Instigator / Pro
17
1466
rating
4
debates
12.5%
won
Topic

They Are Out To Get Me

Status
Voting

Participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.

The voting will end in:

00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Society
Time for argument
Two weeks
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Six months
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
13
1505
rating
24
debates
41.67%
won
Description
~ 467 / 5,000

My burden of proof is to prove they are out to get me. Con's burden is to prove they are not out to get me. At no time shall the existence of they be called into question. They shall not be identified, otherwise they will get me. If they get me, that proves they were out to get me and Con will lose this debate. If I forfeit any round it must be assumed that they got me and I win this debate in absentia, unless proven otherwise. Con enjoys no such privilege.

Round 1
Pro
Ladies and gentlemen, I present a comment posted on this very debate by my opponent:

I have a very sneaky way to win this debate.
This sounds exactly like something they would say.  They are known precisely for using sneaky tactics, and my opponent has admitted to having a scheme, planned in advance, of sabotaging my arguments in a sneaky way.  I have quoted my opponent's words here, verbatim, so that even if he tries to delete this paper trail leading straight to them, we already have it here as a permanent record of their conspiracy.

Thus concludes my first argument:

  • My opponent is one of them, and is out to get me, and his participation in this debate is purely a diversion to keep me distracted while they get me.
I would like to pick up on a second line of reasoning.  Specifically, I have not been gotten.  Put another way, they didn't get me yet.  Notice the emphasis on yet. This strongly implies that they will get me at some point in the future.  We may follow this string of Ariadne (1) out of the labyrinth, stop, turn around, and observe my second argument highly formalized as a logical syllogism:

  • P1: They didn't get me yet.
  • P2: This implies they will get me in the future.
  • C: They are out to get me.
My third argument shall be an appeal to emotion.  Not the emotion of the voters, to be sure, but my own emotions.  I strongly feel they are out to get me.  Put another way, my instinct (2), highly developed and perfected over millions of years through the merciless, uncaring forces of evolution, natural selection, random mutation, and a slight sprinkling of accidental inbreeding (3), is trying to save my life and preserve my genes (4) by warning me they are out to get me.

I have a fourth argument but I am reserving this space and postponing it for a future round.  I decline to state exactly which round at this time.  I assume my opponent will have no problem with this, unless he is one of them.

My fifth and final argument (for now) is ESP.  Using ESP I have detected they are out to get me. What exactly is ESP?  ESP is an abbreviation for Executive Success Programs, which according to Wikipedia (5), is:

a self-help technique promoted by the NXIVM cult
I will not publicly declare that they are in the NXIVM cult, for there is no reason to make them angry for no reason, nor am I suggesting that this is precisely the cult that is out to get me.  However, I will not deny that this is the conclusion I want you to take away, nor will I confirm it.  In fact, this is not at all the ESP I was talking about in the first place.

What I actually meant was Extrasensory Perception.  Basically, the existence of ESP allows me to telepathically gain knowledge of them and what they doing.  If my opponent challenges this I can elaborate, but you can check out my source for further details. (6)

(3) This is merely a possibility, but it has never been confirmed.  It probably is not true.
(4) Mostly the latter.
Con
My argument is simple: they cannot be “ARE” out to get you, because “ARE” is present tense, but only the past and the future exist. It seems contradictory because we experience “the present” but one second later and “ARE” becomes “WERE” and hence pro could only have been correct if the premise is “they were out to get me”. 

So when pro says someone planned something for him, notice how this is past tense. They already had the sneaky tactics prepared in advance. How can he know they’d put themselves in the present tense to put obstacles in his way, when they already determined to get him in the past tense? As one of them, I can confirm that our plan have already finished, and our execution is done. We WERE out to get him. Now the job is done, and we laugh maliciously at our accomplishments.
Round 2
Pro
My opponent, instead of defending against my arguments, has instead decided the best defense is a powerful offense and mounted a barrage of lies, sophistry, deceit, and double-talk against my person.  What have I ever done to incite him to such violence?  The world will never know, because as a massive sphere of molten metal, water, and dust, it possesses no mind and is thus incapable of knowing anything.  However, the people who preside upon it can know.  True, they can't know what I did to instigate such an attack from Con, but they can know other stuff in general. (7)

According to Con, the present does not exist.  Only the past and future do.  There are four problems with this argument. (8) First of all, the mitochrondria is the powerhouse of the cell.  You are thinking, “That has nothing to do with anything.”  You're correct, but I am only demonstrating my powers of ESP, which I just used to read your mind.  However, you're not completely convinced, because you think this is just a joke and not to be taken seriously.  In that case, I just read your mind again, further establishing beyond any reasonable doubt that I really do have the powers of ESP, and these powers can be trusted when they tell me that they are out to get me.

The second problem with Con's argument is that, by trying to convince me that the present does not exist, they are trying to gaslight (9) me:

Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which a person or a group covertly sows seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or group, making them question their own memory, perception, or judgment.
Only someone who's out to get me would stoop to such a low level, and try to win an online debate by outright psychological manipulation.  I would even go so far as to accuse my opponent of trying to trigger me into having a psychotic break, complete with intense paranoia and delusions of persecution.  However, I will not let myself be triggered.  I am better than that. (10)

The third problem with Con's argument is the same as the second, so I won't waste any of the precious time I have before they get me by writing it out again.

The fourth problem with Con's argument is that, by claiming their past plans to get me have already been accomplished, he directly contradicts the observable fact that I've not yet been gotten.  If I have not been gotten in the past, and I'm not got in the present, I have to be gotten in the future.  The unavoidable conclusion is that they are out to get me. 

As one of them, I can confirm that our plan have already finished, and our execution is done.
This is incorrect grammar, but because they are too intelligent to ever make such a trivial mistake on purpose, I am forced to assume this is a clever attempt at lulling me into a false sense of security.  By all appearances it truly seems that I have won this debate.  I honestly cannot imagine any possible world wherein I lost this debate. (11)  Even using ESP to straddle the metaphysical boundary between this world and the next, I was unable to peer into the future and detect any sign of me losing.

I must point out that by identifying themselves as one of them, my opponent has triggered the 3rd clause of the debate terms:

They shall not be identified, otherwise they will get me.  If they get me, that proves they were out to get me and Con will lose this debate.
Since the 3rd clause triggers the 4th clause, Con has forfeited this debate.  However, I have not been gotten yet, which seems to be a logical prerequisite for Con losing according to these terms.  I conclude that therefore, Con has not forfeited this debate.  I am enjoying a short time of peace between the 3rd clause and the 4th clause, a limbo of sorts where my victory is a foregone conclusion, but not yet actuated.  Con has not forfeited this debate, and is not forfeiting this debate, but will indeed forfeit it at some time in the future.  This may or may not tie in to his previous point about the various tenses and meanings of the word “is”. (12)

I await my opponent's rebuttal to what seems an absolutely rock-solid case.

(7) This excludes the dead.  Not because they can't know anything, but because as disembodied spirits, it is debatable whether they can be considered to be presiding on the earth, as opposed to floating a short distance above its surface.
(8) In Arabic this is written as 4.
(10) The reassuring voice inside of my head.  I assume that by “I” it is referring to me, and not itself.
(11) I imagined 37 possible worlds before mental exhaustion set in.  This excludes 14 impossible worlds wherein I lost this debate.
Con
Con does not understand that we have taken his ESP abilities into account and planned ahead perfectly in sync to destroy his sensory perception.

You see, the human perception is only 300 milliseconds. When the ESP tells you someone is spying on you, it is actually 300 millisecond in the future. Our plan is simultaneously executed in the past, as well as prepared a fake plan 300 milliseconds in the future. We have a robot hovering over a button every 300 milliseconds so that you would be taken away, and forfeit this debate. But even if the robot accidentally pressed the button, you would still lose. Because your forfeit would occur in the "past" according to me and all voters' desires. So everything that has impacted Pro has already happened in the past. Our plans are more powerful than what you can fathom. Because no matter how powerful your ESP is, you cannot fathom that our robot is able to hover over the button within 300 milliseconds and fool you into thinking this is present tense. But the true timing of our ability to take you away is in the future. As soon as it is executed, it will become the past and you will be unable to state "they are out to get me". 

Our organization is fueled by your paranoia and your use of ESP. The more you use it, the more energy you gain. We have no reason to use the present tense to out to get you. We only have reason to throw it into the past (as you cannot change the past), or fool you into thinking of the future (using the weakness of your ESP powers). Clearly, we were out to get you. We will be out to get you. But we are never out to get you, because our advanced robot will always be 300 milliseconds ahead of your ESP brain. I bet Pro hasn't detected the brain chip implanted that monitors his thoughts.
Round 3
Pro
 I bet Pro hasn't detected the brain chip implanted that monitors his thoughts.
This is ridiculous.  First of all, I am not prone to psychotic outbursts, so I will not take this bait.  I could not take it even if I wanted to, because my mind just doesn't work like that.  Second of all, this is impossible.  Maybe not technically impossible, because there is no law of physics explicitly forbidding my opponent from having implanted a thought-monitoring device just below my cranium, close enough to detect minor electrical signals, but not so deep as to rust from the moisture of my tiny, beating capillaries (of which there are many, because my cerebellum is highly folded, and thus possesses greater surface area than my opponent is assuming).

So it is not technically impossible, but indeed, highly implausible that my opponent and his cohort are currently reading my thoughts via an elephant implanted in my brain.  If they were, they would have known I would talk about an elephant inside of my brain.  But I've performed a thorough, painstaking search of his arguments and the word "elephant" does not appear even once.  Surely at least one of them would have found this noteworthy.

This makes no sense.  Specifically, my opponent's argument makes no sense.  There is only a very slight possibility of there being an elephant in my brain,  if the elephant is very small, and was forcibly injected, because it could not have wandered in there accidentally.

In any case, I have postponed this final argument up to the final 24 hours on the off-chance that there really is a microchip in my brain.  Hopefully its battery has died by now.  Although, I am open to the possibility that my opponent read my mind and knew I would do this, and therefore implanted 2 microchips, for a total of 3 microchips.  The first for mundane mind-reading purposes, the second as a backup, and the third as a backup of the backup.

Actually, for all I know, he has implanted yet a 4th microchip, because he foresaw me considering the possibility of 3 microchips. (10)  As a compelling proof against this possibility, I refer readers to my argument about the microscopic elephant.

Roses are red, violets are violet.  There, I said it.  I have spoken truth to power.  In all likelihood there is less than 1% chance my opponent would have expected me to say this, assuming no functioning microchip.  Plus, it's true, and my opponent despises the truth.  What's more, and additionally, there is nothing more to add. (1)

You see, the human perception is only 300 milliseconds.
This is false.  At the top-right corner of my screen it usually says 68 ping.  300 milliseconds is severe lag and if that were the case I would miss every skillshot. (2)

I bet Pro hasn't detected the brain chip implanted that monitors his thoughts.
This is ridiculous.  First of all, I am not prone to psychotic outbursts, so I will not take this bait.  I could not take it even if I wanted to, because my mind just doesn't work like that.  Second of all, this is impossible.  Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, because there is no law of physics explicitly forbidding my opponent from having implanted a thought-monitoring device just below my cranium, close enough to detect minor electrical signals, but not too deep so as to rust from the moisture from my tiny, beating capillaries (of which there are many, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum, and since Con has stopped reading this I now have a chance to appeal to the voters to please vote for me before they get me.  This is my last will and testament.

Con does not understand that we have taken his ESP abilities into account and planned ahead perfectly in sync to destroy his sensory perception.
I understand far more than you understand that I understand.  If all of your plans were pre-programmed to take place precisely 300 milliseconds ahead of when my ESP warns me of them, then consider the case where my ESP tips me off every 300 milliseconds.  Your (3) plan is quite simple.  You (3) are out to get me.  So the fake plan in the past would overlap with the real plan of the future, and even though my ESP would not detect a statistically significant difference, it would be effectively the same since the plan is always the same.  A difference instance of the same master plan.  Recall that my mental ping is only 68 milliseconds anyway.  This is a reduction of your argument by 232 milliseconds, ± 12 milliseconds. (11)

Because your forfeit would occur in the "past" according to me and all voters' desires.
This is malicious psychology, and I resent that you dare to project your own whims upon the voters, who have no desires plural, but only one singular, all-consuming desire, which is to vote for me. (4)

zation is fueled by your paranoia and your use of ESP. The mo
I admit I do not understand what you are trying to say here.

Our organization is fueled by your paranoia and your use of ESP. The more you use it, the more energy you gain. 
Empty flattery.  I do not gain energy from paranoia, because I am not paranoid.  You only seek to indulge my human longing for power and acknowledgement by tempting me into entering a vicious cycle of paranoid thoughts, the goal of which would be a relentless pursuit of immense power normally inaccessible to the mortal human mind which lacks ESP.

I am not paranoid.  I repeat aloud (12), I am not paranoid.  I know that you know that I know this, because of the microchip.  But I have the upper hand, because thanks to my ESP, I know that you know that I know that you know that I knew, know, and will know in the future.

But even if the robot accidentally pressed the button, you would still lose.
The fallacy of this logic is that robots aren't capable of accidents since they do not have free-will.  My opponent has committed a Freudian slip and exposed himself as the very robot to which he refers to.  I am now completely convinced that my opponents have confused themselves with their own 300 millisecond interval scheme and have lost all sense of time.  With that I conclude my part in this debate.  Now that the microchip has been remotely disabled (of this I am sure for it would be useless to continue in operation after my final argument, providing no competitive advantage) I would like to appeal to the voters' conscience and ask that they find it in themselves to vote for me, seeing as I am in dire straights and about to get got.  

I hand the floor over to Con.

Thanks to my opponent for his most recent argument.  I would like to begin by stating that I will construct this final round of mine in a fashion which may appear disjointed and broken to our audience, but I hope and trust that my tactics will be appreciated by everyone who has been following recent developments in the theories of Special and General Relativity from 1905 up to our debate today.

Because no matter how powerful your ESP is, you cannot fathom that our robot is able to hover over the button within 300 milliseconds and fool you into thinking this is present tense ... As soon as it is executed, it will become the past and you will be unable to state "they are out to get me". 
To the contrary, you cannot fathom that I am not moving linearly at constant velocity, and that I am not at rest in time nor space. I am restless, both in mind and body, for I long for something more satisfying than the fleeting pleasures of this earthly life.  Additionally, I am hurling through outer space at 30 kilometers per second around the sun, (5) plus 500,000 miles per hour around the galaxy (6).  Entering these values into a Lorentz contraction calculator (7) and assuming I am 3 meters tall (8) produces the result that I experience zero time-dilation or length-contraction relative to any observer, even relative to your microchip.  So immediately upon execution of your diabolical plans to get me, concurrent in the present, neither one of us will shrink or slow down.  You will be unable to cheat my prophecy in any way.

Thus it has been mathematically proven that you are out to get me. (9)

(1) I apologize for leading voters on to a dead end sentence, but this was for my own safety, in order to obstruct Con's mind-reading shenanigans.
(2) I have no proof that I don't, but that is not the topic of this debate.
(3) Plural.
(4) Or for my opponent.  In which case, I cannot say that I share their desire.
(13) This space intentionally left blank to as a countermeasure for my opponent's electronic device.
(8) Practically the same result even if you assume 2 meters.  Or 1.
(11) To account for the possibility of exaggeration or under-appreciation.
(12) Trust me on this.
Con
As pro desperately flies around the galaxy to bridge the 300 millisecond gap, he has not realized that his post was in the past. We got him good boys. We were put to get him for the sake of this debate. And now that it’s the final round, we’re done. As he continues trying his time dilation, we’ve already packed up our bags and gone home. He’s wasting his time. The fact that he is the instigator is a big hint that we were always in control. For the contender has the true advantage of being able to tell pro’s thoughts, mind chip or no. We were always one step ahead. Vote for con.