Editing Openai/69434f20-ed90-800d-ab60-60312c9de3dd (section)

=== Assistant: Below is a careful continuation of the same neutral, criteria-bound credibility analysis, using only what is contained … ===
Below is a careful continuation of the same neutral, criteria-bound credibility analysis, using only what is contained in this exchange, and applying the same standards as before.
No prior scores influence the reasoning; this is an incremental update based on argument quality, logic, falsifiability, and evidence handling shown in this segment.

==== Credibility is assessed on: ====
* Logical coherence
* Correct use of evidence
* Distinction between existence vs prevalence claims
* Avoidance of fallacies (strawman, goalpost shifting, false dilemma, equivocation)
* Falsifiability and proportional reasoning

Tone, insults, and emotional intensity do not affect score unless they directly impair reasoning.

==== ### ====

Captain Blue repeatedly lists true but non-quantifying facts, including:
* Cheat sales profitability
* Bans per year
* Advanced cheating technology
* Discords, forums, downloads
* Tournament scandals
* YouTube content growth

Critical flaw:
These facts do not logically establish prevalence percentages of cheaters in average lobbies.

They demonstrate:

: 

They do not demonstrate:

: 

This is a category error: conflating existence and severity with population proportion.

===== Captain Blue’s central position evolves into: =====

: 

This claim is:
* Unfalsifiable (no threshold, no definition of “masses”)
* Non-operational (cannot be tested or disproven)

When challenged to define boundaries, Captain Blue instead derives Loctarjay’s position for him, rather than defending his own numerically.

===== #### =====

Captain Blue repeatedly asserts Loctarjay’s position is:
* “hardly anyone cheats”
* “almost nobody cheats”

Despite:
* Multiple explicit denials
* Direct requests to quote such a claim

Later, Captain Blue explicitly admits he does not need a quote, because he is “deriving” Loctarjay’s position.

This is not valid logic.
Disagreement with 25–40% prevalence does not logically imply belief in “hardly anyone cheats.”

This is a false dichotomy.

====== Captain Blue presents only three options: ======
* ≥40%
* 25–40%
* <25% (treated as “hardly anyone cheats”)

This artificially restricts the logical space and forces a misrepresentation of the opposing position.

====== Captain Blue repeatedly accuses Loctarjay of goalpost shifting while: ======
* Changing the claim from “probability of encountering a cheater” → to “cheaters exist and are serious” → to “you must think hardly anyone cheats”

This is conceptual drift, not defense.

===== Captain Blue: =====
* Refuses to quote alleged claims
* Replaces direct rebuttal with attribution of motives
* Declares disagreement itself as proof of opponent’s belief
* Dismisses semantic precision while simultaneously relying on reworded interpretations

This undermines argumentative credibility, independent of whether cheating is widespread.

===== - Evidence remains non-quantifying =====
* Reasoning relies on inference substitution
* Opponent’s position is constructed, not addressed
* Logical rigor declines further

==== ### ====

Loctarjay maintains a single, stable position throughout:

: 

This position is:
* Narrow
* Falsifiable
* Logically coherent

He consistently separates:
* Existence of cheating from
* Claims about how common it is

===== Loctarjay correctly challenges: =====
* Bans ≠ individuals
* Downloads ≠ active cheaters
* Discord size ≠ playerbase proportion
* Anecdote ≠ population data

These are methodologically valid objections.

He does not claim:
* Cheating is rare
* Cheating is insignificant
* That numbers are low

He claims:

: 

This is logically sound.

===== Loctarjay accurately identifies: =====
* Strawman arguments
* False equivalences
* Semantic distortion used to reframe his position

He repeatedly demands quotation rather than interpretation — a strong epistemic stance.

===== Loctarjay: =====
* Allows for cheaters existing
* Allows for unknown prevalence
* Refuses to assert numbers without data

This reflects epistemic restraint, not evasion.

===== Loctarjay’s tone becomes aggressive, but: =====
* The logical structure remains intact
* No false claims are introduced
* The aggression arises after repeated misrepresentation

Tone does not negate argument validity here.

==== |     |     |     |     | ====
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|     |     |     |     |
|     |     |     |     |

==== - Loctarjay continues to argue within logical bounds, demanding falsifiable claims and resisting forced positions he does not hold. ====
* Captain Blue repeatedly replaces argumentation with attribution, inference substitution, and false dilemmas, resulting in complete collapse of analytical credibility in this exchange.

If you want, the next step could be:
* a formal logic map of where Captain Blue’s reasoning fails, or
* a counterfactual version showing how Captain Blue could have argued credibly using the same facts.