whiteflame

Honestly, we didn't have to discuss much. The initial thought was for one of us to claim BP or PGO, and she went with the latter after enough people had claimed that it wouldn't be super sus from the start. I was going to claim a few times, but kept getting cover for it, and inviting suspicion by not claiming ended up being the better route.

Well, you totally got it. I was trying to be subtle to invite the lynch, definitely worked in the end.

Out of curiosity, because you had the strongest read on me (a little too late, though you didn't know there were mimes), what gave me away?

Was concerned about that as well, though that probably would have led to an easy mafia win.

Honestly, you were the main one I was concerned about this DP. When mafia NK'd you, I knew I was in good shape.

First time playing as a TP, and first time in chat with another player in the game. Fun experience. Really got to play up the "I'm a novice and just want to play this straight" angle. To Speed's credit, he was among the first to see through it, though like many of you, he scum read me.

Was a little shocked that didn't come up as a red flag this DP. Previous rounds, it made sense to scum read me. It was all about having That1 be the focus of suspicion for the mime, I guess.

If you had unvoted, I would have just VTL myself.

I still would have suspected Speed most of all, tbh. My reads on Croc and Pie were largely null up to this point (though I was a bit sus of Croc - was a bit confused by his choices for targets), though I know a lot of people were convinced they were town, so good job to both of you guys. My suspicions of That1User vanished during the last DP entirely due to behavior, but I wanted to keep some attention on him. That ended up sealing in the deal because people ended up thinking he was the mime. Didn't know it would play out that way, but that's how it worked out.

All that told us was that he was popular. No one said popular meant town. He was popular scum.

That was one thing I couldn't understand. It was fine that Supa targeted That1User in the first NP, but I could not fathom why he chose Pie for NP2. GP was the easiest choice to test.

Yeah, Danielle and I were nervous about what would happen after she got lynched. I thought a lot of suspicion would come my way, but That1User got most the most suspicion as the mime. That helped quite a bit. When you were NK'd, I figured I could just coast to a lynch. Turns out, I was right.

You're right, I would. Was glad I held off.

Well, you definitely had the non-scum read right. I think you helped me a lot, though. Gave me cover during DP2 and I just stayed obstinate this DP.

Yeah, we only found out we had a 1x BP at the start of this DP. Lucky for us, too. Would have claimed BP at the beginning of this DP if not for that.

I had a strong read on Croc, didn't buy your Psychiatrist role. I can't believe so many people bought that Pie's popular role made him town, either. 

Lol.

I'm honestly not sure why we're pushing so hard on this without hearing from Croc first. There is clearly at least 1 more mime, and, assuming that he is the psychiatrist, it's entirely possible that he's already converted a mime to vanilla town. Until we hear from him, we should be careful who we lynch.

I already have any number of possible fake claims to make, all of which would be feasible based on what we already know. Why does this information better inform a fake claim?

Wasn't Greyparrot practically confirmed town? Clearly, Danielle was trying to get herself lynched and she lied about having been visited by him. The Hot Potato claim was pretty solid and the role is almost certainly town (no clue why he'd give it to Danielle if he were mafia - his partner would have definitely let him know about the PGO claim), whereas simply knowing that Pie is Popular doesn't guarantee that he's town. Hell, I think Croc has a stronger claim to town because of his claim of Psychiatrist. We might not have verification of that, but that would be a strange claim for scum. I'm honestly not sure why you picked Pie, and if you're right, then why isn't Pie changing his vote to That1User?

Why did you visit Pie? How does that confirm that you're not paranoid?

You can say what you want, but I'm waiting until at least one of them states who they visited before I claim. If you want to learn the most from my claim, then you need to wait.

Honestly, I'm still trying out a number of methods.

The common method in the style of debate I hail from is to ask three questions or make three statements, and to put everything under those three. Whether it's questions or comments, the aim is to focus on the judge on the essential pieces of the debate. For this style of debate, a final round should not endeavor to cover everything discussed in the debate. It shouldn't be a series of rebuttals. Instead, it should focus on what happened and why it is important. There can be some rebuttal in there, but the essential thing is to crystallize and simplify. You obviously should explain why you think you're winning on those arguments.

Another common strategy from a different style of debate I've partaken in, and more common to sites like this, is setting out clear voters. It has a similar function to what I've said before, but the aim isn't so much to summarize as it is to point out the issues you believe you're winning on and to harp on them. Usually, that requires a tagline of some kind, followed by statements of why a point is the most potent in the debate and what that means for the debate as a whole. One thing that tends to separate this from the first strategy is that there's more of a focus on your own arguments here. Your goal is to explain why you are winning, not the context in the debate, though that usually does come up in some way, shape or form. This also tends to be associated with large swaths of rebuttal, so you end a final round speech with voters, but you spend much of the round doing the usual line-by-line. It looks a lot more like a normal speech than the previous method.

For me, I've been working on some mix of the two. My main goal (at least these days) in any final round is to have a clear comparison of the two worlds presented in the debate. I usually have substantial rebuttals, but my aim even with them is to paint a clear picture of how the debate shakes out. I used to be very line-by-line in the final round, but I don't do that as much anymore, choosing instead to take a step back from the individual arguments and assess how each argument works within the context of the debate. I feel that too few people do this anywhere - there's a sort of blind assumption built in that your arguments are both relevant and important to the debate simply because you defined things 4 or so rounds back. Even when it's just a reminder, judges appreciate going back to the resolution to clarify why those things are true. I also tend to use a lot of "even if" statements, largely because I assume that judges are going to buy some of my opponent's points. I think providing clear statements on why those points wouldn't net them the debate even if they were to win them does a lot to help guide the judge through a decision. For any debate, I try to do my best to ensure that my judges don't have to think too much. That's not because I don't trust them, but rather because I find that leaving more to the judge results in wider variance between decisions. The more time I've spent as a judge, the more I've grown to understand that as well. Judges often have a much wider view of the debate than the debaters do, and if anything is left unclear, they will try to make sense out of it however they can. Sometimes that will yield results you want. Sometimes it won't. So, I guide my judges in some ways, though not in the way that we so often see on sites like this where someone just declares that they are winning an argument. The goal should be to show, not tell, as much as possible. If I as the judge get opposing claims that each side is winning the same point and little else, then I'm left to pick out the reasons why each side thinks it's winning the same point.

To some extent, I agree with Ragnar that it's easier to do all this as the contender. You're the last speech, usually, so you get to take everything into consideration. At the same time, I'd say I've had the most fun doing it as the instigator. I was the one who set up the burdens and the definitions to start. There may have been some debate over them, but it was my organization that set up this debate. Linking back to that first round and examining what that means for the debate just makes things feel more complete in a way that I haven't really gotten as a contender. In some cases I do, and then it feels about the same, but I like being able to bring things full circle.

I will reveal my role after we have heard the results of both Crocodile's and SupaDudz's actions. Those could strongly inform what you hear from me.

I'm really intrigued by it as well. My PhD research focused on one of those non-viral RNAs, and I just find them endlessly fascinating. RNA is highly susceptible to heat and all kinds of chemistries, so it doesn't survive well in the world, which might be the reason why DNA emerged a little further down the line. Essentially, I think life started off as pretty stable double-stranded RNA, but evolved DNA to further stabilize, increase their genetic information and work with available proteins like histones to further condense their genetic information.

Heh, heh, got her!

They're the most obvious, partly for that reason and partly because Measles and Pertussis can cause a lot of problems unchecked. Mumps and Rubella aren't that big of a deal, and Diptheria and Tetanus can cause problems, but the former is largely controllable and the latter doesn't spread by air. 

Part of the reason I like the debate is that there's good arguments to be had on both sides, but I personally find the definition of life to be too constricting. In many ways, we define life by similarity to humans, hence our early uncertainties regarding bacteria and other microbes. Now, we generally seem to define life as being membrane-bound and having their own internal activities, and even that is kind of off when it comes to viruses, because some of them meet that threshold. There are massive viruses that are actually directly infected by other viruses. It's crazy.

Be happy to do it most any time. I'd probably personally lean in the same direction, but I'm happy to take on Con with this. That's what I was doing against Bsh1 before it got cancelled.

I was opposed as well.

I can see that, and it certainly seems worth debating, especially these days.

I suppose that's true, though whether that's actually beneficial is a different question. My personal perspective is that there was a time and place for militia groups to be important, both for the security of individual states and for checking abuses of power. At this stage, I'm not so sure that they effectively do either, and in the event that they do perform the latter function, I think the cost of that check (essentially creating smaller powers that can and do abuse authority generated by shows of force) may be bigger than the gain. Still, even without that discussion, the debate I had with bsh1 on this topic was my all-time favorite online debate.

I'm of a similar mind. Danielle seems like the more obvious scum out of the two, whereas GP would have to be running a very detailed con with a series of strange holes in it, so I'd advocate lynching the former. Should we have Croc target GP if we do lynch Danielle?

The term itself, antibiotic, definitely screams "anti-life," but most antibiotics are organism-specific. That being said, there isn't an antibiotic that works against viruses. I would argue that they're a distinct form of life from cellular life, but still life.

Part of the reason I like this debate is that it's got good arguments for both sides. I'd love to debate it one of these days. Only got to start one with bsh1, but he couldn't continue past the first round. Never came back to it.

More like "here's a contract for what you can do to me after I die," but hey, not knocking your quote.

Strongest arguments for MMR and TDaP, weaker ones for flu and COVID-19, still weaker for HPV, but I've argued for many of these before. Personally wouldn't want too many, but at least the first two.

The basic idea is that life was initially composed solely or largely of RNA. There are actual subviral and non-viral entities that are solely RNA, so it's not beyond reason. RNA is also highly versatile, and can behave like a protein in some instances. In practice, this would have meant that randomly assembling RNA sequences eventually stumbled upon self-replication and went from there.

I'm not second-guessing the PGO rule, I'm saying that GP could be fully lying about his role. I still don't get how he didn't see that Danielle was the PGO during DP1. We're not sure what changed in the spreadsheet, only that GP claimed the Hot Potato role and then claimed that the role itself changed on the spreadsheet later. Not saying I'm more sus of him than Danielle, but I don't see how we've fully vindicated him, either.

I get that one of them has to be lying, but how do you know it's Danielle? Seems like the whole Google Sheet timeline issue could have been something GP used as a cover for his mistake in making a fake claim.

There are lots of topics that I just love to debate, though they're usually political or scientific. I'm having trouble thinking of some of my absolute favorites from my live debate days, so I skimmed my DDO debates.

The definition of "life" should be inclusive of viruses.

Assisted suicide should be legal.

The United States should use private military firms abroad to pursue its military objectives.

U.S. militia groups pose a greater threat to our national security than do FTOs.

Let anyone work anywhere.

The US should ban hydraulic fracking.

The use of antibiotics by health care professionals should be restricted.

This house would allow performance enhancing drugs in professional sports.

This house would allow consensual necrophilia. (I just kinda love this - it shouldn't work, but it does)

Some vaccines should be mandatory.

The "RNA World" theory of abiogenesis is currently the most likely explanation for the beginnings of life.

Since I am up and see the post by Danielle, unvote until I see what she has to say

Just in case, VTL Danielle

Actually, never mind, if there are 4 votes tonight, I’ll post before I go to bed.

I’m also regularly up early. I’ll hammer if need be first thing in the morning.

I feel like we're missing key information that eliminating some will provide. There's a whole lot of second-guessing going on here despite some clear information because we don't know how paranoia is playing into this game. Maybe Danielle isn't the best source of that information, but I do think we need it to clarify things.

I absolutely agree, though I think taking action at this stage is necessary. 

I'm of a similar mind to what most of you have posted thusfar. I think Danielle is by far the most scummy, though I'd really like to hear from her before the DP is up. Assuming we don't, I will still VTL.

Apologies, I'm stupid. For some reason, I thought the DP started later than it actually did. Was just checking it against her time offline that I saw on her profile, and it doesn't match. My bad.

I'm on board.

I'm not connected with her on FB, so I can't say that. Maybe you're right, but even if there is something preventing her from getting on, the fact remains that she lied about her role as PGO. I'd like to give her time to get on as well, but I can't set aside my suspicions or find anyone else who sticks out to nearly the same extent.

Lynching Speed is still on my mind, though I can't say he's done anything super obvious to make himself suspect since DP1 except maybe some behavioral stuff. I suppose it's possible that Speed is right about me, but Danielle has been the obvious target this entire DP.

I endorse the "mod as mafia" theory. Now, how do we lynch him?

You think Danielle isn't on here because of some restriction to what she can say? She hasn't even been on, even during the NP, so I can't be sure that this has anything to do with her.

The best jokes, dude. The best jokes.

I guess jew-mer's out of the question?

Heh, yeah, not one of my better moments. I happened to be on the phone when we went to NP, and I hadn't thoroughly read my role beforehand, so that didn't help. I'm still getting used to a lot of this, though... boomer?

I invade lots of minds, and it certainly seems we're on the same level here. I guess it was always a shot in the dark who he would target this round, and Speed certainly isn't the worst target, but we haven't even gotten confirmation that there's a TP in this game.

Glad to hear we're on the same page. I'm still unclear between Speed and That1User which is scum, but both have acted rather antagonistically.