They Are Out To Get Me
Participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.
The voting will end in:
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- Six months
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
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.
Removed Benjamin’s vote by request:
Pro never proves that they are out to get him - he just makes a subjective assertion that since he "feels" that they are after him they really are. CON proves that if they were they would not be "ARE" after him.
Sources to PRO, obviously, CON never used sources.
I think you have to PM David, he removed one of my votes for me so I could redo it.
My vote is very short, and I wish to get it removed.
Thanks for your vote. It's disappointing that you've voted for my opponent, especially considering that if you were me you'd vote for Pro.
Thanks for your vote! It has a rather serious tone so I just thought I'd let you know I've emerged from the ordeal unscathed. Physically, at least.
I never noticed I broke my own rule! But neither did Con, ha. Thank you for voting.
Con doesn't have sources, very easy choice for this section.
There's a couple of really easy places for me to vote. With no BOP analysis done, I default that BOP falls on pro. Pro makes the mistake of dropping some of his most powerful arguments (gaslighting, got me YET, etc.) but I still believe they fulfill their burden for a couple of reasons. Firstly, his last will and testament is for me to vote for him. This is a request that I've never given a reason to ignore, so even if you got him after that speech, I still vote for his last will and testament. Even if he wasn't gotten, I vote that, based on his ESP with 68 ping, this is proof that he will die to them in the future as they are working to get him. Secondly, his argumentation that the chips are technically improbable is dropped, meaning that there is no chip, you haven't gotten him, your still working towards getting him. Third, the argument that this is all in the past since you have the last speech, I somewhat protect against new arguments in the last speech, so weighing that possibility against Pro's ESP doesn't outweigh.
You drop a lot of really good arguments like gaslighting and the YET argument. Don't drop things that are ignored win conditions. Also, be careful for breaking your own rules, you identify Con as them which could be an immediate loss if they hammered that out.
Don't put all your eggs in one basket. This one argument about it being in the past because it's the last speech, this is new and only one thing. This is very risky and it didn't pay off. Make sure to keep your other time arguments up, microchip, etc. Also, when Pro breaks their own rule (calls you them despite not being able to define them), call them out on that.
If you have any questions you can PM me or @ me in the comments.
I admit I was impressed by your final round.
Ha! I always knew you were one of us - er, them!
Even an FF is a win. What is going on?
Who are they?
I have a very sneaky way to win this debate.