They Are Out To Get Me
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Six months
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
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.
I have a very sneaky way to win this debate.
- 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.
- P1: They didn't get me yet.
- P2: This implies they will get me in the future.
- C: They are out to get me.
a self-help technique promoted by the NXIVM cult
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.
As one of them, I can confirm that our plan have already finished, and our execution is done.
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.
I bet Pro hasn't detected the brain chip implanted that monitors his thoughts.
You see, the human perception is only 300 milliseconds.
I bet Pro hasn't detected the brain chip implanted that monitors his thoughts.
Con does not understand that we have taken his ESP abilities into account and planned ahead perfectly in sync to destroy his sensory perception.
Because your forfeit would occur in the "past" according to me and all voters' desires.
zation is fueled by your paranoia and your use of ESP. The mo
Our organization is fueled by your paranoia and your use of ESP. The more you use it, the more energy you gain.
But even if the robot accidentally pressed the button, you would still lose.
I hand the floor over to Con.
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".
RFD in comments
Arguments are to Con. I generally have an extremely difficult time of not only comprehending what Pro is currently saying, but also what Pro is trying to express as most of Pro’s arguments are just unrelated assumptions.
The BoP automatically falls on Pro as no further specifications were made, and as long as Con points out that Pro did not fulfill it, Con gets the args.
Pro starts the first argument by being vague and not specifying who “they” are, then Con captured the ambiguity and argued that Con could be “they” and could have already got Pro since “they were out to get me” would be past tense.
In R1, Pro did not ever prove that “they were out to get me” since all Pro used as sources are conspiracy theories or unrelated stuff.
Pro’s R2 isn’t strong either as Pro did not ever rebuke the possibility that Con already got Pro. Same goes with R3. All Pro did is appealing to conspiracy theories and things that may support them and may support the possibility that somehow, something is out to get them. However, the term “they ARE” would imply a 100% certainty, so even if everything Pro imagined was winning, it is still a possibility that Pro loses, meaning that there is no 100% certainty to them getting Pro.
Con rather claimed to be one of the conspiracy theory’s subjects, further supporting his claim that Con already got Pro by manipulating what Pro says. “They were out to get me” was wrong as they already got pro.
In R3, Pro just gave up on proving that “they were out to get me” and tried to prove everything Pro said wrong, which doesn’t fulfill his BoP as it is a fallacy. The big argument for Pro is that it is unproven that they weren’t out to get Pro.
Con furtherly describes that Con already got Pro, which disproves the BoP. In the end, Pro did not prove the BoP, Con pointed out.
Sources: everything Pro used are confusing and conspiracy-like and generally isn’t enough for me to give the Sources point.
S&G and Conduct: tie, both did good
Very fun setup. I occasionally made jokes along those lines when an opponent forfeited.
Seems like a comedy debate, but if I don't see some jokes, I'll need to be given some reason to believe there is a they.
Okay, a syllogism this bad (seemingly intentionally invalid) did make me chuckle:
"P1: They didn't get me yet.
P2: This implies they will get me in the future.
C: They are out to get me."
The inbreeding bit was good, particularly the source/footnote. The footnotes come up again in a great way a little later with the 14 impossible worlds bit.
Con offers an odd language Kritik about presence tense (pro does a good defense of this by saying they are trying to gaslight him), before joining in the fun of declaring himself to be one of they who have already gotten pro. Con does better in the followup, claiming they the presence tense is a conspiracy from they.
Pro makes fun of the words are violence crowd... Con gets properly invested in the comedy with talk of brain chips... The elephant point again made me laugh.
Con's final round actually did a good job with the claim of having then successfully gotten pro, thus at last falsifying the presence tense so validating the kritik.
As this is a comedy debate (currently considered a category of troll debate), it is unregulated. I am giving pro arguments chiefly for making me laugh more, and giving con S&G (which I would never do otherwise as it's supposed to be only if someone screws up) as a favorable callout to his efforts tied to the one metric he really tried to use.
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.
RFD
Sources
Con doesn't have sources, very easy choice for this section.
Argumentation
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.
Notes
Pro
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.
Con
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.