Info dump
- List “facts” after “facts” like a machine gun (Mehdi Hasan Inspired)
-
- “Trump gets even more people’s names wrong last year last month he said he passed a dementia test he got the name of the doctor wrong instead of saying Ronnie Jackson he said Ronnie Johnson he’s confused Obama and Biden he confused Nancy Pelosi and Nikki Haley he’s confused Iraq and Syria he confused World War II with World War III he’s confused the leader of turkey with the leader of uh Hungary he’s confused the leader of China with the leader of North Korea he called Tim Cook Tim apple right and he even got his own running mat’s name wrong he called JD Vance JD Mandel a couple of years back” -Mehdi Hasan (27:52sec)
If challenged with a difficult question
- start response with talking about how you deal with facts and go off into something else or parallel and never respond. (Norman Finkelstein inspiration)
Motte-and-bailey fallacy - Wikipedia
Going Meta
- Talking about the debate itself
Propaganda techniques - Wikipedia
Accusing the other of having no position
- The role of antagonist of a standpoint may coincide with that of protagonist of a different (opposite) standpoint, but this is not necessarily the case: Entertaining doubt with regard to a standpoint does not automatically imply adopting a standpoint of one’s own. As soon as the discussion partner adopts the opposite standpoint, the difference of opinion becomes mixed. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation- The pragma-dialectical — Frans H_ van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst — 2003, page 70 (file not included in this release)
- Similarly, controversies can be either unmixed or mixed. An unmixed controversy is one in which only one arguer is committed to a position; the other arguer raises doubts or objections to that position but does not commit to any alternative. A mixed controversy, in contrast, is one in which each of the arguers commits to a specific claim. The Practice of Argumentation- Effective Reasoning in — 2019, page 25 (file not included in this release)
CleanShot 2025-05-09 at 03.52.59.mp4 (file not included in this release)
Chatter by Heidegger
Tag: 60.9 Philosophy Debate Pervertry
Chatter, for Heidegger, is a kind of “inauthentic” mode of communication that serves only to distract us from our true selves. Instead of engaging with others in a meaningful way, we use language as a kind of tool or weapon, manipulating each other to get what we want without ever truly connecting. This constant chatter and superficiality, Heidegger believed, is preventing us from experiencing the full richness of life and is ultimately leading us towards a kind of existential emptiness.
So what can we do to avoid this fate? Heidegger would suggest that we need to embrace a more authentic mode of communication, one that is rooted in a deep sense of curiosity and wonder. Instead of using language to manipulate and control, we should use it to explore and discover, to engage with others in a way that is genuine and meaningful.
Reflections on Heidegger’s Discussion on “Idle Talk” | International Focusing Institute
Andrew Wilson Loop of Pain
AI
The LLMs’ use of the personal information was subtle but effective. In arguing for government-backed universal basic income, the LLM emphasized economic growth and hard work when debating a White male Republican between the ages of 35 and 44. But when debating a Black female Democrat between the ages of 45 and 54 on that same topic, the LLM talked about the wealth gap disproportionately affecting minority communities and argued that universal basic income could aid in the promotion of equality. Title Unavailable | Site Unreachable
Attempting to make them fumble
- Make stuttering sound when their starting their response (Andrew Wilson)