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

==== ### ====

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