You only said that AFTER I called you out on being wrong about Amon.
Re: I'm aware that LoK was scheduled for one season at the beginning, and thereby advancing Amon's character wasn't a probability at the time, but at the very least they could have advanced his ideology. He and his movement had infinitely more potential than Ozai.
I could have been more clear, but to reiterate, advancing his character arc was never a probability because they killed him off by season's end. No matter what I thought of his character, it wouldn't have mattered. He's dead. They can't do anything with his arc (maybe barring the Equalist arc). But I always made an exception for Amon because he always had the potential to be a well-rounded and recurrent villain. In any case, it's a peripheral point because they didn't advance his character.
I'm willing to accept this premise, but I'm interested to know if you think that LoK's other villains hold the same density as Amon. That's been my grievance with (most of) LoK's villains from the start: they're ideological bullhorns.
I ask this because you're under the false impression that I think you already agree with me on this, which I don't. It's only an argument which I've maintained and which you seemed to have disdained.
No, you THINK you do. There's a difference. You can repeat your initial claim all you want, it's still wrong for the exact reasons AA7 already pointed out.
Great, now actually prove it, instead of just saying it's true. Specifically explain how Ozai is better, in ways that can't apply to the other villains, & don't amount to "the 1st series was longer."
Pot calling the kettle black aside, I'm not convinced you even know what this means. Hint: When you act as if I've already agreed that the Korra villains have no development, that's an example.