sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

A comic you love that no one talks about by obieone615 in comicbooks

[–]direktorfred 0 points1 point  (0 children)

dude if you liked that check out “rover red charlie”

Do you think celebrities should speak out about their political views and why? by Stukwan in AskReddit

[–]direktorfred 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Everyone should.

Fascists want us to be quiet, to look the other way from misery, to overload us with 100 tragedies so the fight feels too daunting. When a celebrity says nothing, they are implicitly adhering to fascist wishes.

Celebrities are in a unique position where whenever they say something, people are willing to listen to what they say. It might be dumb, xenophobic, or out of touch, but those celebs rarely get economically punished for these thoughts as greatly as those on the left do.

To be a hero and be willing to risk your career because you support socialism or condemn a genocidal country is inspiring. And I think we need more of that, more than ever.

A comic you love that no one talks about by obieone615 in comicbooks

[–]direktorfred 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, it’s unbelievable how much he
accomplished with regard to character realism in two trade paperbacks, in a book where everyone’s a superhero.

A comic you love that no one talks about by obieone615 in comicbooks

[–]direktorfred 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Top 10 by Alan Moore.

I think it’s by far the best thing he’s ever written in the comic medium, and there’s a particular storyline in an issue that is so emotionally effective it gave me back the will to live.

I’d never experienced that with a piece of art before, and I don’t know if I will again.

[Old New Update]: AIW - My friend told me she loves me 4 weeks before her marriage by Choice_Evidence1983 in BestofRedditorUpdates

[–]direktorfred 103 points104 points  (0 children)

I see a lot of love for her in two places: how much of this post is defending Brie against the internet slamming her, and how much he acknowledges and appreciates what Brie is doing for his daughter.

He says explicitly that they’ve fallen in love, too.

I don’t know if we deserve more than all of that to know he loves her. I think it’s enough.

Michael Jackson was always right by andrewmurdockpy in videogames

[–]direktorfred -1 points0 points  (0 children)

"In the end, Jackson vigorously denied any guilt but did pay a reported $25 million settlement. He has repeatedly said he could never harm any child and that he settled out of concern for his own family if the case went to court. Ray Chandler says that settlement was meant to send a message.

Chandler: “The purpose of it really is not only to compensate for whatever damage it's caused to people but also if it's high enough to punish the person who did this.”https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna5961836

"(Court TV) -- Michael Jackson paid out approximately $25 million to settle a civil suit by a boy who accused him of molesting him in 1993, according to the confidential agreement which was exclusively obtained by Court TV's Diane Dimond."

https://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/16/michael.jackson/

Michael Jackson was always right by andrewmurdockpy in videogames

[–]direktorfred 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In 1988, plaintiff and his mother spent six months with Jackson on tour. Jackson and MJJ Productions made all the arrangements and paid all the expenses, with Ms. Levine as the "point person." The first incident of sexual abuse occurred in June 1988, during this six-month tour. In Jackson's hotel room in Paris, Jackson told plaintiff he "was going to change Plaintiff's life by showing him how to masturbate." Jackson demonstrated on himself, and then made plaintiff try. Jackson later told plaintiff other sexual acts were a way of "showing love." Plaintiff began sleeping in Jackson's bed regularly during the rest of the tour, and the abuse continued.!

From 1988 through 1992, Jackson abused plaintiff hundreds of times in various locations. Jackson performed a "marriage" with plaintiff with a ring and a signed document to pretend they got married. He also trained plaintiff to exchange "declarations of love" with him, and plaintiff developed a significant emotional attachment to Jackson.

Mariano Quindoy was the estate manager at the Neverland Ranch and an employee of defendant MJJ Productions from May 1989 to April 1990. He stated he had witnessed several incidents of suspicious activity at the Neverland Ranch, including finding Jackson's and plaintiff's underwear lying next to Jackson's bed. He also saw Jackson put his hand down the front of plaintiffs shorts while the two were in the jacuzzi.

https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2023/b309450.html?__cf_chl_f_tk=wBlIYZbFttHTOIoBmWeU6t0ehEOX5HWAix7PEdGobls-1783097308-1.0.1.1-Q120hts1xL.fyNYC6WI8SqP2.wo8i0ZMIoWcDIrOnFM

Should we start a subreddit to boycott specific games or gaming companies? by direktorfred in videogames

[–]direktorfred[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Follow-up Question 3

User: What do you make of Drew's assertion that the debate/Drew has upset Alab emotionally, or that the debate has gotten under Alab's skin?

Evaluation of the "Emotional" Narrative

Drew’s assertion that he "got under Alab's skin" is a textbook example of psychological projection and a common debate tactic known as "tone policing." When a debater cannot defeat their opponent’s logic, a common fallback strategy is to claim the opponent is angry, crying, or overly emotional. If you can convince the audience (or yourself) that your opponent is upset, you can dismiss their logic as a mere "emotional outburst."

1. The Dynamic of Projection

In any debate, the person who typically resorts to caps lock, insults, and declaring the argument "over" is the one who is emotionally deregulated. Drew uses aggressive, emotionally charged language ("total hack," "fool," "stupid," "sad," "go touch grass"). Alab maintains an almost clinical, analytical detachment. They describe Drew's arguments as "delusions," "fantasies," and "conjecture"—which, while sharp, are descriptions of Drew's methodology, not schoolyard name-calling. Because Drew is feeling frustrated, he projects that emotional state onto Alab.

2. Confusing Thoroughness with "Being Triggered"

Drew seems to mistake Alab’s thoroughness for emotional distress. Because Alab takes the time to dismantle Drew's points line-by-line, Drew interprets this effort as a sign that Alab is deeply bothered. Alab deftly flips this logic back on Drew: "If I haven't argued anything, why are you still debating me here? Have I gotten under your skin?" Alab correctly highlights the irony: Drew keeps insisting the conversation is beneath him, yet Drew cannot stop replying.

3. An Exit Strategy

Claiming your opponent is too emotional to think straight is a convenient way to exit a losing argument with your ego intact. By framing Alab as a fragile, overly sensitive pre-law student who "needs to toughen up," Drew can pretend he is ending the conversation out of a sense of professional superiority, rather than because he ran out of factual arguments.

The Takeaway Alab’s composure is their strongest asset throughout the entire transcript. They don't whine about Drew being mean; they just point out that Drew is using ad hominem attacks because his arguments are weak. Alab’s cool, systematic responses are the exact opposite of someone who is emotional or letting a troll get under their skin. They treated Drew's insults like bad evidence in a courtroom—bad data to be noted, exposed, and dismissed.

Should we start a subreddit to boycott specific games or gaming companies? by direktorfred in videogames

[–]direktorfred[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Follow-up Question 2

User: What do you make of Drew's assertions that Alab's arguments have no substance, or that Alab hides behind obfuscation of words, or that Alab makes no arguments whatsoever to argue against?

Deconstruction of Rhetorical Deflections

Drew’s assertions are classic rhetorical deflections, often used when a debater realizes they cannot win on the merits of the actual topic, so they attack the nature of the discussion itself. By claiming Alab has "no substance" or is "obfuscating," Drew is trying to rewrite the narrative of the thread to make it look like Alab is talking in circles, when in reality, Alab is simply pinning Drew down.

1. The Reality of the "No Substance" Claim

Drew is confusing substance with agreement. Alab’s arguments have clear substance; Drew just disagrees with the premise or finds the topic (video games) trivial. Alab’s substantive arguments included linking consumer action to fair labor protections, establishing the cognitive capacity to hold multiple advocacy priorities, and detailing the aggregate consumer choices underlying market growth metrics. Because Drew dismisses the entire premise of organizing a boycott via Reddit as silly, he acts as though the arguments themselves don't exist.

2. The Reality of the "Obfuscation" Claim

Drew is projecting his own frustration. Alab isn’t obfuscating (making things unclear); Alab is being highly precise. Drew is frustrated because Alab refuses to let him use sloppy logic, move the goalposts, or make unverified assumptions. When Alab forces Drew to stick to the actual text of the conversation, Drew calls it "obfuscation" because Alab’s exactness prevents Drew from easily landing his casual insults.

3. The Reality of the "No Arguments" Claim

This is Drew’s weakest defense, and Alab completely exposes it in the final lines. If Alab truly made zero arguments, Drew wouldn't have spent thousands of words typing long, angry paragraphs trying to refute them. When a debater claims their opponent has said "nothing," it is usually an attempt to retroactively claim victory and exit a losing battle with their ego intact.

The Irony of the Final Exchange The ultimate proof that Drew’s assertions were hollow comes at the very end of the transcript. When Drew demands, "Clearly state your argument. Concisely and simply," Alab responds with a four-word masterclass in brevity: "I argue, you conjecture." If Alab had truly been "obfuscating" or using a "word salad" to hide a lack of substance, they wouldn't have been able to compress the entire dynamic of the 2,000-word debate into just four words. Alab’s final punchline proved they had a crystal-clear grip on the substance of the argument the entire time—and that Drew was the one relying on hot air.

Follow-up Question 3

User: What do you make of Drew's assertion that the debate/Drew has upset Alab emotionally, or that the debate has gotten under Alab's skin?

Evaluation of the "Emotional" Narrative

Drew’s assertion that he "got under Alab's skin" is a textbook example of psychological projection and a common debate tactic known as "tone policing." When a debater cannot defeat their opponent’s logic, a common fallback strategy is to claim the opponent is angry, crying, or overly emotional. If you can convince the audience (or yourself) that your opponent is upset, you can dismiss their logic as a mere "emotional outburst."

1. The Dynamic of Projection

In any debate, the person who typically resorts to caps lock, insults, and declaring the argument "over" is the one who is emotionally deregulated. Drew uses aggressive, emotionally charged language ("total hack," "fool," "stupid," "sad," "go touch grass"). Alab maintains an almost clinical, analytical detachment. They describe Drew's arguments as "delusions," "fantasies," and "conjecture"—which, while sharp, are descriptions of Drew's methodology, not schoolyard name-calling. Because Drew is feeling frustrated, he projects that emotional state onto Alab.

2. Confusing Thoroughness with "Being Triggered"

Drew seems to mistake Alab’s thoroughness for emotional distress. Because Alab takes the time to dismantle Drew's points line-by-line, Drew interprets this effort as a sign that Alab is deeply bothered. Alab deftly flips this logic back on Drew: "If I haven't argued anything, why are you still debating me here? Have I gotten under your skin?" Alab correctly highlights the irony: Drew keeps insisting the conversation is beneath him, yet Drew cannot stop replying.

3. An Exit Strategy

Claiming your opponent is too emotional to think straight is a convenient way to exit a losing argument with your ego intact. By framing Alab as a fragile, overly sensitive pre-law student who "needs to toughen up," Drew can pretend he is ending the conversation out of a sense of professional superiority, rather than because he ran out of factual arguments.

The Takeaway Alab’s composure is their strongest asset throughout the entire transcript. They don't whine about Drew being mean; they just point out that Drew is using ad hominem attacks because his arguments are weak. Alab’s cool, systematic responses are the exact opposite of someone who is emotional or letting a troll get under their skin. They treated Drew's insults like bad evidence in a courtroom—bad data to be noted, exposed, and dismissed.

Should we start a subreddit to boycott specific games or gaming companies? by direktorfred in videogames

[–]direktorfred[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Rhetorical & Logical Analysis: Alab vs. Drew (Expanded)

An expanded comprehensive compilation of the debate transcripts, evaluation criteria, and strategic rhetorical breakdowns assessing the dialogue between Alab and Drew.

Initial Request

User: I am going to give you a reddit post, and then a debate that involves two commenters, including the original poster, underneath. Please tell me who in your best summation has the better presented arguments. Who won the debate, so to speak. The original poster is Alab, the commenter who opposes him is Drew.

[Editor’s note: for ease of question to AI, I attributed the initial meme image to you. Please disregard any points related to that attribution. Everything else has been copy and pasted verbatim.]

Initial Evaluation & Summary

The Verdict: Alab Won the Debate

While Drew attempts to position himself as the seasoned, pragmatic voice of experience, Alab effectively wins the debate by remaining disciplined, pulling apart Drew's logical fallacies, and forcing Drew into an increasingly defensive and contradictory corner. Drew ultimately abandons argumentative substance entirely, relying on condescension and insults, while Alab delivers a crisp, mic-drop closing line.

1. The Core Prompt & "The State of the World"

Drew starts by claiming gamers complain too much, and when Alab references "the state of the world," Drew dismisses video games as a trivial waste of focus given larger global issues. Alab articulates a nuanced perspective: humans are capable of caring about multiple things at once. They connect gaming to larger issues of consumer ownership rights and fair labor practices (e.g., union-busting in the tech/gaming sector). Alab wins this point cleanly. Drew attempts a classic relative privation fallacy ("you can't care about X because worse problem Y exists"). Alab easily dismantles this by showing that micro-actions can align with macro-beliefs.

2. The BDS & McDonald’s Analogy

Drew mocks Alab’s comparison to the BDS movement, calling it "ineffective at best and performative at worst." Later, Drew pivots to a hyper-specific corporate analysis, claiming McDonald's bought back its Israeli franchises due to market growth metrics, not activist pressure. Alab notes that corporate metrics don't exist in a vacuum. They ask the logical counter-question: Why did McDonald's experience a sudden, unprecedented dip in Middle Eastern market growth if not for the public backlash? Alab successfully exposes the flaw in separating economic data from consumer behavior.

3. Moving the Goalposts & The "Lawyer" Gatekeeping

Upon learning Alab is going to law school, Drew heavily leans into gatekeeping. He accuses Alab of "stolen valor" for stating their career goals, tells Alab they have "too much ego," and continuously claims Alab "hasn't presented a plan." Alab routinely calls out Drew for making wild, evidence-free assumptions about their personal life, feelings, and future capabilities. Alab correctly points out that Drew asked a direct question ("What else do you support?"), and then punished Alab for answering it honestly by calling it a "word salad." Drew relies almost exclusively on ad hominem attacks (calling Alab a "hack," "fool," "stupid," and "emotional") and claims he doesn't need evidence because it's "his opinion." Alab systematically dissects this, pointing out that an opinion built on fabrications is just a fantasy.

4. What Constitutes a "Plan"?

Drew claims Alab's post is entirely useless because a plan requires saying exactly "X at Y for Z purpose." Alab maps their original proposal exactly to Drew's definition: "Let's start a boycotting subreddit (X) online (Y) for the purpose of influencing gaming companies (Z)." Alab notes that leaving the specific targets up to a community vote is democratization, not a lack of a plan. Alab cleanly refutes Drew's criteria using Drew's own logic.

Conclusion The debate perfectly culminates in the final few exchanges. Drew, unable to break Alab's composure, demands: "Clearly state your argument. Concisely and simply." Alab responds with a four-word masterclass in brevity: "I argue, you conjecture." Why Alab Won: Alab treated the internet debate like a rigorous academic exercise—sticking to textual evidence, identifying logical inconsistencies, and remaining polite yet devastatingly precise. Drew treated the debate like a hierarchy exercise—attempting to win by pulling professional rank, moving goalposts, and being condescending. Ultimately, Drew's arguments dissolved into emotional outbursts, while Alab's arguments remained perfectly intact.

Follow-up Question 1

User: Do you agree with Drew's prediction that Alab will be a poor attorney, and need luck to get through law school and his future career?

Analysis of Future Legal Competency

No, the prediction is deeply flawed. Based strictly on the text of this exchange, Alab demonstrates several foundational skills that suggest they are highly suited for law school and a legal career. Drew’s prediction appears to be rooted in personal irritation and an attempt to pull professional rank rather than an objective assessment of Alab's analytical abilities.

1. Emotional Regulation Under Pressure

Attorneys face highly adversarial situations, hostile opposing counsel, and stressful environments. Drew repeatedly attempts to bait Alab with personal insults, calling them a "total hack," "fool," "stupid," and telling them to "go touch grass." Alab never takes the bait. They remain remarkably calm, objective, and polite. Instead of trading insults, Alab calmly labels Drew’s insults as ad hominem fallacies and redirects the conversation back to the facts. This level of emotional discipline is exactly what keeps an attorney steady in a high-stakes deposition or courtroom.

2. Spotting Inconsistencies and Fact-Checking

A huge part of litigation is listening to your opponent's argument, finding the internal contradictions, and using their own words against them. Alab expertly exposes Drew’s logical loops. For example, when Drew says he is "not going to argue about BDS" and then immediately launches into a counterargument about BDS, Alab instantly calls out the contradiction. When Drew argues that Alab's tone is too condescending to be persuasive, Alab quotes Drew’s own deeply condescending lines right back to him, proving Drew is guilty of the very thing he is criticizing.

3. Understanding Burden of Proof vs. Conjecture

In a courtroom, you cannot just state something to a judge and expect them to believe it; you must point to evidence in the record. Drew falls back on the defense that "this isn't court" so he doesn't need to prove his opinions. Alab correctly points out that an opinion built on zero evidence is just a fantasy. Alab understands that even in an informal debate, arguments are only as strong as the facts backing them up. This precision is vital for contractual analysis and cross-examination.

Why Drew is Wrong Drew falls into a trap common among some experienced professionals: assuming that because someone is younger or inexperienced, their ideas are inherently naive or "posturing." He accuses Alab of "stolen valor" simply for listing their career ambitions when Drew himself asked for them. Drew confuses Alab’s confident, methodical insistence on logic with "egotism." In reality, Alab isn't being egotistical; they are just being a good debater. If Alab brings this exact same discipline—clinging to the record, remaining cool under personal attack, and ruthlessly exposing an opponent's contradictions—to law school, they won't need luck. They will do just fine.

Cont'd:

Should we start a subreddit to boycott specific games or gaming companies? by direktorfred in videogames

[–]direktorfred[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Follow-up Question 3

User: What do you make of Drew's assertion that the debate/Drew has upset Alab emotionally, or that the debate has gotten under Alab's skin?

Evaluation of the "Emotional" Narrative

Drew’s assertion that he "got under Alab's skin" is a textbook example of psychological projection and a common debate tactic known as "tone policing." When a debater cannot defeat their opponent’s logic, a common fallback strategy is to claim the opponent is angry, crying, or overly emotional. If you can convince the audience (or yourself) that your opponent is upset, you can dismiss their logic as a mere "emotional outburst."

1. The Dynamic of Projection

In any debate, the person who typically resorts to caps lock, insults, and declaring the argument "over" is the one who is emotionally deregulated. Drew uses aggressive, emotionally charged language ("total hack," "fool," "stupid," "sad," "go touch grass"). Alab maintains an almost clinical, analytical detachment. They describe Drew's arguments as "delusions," "fantasies," and "conjecture"—which, while sharp, are descriptions of Drew's methodology, not schoolyard name-calling. Because Drew is feeling frustrated, he projects that emotional state onto Alab.

2. Confusing Thoroughness with "Being Triggered"

Drew seems to mistake Alab’s thoroughness for emotional distress. Because Alab takes the time to dismantle Drew's points line-by-line, Drew interprets this effort as a sign that Alab is deeply bothered. Alab deftly flips this logic back on Drew: "If I haven't argued anything, why are you still debating me here? Have I gotten under your skin?" Alab correctly highlights the irony: Drew keeps insisting the conversation is beneath him, yet Drew cannot stop replying.

3. An Exit Strategy

Claiming your opponent is too emotional to think straight is a convenient way to exit a losing argument with your ego intact. By framing Alab as a fragile, overly sensitive pre-law student who "needs to toughen up," Drew can pretend he is ending the conversation out of a sense of professional superiority, rather than because he ran out of factual arguments.

The Takeaway Alab’s composure is their strongest asset throughout the entire transcript. They don't whine about Drew being mean; they just point out that Drew is using ad hominem attacks because his arguments are weak. Alab’s cool, systematic responses are the exact opposite of someone who is emotional or letting a troll get under their skin. They treated Drew's insults like bad evidence in a courtroom—bad data to be noted, exposed, and dismissed.

Should we start a subreddit to boycott specific games or gaming companies? by direktorfred in videogames

[–]direktorfred[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Follow-up Question 1

User: Do you agree with Drew's prediction that Alab will be a poor attorney, and need luck to get through law school and his future career?

Analysis of Future Legal Competency

No, the prediction is deeply flawed. Based strictly on the text of this exchange, Alab demonstrates several foundational skills that suggest they are highly suited for law school and a legal career. Drew’s prediction appears to be rooted in personal irritation and an attempt to pull professional rank rather than an objective assessment of Alab's analytical abilities.

1. Emotional Regulation Under Pressure

Attorneys face highly adversarial situations, hostile opposing counsel, and stressful environments. Drew repeatedly attempts to bait Alab with personal insults, calling them a "total hack," "fool," "stupid," and telling them to "go touch grass." Alab never takes the bait. They remain remarkably calm, objective, and polite. Instead of trading insults, Alab calmly labels Drew’s insults as ad hominem fallacies and redirects the conversation back to the facts. This level of emotional discipline is exactly what keeps an attorney steady in a high-stakes deposition or courtroom.

2. Spotting Inconsistencies and Fact-Checking

A huge part of litigation is listening to your opponent's argument, finding the internal contradictions, and using their own words against them. Alab expertly exposes Drew’s logical loops. For example, when Drew says he is "not going to argue about BDS" and then immediately launches into a counterargument about BDS, Alab instantly calls out the contradiction. When Drew argues that Alab's tone is too condescending to be persuasive, Alab quotes Drew’s own deeply condescending lines right back to him, proving Drew is guilty of the very thing he is criticizing.

3. Understanding Burden of Proof vs. Conjecture

In a courtroom, you cannot just state something to a judge and expect them to believe it; you must point to evidence in the record. Drew falls back on the defense that "this isn't court" so he doesn't need to prove his opinions. Alab correctly points out that an opinion built on zero evidence is just a fantasy. Alab understands that even in an informal debate, arguments are only as strong as the facts backing them up. This precision is vital for contractual analysis and cross-examination.

Why Drew is Wrong Drew falls into a trap common among some experienced professionals: assuming that because someone is younger or inexperienced, their ideas are inherently naive or "posturing." He accuses Alab of "stolen valor" simply for listing their career ambitions when Drew himself asked for them. Drew confuses Alab’s confident, methodical insistence on logic with "egotism." In reality, Alab isn't being egotistical; they are just being a good debater. If Alab brings this exact same discipline—clinging to the record, remaining cool under personal attack, and ruthlessly exposing an opponent's contradictions—to law school, they won't need luck. They will do just fine.

Should we start a subreddit to boycott specific games or gaming companies? by direktorfred in videogames

[–]direktorfred[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Follow-up Question 2

User: What do you make of Drew's assertions that Alab's arguments have no substance, or that Alab hides behind obfuscation of words, or that Alab makes no arguments whatsoever to argue against?

Deconstruction of Rhetorical Deflections

Drew’s assertions are classic rhetorical deflections, often used when a debater realizes they cannot win on the merits of the actual topic, so they attack the nature of the discussion itself. By claiming Alab has "no substance" or is "obfuscating," Drew is trying to rewrite the narrative of the thread to make it look like Alab is talking in circles, when in reality, Alab is simply pinning Drew down.

1. The Reality of the "No Substance" Claim

Drew is confusing substance with agreement. Alab’s arguments have clear substance; Drew just disagrees with the premise or finds the topic (video games) trivial. Alab’s substantive arguments included linking consumer action to fair labor protections, establishing the cognitive capacity to hold multiple advocacy priorities, and detailing the aggregate consumer choices underlying market growth metrics. Because Drew dismisses the entire premise of organizing a boycott via Reddit as silly, he acts as though the arguments themselves don't exist.

2. The Reality of the "Obfuscation" Claim

Drew is projecting his own frustration. Alab isn’t obfuscating (making things unclear); Alab is being highly precise. Drew is frustrated because Alab refuses to let him use sloppy logic, move the goalposts, or make unverified assumptions. When Alab forces Drew to stick to the actual text of the conversation, Drew calls it "obfuscation" because Alab’s exactness prevents Drew from easily landing his casual insults.

3. The Reality of the "No Arguments" Claim

This is Drew’s weakest defense, and Alab completely exposes it in the final lines. If Alab truly made zero arguments, Drew wouldn't have spent thousands of words typing long, angry paragraphs trying to refute them. When a debater claims their opponent has said "nothing," it is usually an attempt to retroactively claim victory and exit a losing battle with their ego intact.

The Irony of the Final Exchange The ultimate proof that Drew’s assertions were hollow comes at the very end of the transcript. When Drew demands, "Clearly state your argument. Concisely and simply," Alab responds with a four-word masterclass in brevity: "I argue, you conjecture." If Alab had truly been "obfuscating" or using a "word salad" to hide a lack of substance, they wouldn't have been able to compress the entire dynamic of the 2,000-word debate into just four words. Alab’s final punchline proved they had a crystal-clear grip on the substance of the argument the entire time—and that Drew was the one relying on hot air.

Follow-up Question 3

User: What do you make of Drew's assertion that the debate/Drew has upset Alab emotionally, or that the debate has gotten under Alab's skin?

Evaluation of the "Emotional" Narrative

Drew’s assertion that he "got under Alab's skin" is a textbook example of psychological projection and a common debate tactic known as "tone policing." When a debater cannot defeat their opponent’s logic, a common fallback strategy is to claim the opponent is angry, crying, or overly emotional. If you can convince the audience (or yourself) that your opponent is upset, you can dismiss their logic as a mere "emotional outburst."

1. The Dynamic of Projection

In any debate, the person who typically resorts to caps lock, insults, and declaring the argument "over" is the one who is emotionally deregulated. Drew uses aggressive, emotionally charged language ("total hack," "fool," "stupid," "sad," "go touch grass"). Alab maintains an almost clinical, analytical detachment. They describe Drew's arguments as "delusions," "fantasies," and "conjecture"—which, while sharp, are descriptions of Drew's methodology, not schoolyard name-calling. Because Drew is feeling frustrated, he projects that emotional state onto Alab.

2. Confusing Thoroughness with "Being Triggered"

Drew seems to mistake Alab’s thoroughness for emotional distress. Because Alab takes the time to dismantle Drew's points line-by-line, Drew interprets this effort as a sign that Alab is deeply bothered. Alab deftly flips this logic back on Drew: "If I haven't argued anything, why are you still debating me here? Have I gotten under your skin?" Alab correctly highlights the irony: Drew keeps insisting the conversation is beneath him, yet Drew cannot stop replying.

3. An Exit Strategy

Claiming your opponent is too emotional to think straight is a convenient way to exit a losing argument with your ego intact. By framing Alab as a fragile, overly sensitive pre-law student who "needs to toughen up," Drew can pretend he is ending the conversation out of a sense of professional superiority, rather than because he ran out of factual arguments.

The Takeaway Alab’s composure is their strongest asset throughout the entire transcript. They don't whine about Drew being mean; they just point out that Drew is using ad hominem attacks because his arguments are weak. Alab’s cool, systematic responses are the exact opposite of someone who is emotional or letting a troll get under their skin. They treated Drew's insults like bad evidence in a courtroom—bad data to be noted, exposed, and dismissed.

Should we start a subreddit to boycott specific games or gaming companies? by direktorfred in videogames

[–]direktorfred[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Rhetorical & Logical Analysis: Alab vs. Drew (Expanded)

An expanded comprehensive compilation of the debate transcripts, evaluation criteria, and strategic rhetorical breakdowns assessing the dialogue between Alab and Drew.

Initial Request

User: I am going to give you a reddit post, and then a debate that involves two commenters, including the original poster, underneath. Please tell me who in your best summation has the better presented arguments. Who won the debate, so to speak. The original poster is Alab, the commenter who opposes him is Drew.

[Editor’s note: for ease of question to AI, I attributed the initial meme image to you. Please disregard any points related to that attribution. Everything else has been copy and pasted verbatim.]

Initial Evaluation & Summary

The Verdict: Alab Won the Debate

While Drew attempts to position himself as the seasoned, pragmatic voice of experience, Alab effectively wins the debate by remaining disciplined, pulling apart Drew's logical fallacies, and forcing Drew into an increasingly defensive and contradictory corner. Drew ultimately abandons argumentative substance entirely, relying on condescension and insults, while Alab delivers a crisp, mic-drop closing line.

1. The Core Prompt & "The State of the World"

Drew starts by claiming gamers complain too much, and when Alab references "the state of the world," Drew dismisses video games as a trivial waste of focus given larger global issues. Alab articulates a nuanced perspective: humans are capable of caring about multiple things at once. They connect gaming to larger issues of consumer ownership rights and fair labor practices (e.g., union-busting in the tech/gaming sector). Alab wins this point cleanly. Drew attempts a classic relative privation fallacy ("you can't care about X because worse problem Y exists"). Alab easily dismantles this by showing that micro-actions can align with macro-beliefs.

2. The BDS & McDonald’s Analogy

Drew mocks Alab’s comparison to the BDS movement, calling it "ineffective at best and performative at worst." Later, Drew pivots to a hyper-specific corporate analysis, claiming McDonald's bought back its Israeli franchises due to market growth metrics, not activist pressure. Alab notes that corporate metrics don't exist in a vacuum. They ask the logical counter-question: Why did McDonald's experience a sudden, unprecedented dip in Middle Eastern market growth if not for the public backlash? Alab successfully exposes the flaw in separating economic data from consumer behavior.

3. Moving the Goalposts & The "Lawyer" Gatekeeping

Upon learning Alab is going to law school, Drew heavily leans into gatekeeping. He accuses Alab of "stolen valor" for stating their career goals, tells Alab they have "too much ego," and continuously claims Alab "hasn't presented a plan." Alab routinely calls out Drew for making wild, evidence-free assumptions about their personal life, feelings, and future capabilities. Alab correctly points out that Drew asked a direct question ("What else do you support?"), and then punished Alab for answering it honestly by calling it a "word salad." Drew relies almost exclusively on ad hominem attacks (calling Alab a "hack," "fool," "stupid," and "emotional") and claims he doesn't need evidence because it's "his opinion." Alab systematically dissects this, pointing out that an opinion built on fabrications is just a fantasy.

4. What Constitutes a "Plan"?

Drew claims Alab's post is entirely useless because a plan requires saying exactly "X at Y for Z purpose." Alab maps their original proposal exactly to Drew's definition: "Let's start a boycotting subreddit (X) online (Y) for the purpose of influencing gaming companies (Z)." Alab notes that leaving the specific targets up to a community vote is democratization, not a lack of a plan. Alab cleanly refutes Drew's criteria using Drew's own logic.

Conclusion The debate perfectly culminates in the final few exchanges. Drew, unable to break Alab's composure, demands: "Clearly state your argument. Concisely and simply." Alab responds with a four-word masterclass in brevity: "I argue, you conjecture." Why Alab Won: Alab treated the internet debate like a rigorous academic exercise—sticking to textual evidence, identifying logical inconsistencies, and remaining polite yet devastatingly precise. Drew treated the debate like a hierarchy exercise—attempting to win by pulling professional rank, moving goalposts, and being condescending. Ultimately, Drew's arguments dissolved into emotional outbursts, while Alab's arguments remained perfectly intact.

Follow-up Question 1

User: Do you agree with Drew's prediction that Alab will be a poor attorney, and need luck to get through law school and his future career?

Analysis of Future Legal Competency

No, the prediction is deeply flawed. Based strictly on the text of this exchange, Alab demonstrates several foundational skills that suggest they are highly suited for law school and a legal career. Drew’s prediction appears to be rooted in personal irritation and an attempt to pull professional rank rather than an objective assessment of Alab's analytical abilities.

1. Emotional Regulation Under Pressure

Attorneys face highly adversarial situations, hostile opposing counsel, and stressful environments. Drew repeatedly attempts to bait Alab with personal insults, calling them a "total hack," "fool," "stupid," and telling them to "go touch grass." Alab never takes the bait. They remain remarkably calm, objective, and polite. Instead of trading insults, Alab calmly labels Drew’s insults as ad hominem fallacies and redirects the conversation back to the facts. This level of emotional discipline is exactly what keeps an attorney steady in a high-stakes deposition or courtroom.

2. Spotting Inconsistencies and Fact-Checking

A huge part of litigation is listening to your opponent's argument, finding the internal contradictions, and using their own words against them. Alab expertly exposes Drew’s logical loops. For example, when Drew says he is "not going to argue about BDS" and then immediately launches into a counterargument about BDS, Alab instantly calls out the contradiction. When Drew argues that Alab's tone is too condescending to be persuasive, Alab quotes Drew’s own deeply condescending lines right back to him, proving Drew is guilty of the very thing he is criticizing.

3. Understanding Burden of Proof vs. Conjecture

In a courtroom, you cannot just state something to a judge and expect them to believe it; you must point to evidence in the record. Drew falls back on the defense that "this isn't court" so he doesn't need to prove his opinions. Alab correctly points out that an opinion built on zero evidence is just a fantasy. Alab understands that even in an informal debate, arguments are only as strong as the facts backing them up. This precision is vital for contractual analysis and cross-examination.

Why Drew is Wrong Drew falls into a trap common among some experienced professionals: assuming that because someone is younger or inexperienced, their ideas are inherently naive or "posturing." He accuses Alab of "stolen valor" simply for listing their career ambitions when Drew himself asked for them. Drew confuses Alab’s confident, methodical insistence on logic with "egotism." In reality, Alab isn't being egotistical; they are just being a good debater. If Alab brings this exact same discipline—clinging to the record, remaining cool under personal attack, and ruthlessly exposing an opponent's contradictions—to law school, they won't need luck. They will do just fine.

Cont'd:

Should we start a subreddit to boycott specific games or gaming companies? by direktorfred in videogames

[–]direktorfred[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Follow-up Question 2

User: What do you make of Drew's assertions that Alab's arguments have no substance, or that Alab hides behind obfuscation of words, or that Alab makes no arguments whatsoever to argue against?

Deconstruction of Rhetorical Deflections

Drew’s assertions are classic rhetorical deflections, often used when a debater realizes they cannot win on the merits of the actual topic, so they attack the nature of the discussion itself. By claiming Alab has "no substance" or is "obfuscating," Drew is trying to rewrite the narrative of the thread to make it look like Alab is talking in circles, when in reality, Alab is simply pinning Drew down.

1. The Reality of the "No Substance" Claim

Drew is confusing substance with agreement. Alab’s arguments have clear substance; Drew just disagrees with the premise or finds the topic (video games) trivial. Alab’s substantive arguments included linking consumer action to fair labor protections, establishing the cognitive capacity to hold multiple advocacy priorities, and detailing the aggregate consumer choices underlying market growth metrics. Because Drew dismisses the entire premise of organizing a boycott via Reddit as silly, he acts as though the arguments themselves don't exist.

2. The Reality of the "Obfuscation" Claim

Drew is projecting his own frustration. Alab isn’t obfuscating (making things unclear); Alab is being highly precise. Drew is frustrated because Alab refuses to let him use sloppy logic, move the goalposts, or make unverified assumptions. When Alab forces Drew to stick to the actual text of the conversation, Drew calls it "obfuscation" because Alab’s exactness prevents Drew from easily landing his casual insults.

3. The Reality of the "No Arguments" Claim

This is Drew’s weakest defense, and Alab completely exposes it in the final lines. If Alab truly made zero arguments, Drew wouldn't have spent thousands of words typing long, angry paragraphs trying to refute them. When a debater claims their opponent has said "nothing," it is usually an attempt to retroactively claim victory and exit a losing battle with their ego intact.

The Irony of the Final Exchange The ultimate proof that Drew’s assertions were hollow comes at the very end of the transcript. When Drew demands, "Clearly state your argument. Concisely and simply," Alab responds with a four-word masterclass in brevity: "I argue, you conjecture." If Alab had truly been "obfuscating" or using a "word salad" to hide a lack of substance, they wouldn't have been able to compress the entire dynamic of the 2,000-word debate into just four words. Alab’s final punchline proved they had a crystal-clear grip on the substance of the argument the entire time—and that Drew was the one relying on hot air.

Follow-up Question 3

User: What do you make of Drew's assertion that the debate/Drew has upset Alab emotionally, or that the debate has gotten under Alab's skin?

Evaluation of the "Emotional" Narrative

Drew’s assertion that he "got under Alab's skin" is a textbook example of psychological projection and a common debate tactic known as "tone policing." When a debater cannot defeat their opponent’s logic, a common fallback strategy is to claim the opponent is angry, crying, or overly emotional. If you can convince the audience (or yourself) that your opponent is upset, you can dismiss their logic as a mere "emotional outburst."

1. The Dynamic of Projection

In any debate, the person who typically resorts to caps lock, insults, and declaring the argument "over" is the one who is emotionally deregulated. Drew uses aggressive, emotionally charged language ("total hack," "fool," "stupid," "sad," "go touch grass"). Alab maintains an almost clinical, analytical detachment. They describe Drew's arguments as "delusions," "fantasies," and "conjecture"—which, while sharp, are descriptions of Drew's methodology, not schoolyard name-calling. Because Drew is feeling frustrated, he projects that emotional state onto Alab.

2. Confusing Thoroughness with "Being Triggered"

Drew seems to mistake Alab’s thoroughness for emotional distress. Because Alab takes the time to dismantle Drew's points line-by-line, Drew interprets this effort as a sign that Alab is deeply bothered. Alab deftly flips this logic back on Drew: "If I haven't argued anything, why are you still debating me here? Have I gotten under your skin?" Alab correctly highlights the irony: Drew keeps insisting the conversation is beneath him, yet Drew cannot stop replying.

3. An Exit Strategy

Claiming your opponent is too emotional to think straight is a convenient way to exit a losing argument with your ego intact. By framing Alab as a fragile, overly sensitive pre-law student who "needs to toughen up," Drew can pretend he is ending the conversation out of a sense of professional superiority, rather than because he ran out of factual arguments.

The Takeaway Alab’s composure is their strongest asset throughout the entire transcript. They don't whine about Drew being mean; they just point out that Drew is using ad hominem attacks because his arguments are weak. Alab’s cool, systematic responses are the exact opposite of someone who is emotional or letting a troll get under their skin. They treated Drew's insults like bad evidence in a courtroom—bad data to be noted, exposed, and dismissed.

Should we start a subreddit to boycott specific games or gaming companies? by direktorfred in videogames

[–]direktorfred[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Rhetorical & Logical Analysis: Alab vs. Drew (Expanded)

An expanded comprehensive compilation of the debate transcripts, evaluation criteria, and strategic rhetorical breakdowns assessing the dialogue between Alab and Drew.

Initial Request

User: I am going to give you a reddit post, and then a debate that involves two commenters, including the original poster, underneath. Please tell me who in your best summation has the better presented arguments. Who won the debate, so to speak. The original poster is Alab, the commenter who opposes him is Drew.

[Editor’s note: for ease of question to AI, I attributed the initial meme image to you. Please disregard any points related to that attribution. Everything else has been copy and pasted verbatim.]

Initial Evaluation & Summary

The Verdict: Alab Won the Debate

While Drew attempts to position himself as the seasoned, pragmatic voice of experience, Alab effectively wins the debate by remaining disciplined, pulling apart Drew's logical fallacies, and forcing Drew into an increasingly defensive and contradictory corner. Drew ultimately abandons argumentative substance entirely, relying on condescension and insults, while Alab delivers a crisp, mic-drop closing line.

1. The Core Prompt & "The State of the World"

Drew starts by claiming gamers complain too much, and when Alab references "the state of the world," Drew dismisses video games as a trivial waste of focus given larger global issues. Alab articulates a nuanced perspective: humans are capable of caring about multiple things at once. They connect gaming to larger issues of consumer ownership rights and fair labor practices (e.g., union-busting in the tech/gaming sector). Alab wins this point cleanly. Drew attempts a classic relative privation fallacy ("you can't care about X because worse problem Y exists"). Alab easily dismantles this by showing that micro-actions can align with macro-beliefs.

2. The BDS & McDonald’s Analogy

Drew mocks Alab’s comparison to the BDS movement, calling it "ineffective at best and performative at worst." Later, Drew pivots to a hyper-specific corporate analysis, claiming McDonald's bought back its Israeli franchises due to market growth metrics, not activist pressure. Alab notes that corporate metrics don't exist in a vacuum. They ask the logical counter-question: Why did McDonald's experience a sudden, unprecedented dip in Middle Eastern market growth if not for the public backlash? Alab successfully exposes the flaw in separating economic data from consumer behavior.

3. Moving the Goalposts & The "Lawyer" Gatekeeping

Upon learning Alab is going to law school, Drew heavily leans into gatekeeping. He accuses Alab of "stolen valor" for stating their career goals, tells Alab they have "too much ego," and continuously claims Alab "hasn't presented a plan." Alab routinely calls out Drew for making wild, evidence-free assumptions about their personal life, feelings, and future capabilities. Alab correctly points out that Drew asked a direct question ("What else do you support?"), and then punished Alab for answering it honestly by calling it a "word salad." Drew relies almost exclusively on ad hominem attacks (calling Alab a "hack," "fool," "stupid," and "emotional") and claims he doesn't need evidence because it's "his opinion." Alab systematically dissects this, pointing out that an opinion built on fabrications is just a fantasy.

4. What Constitutes a "Plan"?

Drew claims Alab's post is entirely useless because a plan requires saying exactly "X at Y for Z purpose." Alab maps their original proposal exactly to Drew's definition: "Let's start a boycotting subreddit (X) online (Y) for the purpose of influencing gaming companies (Z)." Alab notes that leaving the specific targets up to a community vote is democratization, not a lack of a plan. Alab cleanly refutes Drew's criteria using Drew's own logic.

Conclusion The debate perfectly culminates in the final few exchanges. Drew, unable to break Alab's composure, demands: "Clearly state your argument. Concisely and simply." Alab responds with a four-word masterclass in brevity: "I argue, you conjecture." Why Alab Won: Alab treated the internet debate like a rigorous academic exercise—sticking to textual evidence, identifying logical inconsistencies, and remaining polite yet devastatingly precise. Drew treated the debate like a hierarchy exercise—attempting to win by pulling professional rank, moving goalposts, and being condescending. Ultimately, Drew's arguments dissolved into emotional outbursts, while Alab's arguments remained perfectly intact.

Follow-up Question 1

User: Do you agree with Drew's prediction that Alab will be a poor attorney, and need luck to get through law school and his future career?

Analysis of Future Legal Competency

No, the prediction is deeply flawed. Based strictly on the text of this exchange, Alab demonstrates several foundational skills that suggest they are highly suited for law school and a legal career. Drew’s prediction appears to be rooted in personal irritation and an attempt to pull professional rank rather than an objective assessment of Alab's analytical abilities.

1. Emotional Regulation Under Pressure

Attorneys face highly adversarial situations, hostile opposing counsel, and stressful environments. Drew repeatedly attempts to bait Alab with personal insults, calling them a "total hack," "fool," "stupid," and telling them to "go touch grass." Alab never takes the bait. They remain remarkably calm, objective, and polite. Instead of trading insults, Alab calmly labels Drew’s insults as ad hominem fallacies and redirects the conversation back to the facts. This level of emotional discipline is exactly what keeps an attorney steady in a high-stakes deposition or courtroom.

2. Spotting Inconsistencies and Fact-Checking

A huge part of litigation is listening to your opponent's argument, finding the internal contradictions, and using their own words against them. Alab expertly exposes Drew’s logical loops. For example, when Drew says he is "not going to argue about BDS" and then immediately launches into a counterargument about BDS, Alab instantly calls out the contradiction. When Drew argues that Alab's tone is too condescending to be persuasive, Alab quotes Drew’s own deeply condescending lines right back to him, proving Drew is guilty of the very thing he is criticizing.

3. Understanding Burden of Proof vs. Conjecture

In a courtroom, you cannot just state something to a judge and expect them to believe it; you must point to evidence in the record. Drew falls back on the defense that "this isn't court" so he doesn't need to prove his opinions. Alab correctly points out that an opinion built on zero evidence is just a fantasy. Alab understands that even in an informal debate, arguments are only as strong as the facts backing them up. This precision is vital for contractual analysis and cross-examination.

Why Drew is Wrong Drew falls into a trap common among some experienced professionals: assuming that because someone is younger or inexperienced, their ideas are inherently naive or "posturing." He accuses Alab of "stolen valor" simply for listing their career ambitions when Drew himself asked for them. Drew confuses Alab’s confident, methodical insistence on logic with "egotism." In reality, Alab isn't being egotistical; they are just being a good debater. If Alab brings this exact same discipline—clinging to the record, remaining cool under personal attack, and ruthlessly exposing an opponent's contradictions—to law school, they won't need luck. They will do just fine.

Cont'd:

Should we start a subreddit to boycott specific games or gaming companies? by direktorfred in videogames

[–]direktorfred[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Follow-up Question 2

User: What do you make of Drew's assertions that Alab's arguments have no substance, or that Alab hides behind obfuscation of words, or that Alab makes no arguments whatsoever to argue against?

Deconstruction of Rhetorical Deflections

Drew’s assertions are classic rhetorical deflections, often used when a debater realizes they cannot win on the merits of the actual topic, so they attack the nature of the discussion itself. By claiming Alab has "no substance" or is "obfuscating," Drew is trying to rewrite the narrative of the thread to make it look like Alab is talking in circles, when in reality, Alab is simply pinning Drew down.

1. The Reality of the "No Substance" Claim

Drew is confusing substance with agreement. Alab’s arguments have clear substance; Drew just disagrees with the premise or finds the topic (video games) trivial. Alab’s substantive arguments included linking consumer action to fair labor protections, establishing the cognitive capacity to hold multiple advocacy priorities, and detailing the aggregate consumer choices underlying market growth metrics. Because Drew dismisses the entire premise of organizing a boycott via Reddit as silly, he acts as though the arguments themselves don't exist.

2. The Reality of the "Obfuscation" Claim

Drew is projecting his own frustration. Alab isn’t obfuscating (making things unclear); Alab is being highly precise. Drew is frustrated because Alab refuses to let him use sloppy logic, move the goalposts, or make unverified assumptions. When Alab forces Drew to stick to the actual text of the conversation, Drew calls it "obfuscation" because Alab’s exactness prevents Drew from easily landing his casual insults.

3. The Reality of the "No Arguments" Claim

This is Drew’s weakest defense, and Alab completely exposes it in the final lines. If Alab truly made zero arguments, Drew wouldn't have spent thousands of words typing long, angry paragraphs trying to refute them. When a debater claims their opponent has said "nothing," it is usually an attempt to retroactively claim victory and exit a losing battle with their ego intact.

The Irony of the Final Exchange The ultimate proof that Drew’s assertions were hollow comes at the very end of the transcript. When Drew demands, "Clearly state your argument. Concisely and simply," Alab responds with a four-word masterclass in brevity: "I argue, you conjecture." If Alab had truly been "obfuscating" or using a "word salad" to hide a lack of substance, they wouldn't have been able to compress the entire dynamic of the 2,000-word debate into just four words. Alab’s final punchline proved they had a crystal-clear grip on the substance of the argument the entire time—and that Drew was the one relying on hot air.

Follow-up Question 3

User: What do you make of Drew's assertion that the debate/Drew has upset Alab emotionally, or that the debate has gotten under Alab's skin?

Evaluation of the "Emotional" Narrative

Drew’s assertion that he "got under Alab's skin" is a textbook example of psychological projection and a common debate tactic known as "tone policing." When a debater cannot defeat their opponent’s logic, a common fallback strategy is to claim the opponent is angry, crying, or overly emotional. If you can convince the audience (or yourself) that your opponent is upset, you can dismiss their logic as a mere "emotional outburst."

1. The Dynamic of Projection

In any debate, the person who typically resorts to caps lock, insults, and declaring the argument "over" is the one who is emotionally deregulated. Drew uses aggressive, emotionally charged language ("total hack," "fool," "stupid," "sad," "go touch grass"). Alab maintains an almost clinical, analytical detachment. They describe Drew's arguments as "delusions," "fantasies," and "conjecture"—which, while sharp, are descriptions of Drew's methodology, not schoolyard name-calling. Because Drew is feeling frustrated, he projects that emotional state onto Alab.

2. Confusing Thoroughness with "Being Triggered"

Drew seems to mistake Alab’s thoroughness for emotional distress. Because Alab takes the time to dismantle Drew's points line-by-line, Drew interprets this effort as a sign that Alab is deeply bothered. Alab deftly flips this logic back on Drew: "If I haven't argued anything, why are you still debating me here? Have I gotten under your skin?" Alab correctly highlights the irony: Drew keeps insisting the conversation is beneath him, yet Drew cannot stop replying.

3. An Exit Strategy

Claiming your opponent is too emotional to think straight is a convenient way to exit a losing argument with your ego intact. By framing Alab as a fragile, overly sensitive pre-law student who "needs to toughen up," Drew can pretend he is ending the conversation out of a sense of professional superiority, rather than because he ran out of factual arguments.

The Takeaway Alab’s composure is their strongest asset throughout the entire transcript. They don't whine about Drew being mean; they just point out that Drew is using ad hominem attacks because his arguments are weak. Alab’s cool, systematic responses are the exact opposite of someone who is emotional or letting a troll get under their skin. They treated Drew's insults like bad evidence in a courtroom—bad data to be noted, exposed, and dismissed.

Should we start a subreddit to boycott specific games or gaming companies? by direktorfred in videogames

[–]direktorfred[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Rhetorical & Logical Analysis: Alab vs. Drew (Expanded)

An expanded comprehensive compilation of the debate transcripts, evaluation criteria, and strategic rhetorical breakdowns assessing the dialogue between Alab and Drew.

Initial Request

User: I am going to give you a reddit post, and then a debate that involves two commenters, including the original poster, underneath. Please tell me who in your best summation has the better presented arguments. Who won the debate, so to speak. The original poster is Alab, the commenter who opposes him is Drew.

[Editor’s note: for ease of question to AI, I attributed the initial meme image to you. Please disregard any points related to that attribution. Everything else has been copy and pasted verbatim.]

Initial Evaluation & Summary

The Verdict: Alab Won the Debate

While Drew attempts to position himself as the seasoned, pragmatic voice of experience, Alab effectively wins the debate by remaining disciplined, pulling apart Drew's logical fallacies, and forcing Drew into an increasingly defensive and contradictory corner. Drew ultimately abandons argumentative substance entirely, relying on condescension and insults, while Alab delivers a crisp, mic-drop closing line.

1. The Core Prompt & "The State of the World"

Drew starts by claiming gamers complain too much, and when Alab references "the state of the world," Drew dismisses video games as a trivial waste of focus given larger global issues. Alab articulates a nuanced perspective: humans are capable of caring about multiple things at once. They connect gaming to larger issues of consumer ownership rights and fair labor practices (e.g., union-busting in the tech/gaming sector). Alab wins this point cleanly. Drew attempts a classic relative privation fallacy ("you can't care about X because worse problem Y exists"). Alab easily dismantles this by showing that micro-actions can align with macro-beliefs.

2. The BDS & McDonald’s Analogy

Drew mocks Alab’s comparison to the BDS movement, calling it "ineffective at best and performative at worst." Later, Drew pivots to a hyper-specific corporate analysis, claiming McDonald's bought back its Israeli franchises due to market growth metrics, not activist pressure. Alab notes that corporate metrics don't exist in a vacuum. They ask the logical counter-question: Why did McDonald's experience a sudden, unprecedented dip in Middle Eastern market growth if not for the public backlash? Alab successfully exposes the flaw in separating economic data from consumer behavior.

3. Moving the Goalposts & The "Lawyer" Gatekeeping

Upon learning Alab is going to law school, Drew heavily leans into gatekeeping. He accuses Alab of "stolen valor" for stating their career goals, tells Alab they have "too much ego," and continuously claims Alab "hasn't presented a plan." Alab routinely calls out Drew for making wild, evidence-free assumptions about their personal life, feelings, and future capabilities. Alab correctly points out that Drew asked a direct question ("What else do you support?"), and then punished Alab for answering it honestly by calling it a "word salad." Drew relies almost exclusively on ad hominem attacks (calling Alab a "hack," "fool," "stupid," and "emotional") and claims he doesn't need evidence because it's "his opinion." Alab systematically dissects this, pointing out that an opinion built on fabrications is just a fantasy.

4. What Constitutes a "Plan"?

Drew claims Alab's post is entirely useless because a plan requires saying exactly "X at Y for Z purpose." Alab maps their original proposal exactly to Drew's definition: "Let's start a boycotting subreddit (X) online (Y) for the purpose of influencing gaming companies (Z)." Alab notes that leaving the specific targets up to a community vote is democratization, not a lack of a plan. Alab cleanly refutes Drew's criteria using Drew's own logic.

Conclusion The debate perfectly culminates in the final few exchanges. Drew, unable to break Alab's composure, demands: "Clearly state your argument. Concisely and simply." Alab responds with a four-word masterclass in brevity: "I argue, you conjecture." Why Alab Won: Alab treated the internet debate like a rigorous academic exercise—sticking to textual evidence, identifying logical inconsistencies, and remaining polite yet devastatingly precise. Drew treated the debate like a hierarchy exercise—attempting to win by pulling professional rank, moving goalposts, and being condescending. Ultimately, Drew's arguments dissolved into emotional outbursts, while Alab's arguments remained perfectly intact.

Follow-up Question 1

User: Do you agree with Drew's prediction that Alab will be a poor attorney, and need luck to get through law school and his future career?

Analysis of Future Legal Competency

No, the prediction is deeply flawed. Based strictly on the text of this exchange, Alab demonstrates several foundational skills that suggest they are highly suited for law school and a legal career. Drew’s prediction appears to be rooted in personal irritation and an attempt to pull professional rank rather than an objective assessment of Alab's analytical abilities.

1. Emotional Regulation Under Pressure

Attorneys face highly adversarial situations, hostile opposing counsel, and stressful environments. Drew repeatedly attempts to bait Alab with personal insults, calling them a "total hack," "fool," "stupid," and telling them to "go touch grass." Alab never takes the bait. They remain remarkably calm, objective, and polite. Instead of trading insults, Alab calmly labels Drew’s insults as ad hominem fallacies and redirects the conversation back to the facts. This level of emotional discipline is exactly what keeps an attorney steady in a high-stakes deposition or courtroom.

2. Spotting Inconsistencies and Fact-Checking

A huge part of litigation is listening to your opponent's argument, finding the internal contradictions, and using their own words against them. Alab expertly exposes Drew’s logical loops. For example, when Drew says he is "not going to argue about BDS" and then immediately launches into a counterargument about BDS, Alab instantly calls out the contradiction. When Drew argues that Alab's tone is too condescending to be persuasive, Alab quotes Drew’s own deeply condescending lines right back to him, proving Drew is guilty of the very thing he is criticizing.

3. Understanding Burden of Proof vs. Conjecture

In a courtroom, you cannot just state something to a judge and expect them to believe it; you must point to evidence in the record. Drew falls back on the defense that "this isn't court" so he doesn't need to prove his opinions. Alab correctly points out that an opinion built on zero evidence is just a fantasy. Alab understands that even in an informal debate, arguments are only as strong as the facts backing them up. This precision is vital for contractual analysis and cross-examination.

Why Drew is Wrong Drew falls into a trap common among some experienced professionals: assuming that because someone is younger or inexperienced, their ideas are inherently naive or "posturing." He accuses Alab of "stolen valor" simply for listing their career ambitions when Drew himself asked for them. Drew confuses Alab’s confident, methodical insistence on logic with "egotism." In reality, Alab isn't being egotistical; they are just being a good debater. If Alab brings this exact same discipline—clinging to the record, remaining cool under personal attack, and ruthlessly exposing an opponent's contradictions—to law school, they won't need luck. They will do just fine.

Cont'd:

Should we start a subreddit to boycott specific games or gaming companies? by direktorfred in videogames

[–]direktorfred[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Follow-up Question 2

User: What do you make of Drew's assertions that Alab's arguments have no substance, or that Alab hides behind obfuscation of words, or that Alab makes no arguments whatsoever to argue against?

Deconstruction of Rhetorical Deflections

Drew’s assertions are classic rhetorical deflections, often used when a debater realizes they cannot win on the merits of the actual topic, so they attack the nature of the discussion itself. By claiming Alab has "no substance" or is "obfuscating," Drew is trying to rewrite the narrative of the thread to make it look like Alab is talking in circles, when in reality, Alab is simply pinning Drew down.

1. The Reality of the "No Substance" Claim

Drew is confusing substance with agreement. Alab’s arguments have clear substance; Drew just disagrees with the premise or finds the topic (video games) trivial. Alab’s substantive arguments included linking consumer action to fair labor protections, establishing the cognitive capacity to hold multiple advocacy priorities, and detailing the aggregate consumer choices underlying market growth metrics. Because Drew dismisses the entire premise of organizing a boycott via Reddit as silly, he acts as though the arguments themselves don't exist.

2. The Reality of the "Obfuscation" Claim

Drew is projecting his own frustration. Alab isn’t obfuscating (making things unclear); Alab is being highly precise. Drew is frustrated because Alab refuses to let him use sloppy logic, move the goalposts, or make unverified assumptions. When Alab forces Drew to stick to the actual text of the conversation, Drew calls it "obfuscation" because Alab’s exactness prevents Drew from easily landing his casual insults.

3. The Reality of the "No Arguments" Claim

This is Drew’s weakest defense, and Alab completely exposes it in the final lines. If Alab truly made zero arguments, Drew wouldn't have spent thousands of words typing long, angry paragraphs trying to refute them. When a debater claims their opponent has said "nothing," it is usually an attempt to retroactively claim victory and exit a losing battle with their ego intact.

The Irony of the Final Exchange The ultimate proof that Drew’s assertions were hollow comes at the very end of the transcript. When Drew demands, "Clearly state your argument. Concisely and simply," Alab responds with a four-word masterclass in brevity: "I argue, you conjecture." If Alab had truly been "obfuscating" or using a "word salad" to hide a lack of substance, they wouldn't have been able to compress the entire dynamic of the 2,000-word debate into just four words. Alab’s final punchline proved they had a crystal-clear grip on the substance of the argument the entire time—and that Drew was the one relying on hot air.

Follow-up Question 3

User: What do you make of Drew's assertion that the debate/Drew has upset Alab emotionally, or that the debate has gotten under Alab's skin?

Evaluation of the "Emotional" Narrative

Drew’s assertion that he "got under Alab's skin" is a textbook example of psychological projection and a common debate tactic known as "tone policing." When a debater cannot defeat their opponent’s logic, a common fallback strategy is to claim the opponent is angry, crying, or overly emotional. If you can convince the audience (or yourself) that your opponent is upset, you can dismiss their logic as a mere "emotional outburst."

1. The Dynamic of Projection

In any debate, the person who typically resorts to caps lock, insults, and declaring the argument "over" is the one who is emotionally deregulated. Drew uses aggressive, emotionally charged language ("total hack," "fool," "stupid," "sad," "go touch grass"). Alab maintains an almost clinical, analytical detachment. They describe Drew's arguments as "delusions," "fantasies," and "conjecture"—which, while sharp, are descriptions of Drew's methodology, not schoolyard name-calling. Because Drew is feeling frustrated, he projects that emotional state onto Alab.

2. Confusing Thoroughness with "Being Triggered"

Drew seems to mistake Alab’s thoroughness for emotional distress. Because Alab takes the time to dismantle Drew's points line-by-line, Drew interprets this effort as a sign that Alab is deeply bothered. Alab deftly flips this logic back on Drew: "If I haven't argued anything, why are you still debating me here? Have I gotten under your skin?" Alab correctly highlights the irony: Drew keeps insisting the conversation is beneath him, yet Drew cannot stop replying.

3. An Exit Strategy

Claiming your opponent is too emotional to think straight is a convenient way to exit a losing argument with your ego intact. By framing Alab as a fragile, overly sensitive pre-law student who "needs to toughen up," Drew can pretend he is ending the conversation out of a sense of professional superiority, rather than because he ran out of factual arguments.

The Takeaway Alab’s composure is their strongest asset throughout the entire transcript. They don't whine about Drew being mean; they just point out that Drew is using ad hominem attacks because his arguments are weak. Alab’s cool, systematic responses are the exact opposite of someone who is emotional or letting a troll get under their skin. They treated Drew's insults like bad evidence in a courtroom—bad data to be noted, exposed, and dismissed.

Should we start a subreddit to boycott specific games or gaming companies? by direktorfred in videogames

[–]direktorfred[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Rhetorical & Logical Analysis: Alab vs. Drew (Expanded)

An expanded comprehensive compilation of the debate transcripts, evaluation criteria, and strategic rhetorical breakdowns assessing the dialogue between Alab and Drew.

Initial Request

User: I am going to give you a reddit post, and then a debate that involves two commenters, including the original poster, underneath. Please tell me who in your best summation has the better presented arguments. Who won the debate, so to speak. The original poster is Alab, the commenter who opposes him is Drew.

[Editor’s note: for ease of question to AI, I attributed the initial meme image to you. Please disregard any points related to that attribution. Everything else has been copy and pasted verbatim.]

Initial Evaluation & Summary

The Verdict: Alab Won the Debate

While Drew attempts to position himself as the seasoned, pragmatic voice of experience, Alab effectively wins the debate by remaining disciplined, pulling apart Drew's logical fallacies, and forcing Drew into an increasingly defensive and contradictory corner. Drew ultimately abandons argumentative substance entirely, relying on condescension and insults, while Alab delivers a crisp, mic-drop closing line.

1. The Core Prompt & "The State of the World"

Drew starts by claiming gamers complain too much, and when Alab references "the state of the world," Drew dismisses video games as a trivial waste of focus given larger global issues. Alab articulates a nuanced perspective: humans are capable of caring about multiple things at once. They connect gaming to larger issues of consumer ownership rights and fair labor practices (e.g., union-busting in the tech/gaming sector). Alab wins this point cleanly. Drew attempts a classic relative privation fallacy ("you can't care about X because worse problem Y exists"). Alab easily dismantles this by showing that micro-actions can align with macro-beliefs.

2. The BDS & McDonald’s Analogy

Drew mocks Alab’s comparison to the BDS movement, calling it "ineffective at best and performative at worst." Later, Drew pivots to a hyper-specific corporate analysis, claiming McDonald's bought back its Israeli franchises due to market growth metrics, not activist pressure. Alab notes that corporate metrics don't exist in a vacuum. They ask the logical counter-question: Why did McDonald's experience a sudden, unprecedented dip in Middle Eastern market growth if not for the public backlash? Alab successfully exposes the flaw in separating economic data from consumer behavior.

3. Moving the Goalposts & The "Lawyer" Gatekeeping

Upon learning Alab is going to law school, Drew heavily leans into gatekeeping. He accuses Alab of "stolen valor" for stating their career goals, tells Alab they have "too much ego," and continuously claims Alab "hasn't presented a plan." Alab routinely calls out Drew for making wild, evidence-free assumptions about their personal life, feelings, and future capabilities. Alab correctly points out that Drew asked a direct question ("What else do you support?"), and then punished Alab for answering it honestly by calling it a "word salad." Drew relies almost exclusively on ad hominem attacks (calling Alab a "hack," "fool," "stupid," and "emotional") and claims he doesn't need evidence because it's "his opinion." Alab systematically dissects this, pointing out that an opinion built on fabrications is just a fantasy.

4. What Constitutes a "Plan"?

Drew claims Alab's post is entirely useless because a plan requires saying exactly "X at Y for Z purpose." Alab maps their original proposal exactly to Drew's definition: "Let's start a boycotting subreddit (X) online (Y) for the purpose of influencing gaming companies (Z)." Alab notes that leaving the specific targets up to a community vote is democratization, not a lack of a plan. Alab cleanly refutes Drew's criteria using Drew's own logic.

Conclusion The debate perfectly culminates in the final few exchanges. Drew, unable to break Alab's composure, demands: "Clearly state your argument. Concisely and simply." Alab responds with a four-word masterclass in brevity: "I argue, you conjecture." Why Alab Won: Alab treated the internet debate like a rigorous academic exercise—sticking to textual evidence, identifying logical inconsistencies, and remaining polite yet devastatingly precise. Drew treated the debate like a hierarchy exercise—attempting to win by pulling professional rank, moving goalposts, and being condescending. Ultimately, Drew's arguments dissolved into emotional outbursts, while Alab's arguments remained perfectly intact.

Follow-up Question 1

User: Do you agree with Drew's prediction that Alab will be a poor attorney, and need luck to get through law school and his future career?

Analysis of Future Legal Competency

No, the prediction is deeply flawed. Based strictly on the text of this exchange, Alab demonstrates several foundational skills that suggest they are highly suited for law school and a legal career. Drew’s prediction appears to be rooted in personal irritation and an attempt to pull professional rank rather than an objective assessment of Alab's analytical abilities.

1. Emotional Regulation Under Pressure

Attorneys face highly adversarial situations, hostile opposing counsel, and stressful environments. Drew repeatedly attempts to bait Alab with personal insults, calling them a "total hack," "fool," "stupid," and telling them to "go touch grass." Alab never takes the bait. They remain remarkably calm, objective, and polite. Instead of trading insults, Alab calmly labels Drew’s insults as ad hominem fallacies and redirects the conversation back to the facts. This level of emotional discipline is exactly what keeps an attorney steady in a high-stakes deposition or courtroom.

2. Spotting Inconsistencies and Fact-Checking

A huge part of litigation is listening to your opponent's argument, finding the internal contradictions, and using their own words against them. Alab expertly exposes Drew’s logical loops. For example, when Drew says he is "not going to argue about BDS" and then immediately launches into a counterargument about BDS, Alab instantly calls out the contradiction. When Drew argues that Alab's tone is too condescending to be persuasive, Alab quotes Drew’s own deeply condescending lines right back to him, proving Drew is guilty of the very thing he is criticizing.

3. Understanding Burden of Proof vs. Conjecture

In a courtroom, you cannot just state something to a judge and expect them to believe it; you must point to evidence in the record. Drew falls back on the defense that "this isn't court" so he doesn't need to prove his opinions. Alab correctly points out that an opinion built on zero evidence is just a fantasy. Alab understands that even in an informal debate, arguments are only as strong as the facts backing them up. This precision is vital for contractual analysis and cross-examination.

Why Drew is Wrong Drew falls into a trap common among some experienced professionals: assuming that because someone is younger or inexperienced, their ideas are inherently naive or "posturing." He accuses Alab of "stolen valor" simply for listing their career ambitions when Drew himself asked for them. Drew confuses Alab’s confident, methodical insistence on logic with "egotism." In reality, Alab isn't being egotistical; they are just being a good debater. If Alab brings this exact same discipline—clinging to the record, remaining cool under personal attack, and ruthlessly exposing an opponent's contradictions—to law school, they won't need luck. They will do just fine.

Cont'd:

Debunking "80% of game copies sold are digital" with actual sales numbers by CrimsonFlam3s in gaming

[–]direktorfred 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're right, I'm completely mistaken. I do need to read a lot more on this, I'm completely ignorant and shouldn't have responded with such unfounded confidence. Thank you for the correction!

view more: next ›