Total posts: 2,897
Posted in:
-->
@seldiora
I may be busy too by then, so we will see. If it comes to it and I'm free, I'd be ok with being the boss.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
He's not a socialist, but he's clearly further in that direction than most other Dems of the past. So I suppose that's what people are afraid of
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I realize that other nations are more left-shifted, and in American politics we generally have a right shift. But imo that's not a negative thing at all. Quite the opposite really. I suppose it just depends on who you ask.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I think he's far too left, so clearly we have a worldview difference here
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
exactly. At this point people are simply questioning which turd they prefer... that's not a good sign for the future of American politics
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
I also suspected Misterchris would use his jailing abilities earlier which would role block some people but he didn't.
Yup. I knew my role was on balance negative town utility in the early game. I needed to save it until I was confident on a target.
Created:
sorry but I gotta take a mafia break. As you all can tell I haven't been too active recently and if I play I wanna be a high contributor
Created:
Posted in:
Nice! Sorry I couldn't contribute all that much for DP2 & 3. To say I've been busy is an understatement
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
because he's scum, and is flailing at this point
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
It isn't fallacious. Think about it for more than 2 seconds. When you have two people, one holding a bloody knife and the other not, which is more likely to be the murderer? Hopefully you see my point. The only variable isn't the number of players. Circumstantial evidence plays the role in separating one player from the crowd.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Nice latin. You have no rebuttal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
In more detail, mine says that my target may not carry out any night action, nor be targeted by any night action.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Nice try, but you had no action last night.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Not at all what I'm implying.
Let's run through why you're by far the best lynch.
a. You were conveniently nowhere to be found when your scum buddy Sir was getting lynched. You were online, just lying low hoping we wouldn't notice you.
b. When I JK'd you, there was no nightkill. This means the scum's NK failed, or they abstained. Obviously it would be scum suicide to abstain, so it was the former. Since I am the only person here with a roleblocking role, and I targeted you, it follows you were the scum who had their NK blocked.
If town wonders why they should believe me, Speed's report confirms that I am JK. His tracking failed on Intel. My role explicitly prevents any night action from targeting my victim.
Created:
Posted in:
VTL Intelligence. I am the Jailkeeper. (which means I both protect and roleblock my target) I targeted him, and there was no nightkill.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
@Speedrace
BTW, pretty sure Intel is the last scum. He has been online plenty today and is conveniently nowhere to be found to hammer Sir.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
@Speedrace
Plus, pretty sure being a PGO does not mean that you kill everyone who recruits you. May be wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
That's great. And yeah, breaking down an argument under each category is a great way to start poking holes in a seemingly impenetrable argument. Like for example, maybe the impacts are too solid to refute. Well, you can cast some doubt on them and then move on and take down the warrant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Glad to hear it! If you utilize each category your refutations will be very strong.
Created:
Posted in:
Just a bump for my new release:
https://open.spotify.com/album/08ADiLKL2XeNPAhS7eZrWL?highlight=spotify:track:50XqRiotGhXgLSrBnmo9cH
I'm very proud of this one :)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BearMan
They are functionally synonymous. Like Seldiora said tho, one totally beats the argument (refutation) while one just offers a counter-position (rebut).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@seldiora
Framework is the "lens through which the debate should be viewed" or what the judge should prioritize... i.e. it is a way to set up an outweigh argument or a way to mitigate impacts pre-emptively. So if there is another category I don't think it would be based on framework... maybe kritiks are their own category but I don't think framework arguments are.
As for that debate, I would have to read it in more detail to figure out what strategy he used.
Created:
Posted in:
Just spent past 20 mins catching up on all this. I'm going to have to absorb the info. Analysis coming soon.
Regarding the whole "MisterChris is inactive oh no" read, I've been kept pretty busy lately with school. This is easily demonstrable, as is there has been a marked reduction in my activity over the last month or two. Oh btw, I was really active when I was scum with Luna. That's a bad read imo.
Created:
Posted in:
There are 3 main categories of refutations. I try to use all 3 categories to refute each major point my opponent makes... this gives me a lot of extra room to breathe, as even if one refutation fails, the others can prop up my argument.
First, there are impact refutations. These are refutations that address the impacts your opponent's arguments give, and either "turn" them in your favor, outweigh, or negate/minimize them. So for example, in my abortion debate with Seldiora, I gave the impact that we were killing something to the tune of 40 million people yearly via abortions. Seldiora said that is actually a good thing, because it addresses overpopulation. That's a turn. Seldiora maybe could have argued that the harms of illegalizing abortion would be worse than the current harms of 40 million people dying. That's outweighing. Seldiora also could have given counter-evidence and said "there are way less abortions than that" theoretically. That's negating, or minimizing the impact.
Second, there are warrant refutations. A "warrant" is a reason an impact is going to happen. For example, I said we are killing 40 million people yearly. That was the impact. I had 1 big warrant, that those fetuses are people, and therefore every fetus that dies is a person. So in response Seldiora could have said "those fetuses are not people" and give the reason why, and maybe give some counter-evidence to back that up as well. This would have effectively "de-linked" my warrant from my impact, and the impact would have become irrelevant.
Third, there are source refutations. This doesn't mean counter-evidence, these are arguments that rely on you going into your opponent's source and discrediting it somehow. Let's say I unwittingly used commentary from a universally discredited scholar to establish that fetuses are people, for example. If nothing else, seldiora could have argued that he is a bad source according to other professionals in the field.
Knowing these categories helps, because even if you don't figure out how to address one category of your opponent's argument (maybe the warrant or impact is much too solid), maybe you can find something to work with in the other categories (maybe the source looks iffy).
Hope this helps!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
@Mikal
Fair enough...
So basically you think he is a LP townie who isn't being the smartest with his role.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@LikeMagic
Why not vote him x2 if scum? Both this DP and next? I would think the LP wouldn't be dependent on which DP we're on. We might have to break his role, then hammer him for good next DP.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mikal
anytime, anywhere. DuhHamburgler will be Hamburgled
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
Nothing for me to miss... I wish I had joined DDO back in the day but I was like negative 3 at the time. y'all are old lmao
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@LikeMagic
I guess I've just gotten used to it. DART has its flaws but the interface is so pretty you grow to overlook them after a while
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@LikeMagic
there is a handy dandy quote button. When you press it, it gives you a box where you can copy/paste and insert what text is being quoted into it.
ex:
Created:
Posted in:
Well, he has obviously already full claimed... I meant that he should tell us the whole truth (whatever restrictions on his role Danielle gave him) if he isn't lying.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mikal
This is Joe bidens america. We sniff people here.
lmfao
Anyway regarding this:
2) if he's town , mafia will not kill him. They will force a mislynch
OK. Let me see if I'm interpreting this right.
If Pie were town, the obvious course of action on his part is to attract a NK instead of advocate for a confirmation. This is because "confirming him" would waste his role and he could be freely killed by mafia (which they would obviously support) Obviously, we're assuming his role as x1 limit. Instead, he acts like his role will protect him indefinitely (overpowered as fuck), something that should only be true with something like lynchproof... There is the possibility, of course, that Pie is x2 or something else.
Another possibility is that Pie simply thought PoE was a greater advantage than one less NK. Which I'm not sure I see him thinking that if I'm honest.
So this implicates a scum lynchproof Pie. While I suppose we could have a town lynchproof, I'm pretty sure it would be obvious to scum he was not actually infinitely deathproof and I think it would be obvious to a town Pie as well. On the other hand, scum Pie would be getting town cred and simultaneously explaining why he never gets targeted by scum.
I think this demands a full claim from Pie.
Created:
Posted in:
I don't buy he is big brain , he likes trump. He's like a borderline neanderthal.
bruh
Created:
Posted in:
The obvious solution if we want more time, of course, is to hammer him near the end of the DP's time limit.
Created:
Posted in:
I think there is enough utility in confirming Pie to where it does not matter if the DP ends.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BearMan
Cool, glad the debate didn't go to waste
Created:
Look at this. If that doesn't look fishy to you you must be delusional
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
You win on points 1 & 2, those statements were inaccurate, but the sentiment remains. The rest I'm far too groggy to respond to atm.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
Thanks!
Fortunately, the only thing I've done illegally was sneak into the occasional R-rated movie showing.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Your video is a man sitting around poking holes in an argument in which he has taken no part. Put him 1v1 against Ben, let's see what happens.
Regardless, my argument is not that Shapiro can't be beaten or all of his views are rock solid... that's not the point. The point is that on balance, he is objectively a skilled debater, literally famous for it, and acting like he isn't is just as dishonest as you purport his debating methods to be.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Honestly, I think your assessment is heavily skewed and egotistical. Denying his skill is like denying Albert Einstein is good at maths. You may dislike the guy, but he clearly has a talent.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
All false, but let's assume that's true for the sake of argument. Even still, he whups the ass of most people you would consider "informed." You may think he uses faulty logic to do so, and that's your prerogative, but his performance as a debater is undebatable. If he is able to perform as well as he does at a "logical deficit" as you so claim, I say that's further proof of his skill.
And yes, a debater's skill should be measured by debate performance primarily. That is the only objective metric there is.
Created: