merely follows in Hector's footsteps. In contrast SG and GF are unorthodox, operating in unpredictable ways which gives them a consistent edge.

None of these were remotely addressed. I would also like to add that the motive factor even aids that GF and SG were more justified to be villains than LS, who was purely scummy without any added motive. He was at the very best, having a side motivation of being loyal to his Salamanca tribe/family but that was blatantly secondary to him to the greed and power aspects.

My opponent has not given you a metric on which to measure who is the best villain, instead he gave you a requirement of villainy called 'malicious intent' and this is not correct. A villain is a villain even if they intended well and a hero is still a hero even if they had malicious intent. Imagine the total opposite of an antihero; an antivillain. An antivillain can be motivated by things that aren't malicious. SG is an antivillain. At times he has benevolent motives to help out a guy in need but then turns them into useful allies, one even becomes his bodyguard willing to take a bullet for him. SG is a villain who understands 'tit for tat'. He gives but primarily gives to receive later, not ever really just to give. This is a villain agenda, not a hero agenda.

My opponent suggests that if you ever once are motivated by benevolence, you're not a villain. Well, LS's relationship with Hector Salamanca can be argued at times to be benevolent. As my opponent says, LS was very close to Hector in a genuine way, not just in a business transactional manner. He was the nephew of HS and admired his uncle on a genuine level, I don't think LS is capable of the emotion of love but what do I know?

To suggest that doing a kind act like buying Hector a bell while he's paralysed, is proof LS isn't a villain is just as absurd as suggesting that SG is not a villain because he has benevolent aspects to him.

The title of 'best villain' does not mean 'who is the most evil'. That was never ever the metric that I agreed to. It is 'within those who meet the criteria to qualify for being a villain who did it in the most entertaining, unpredictable and intriguing way'. Perhaps we can add on to this 'who was a villain that despite being a villain you rooted for often enough and truly admired at times'. It is the 'best' part we disagree on even more than the 'villain' part. My opponent forgot to define 'best' the entire debate.

of the highest quality, or being the most suitable, pleasing, or effective type of thing or person

dictionary.cambridge.org

I defined it in Round 2. the 'highest quality' 'pleasing' and 'effective' parts my opponent keeps ignoring. He is fixated on the 'most suitable' part only and keeps adding on:

cruelly malicious person who is involved in or devoted to wickedness or crime.

which is a wikipedia definition and which only applies to a subset of villains.

You can be a villain who isn't actively very cruel or actively very malicious in your intent. You just need to fit the following:

a bad person who harms other people or breaks the law

a character in a book, play, film, etc. who harms other people

dictionary.cambridge.org

If you harm others but did not maliciously intend to you are a villain. If you intended to but ended up helping them you're an ironic hero/antihero.

This is just how it works.

I do not care to prove it anymore as my opponent ran out of Rounds to argue against it and never really tackled my definitions provided from Cambridge Dictionary.

I do not really care if he finds some way to technically loophole LS to be equal to Hector in ranking. Not only is this made up by him with 0 sources backing him but even if that was the case, I began stating that LS is a nepobaby where GF and SG are far more self-made. This is one of the most fundamental aspects of why they're superior villains that my opponent ignored.