RoadMAP Debate Script - Revision history

The Admins at 21:01, 20 May 2023

2023-05-20T21:01:15Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:01, 20 May 2023
Line 36:		Line 36:

	*1a) Pedophilia is a pathological paraphilia and/or uncommon.		*1a) Pedophilia is a pathological paraphilia and/or uncommon.
	*1b) No chronophilia (age preference) is a sexuality. It is therefore invalid.		*1b) No [[chronophilia]] (age preference) is a sexuality. It is therefore invalid.
	*1c) Pedophiles or MAPs in general are attempting to gain entry into/being enabled by the LGBT community.		*1c) Pedophiles or MAPs in general are attempting to gain entry into/being enabled by the LGBT community.

The Admins at 13:48, 19 May 2023

2023-05-19T13:48:47Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:48, 19 May 2023
Line 47:		Line 47:
	*1a) Forget about MAP activists, even psychiatrists have accepted for a long time that pedophilia can be an orientation - have you read the DSM-5? Also, phallometric studies have (again, for a long time now) shown that pedophilia is relatively common and hebephilia is very common. Historical and cross-cultural evidence suggests that strong hebephilia is actually normative in men. This isn't something we can just deny or legislate out of existence.		*1a) Forget about MAP activists, even psychiatrists have accepted for a long time that pedophilia can be an orientation - have you read the DSM-5? Also, phallometric studies have (again, for a long time now) shown that pedophilia is relatively common and hebephilia is very common. Historical and cross-cultural evidence suggests that strong hebephilia is actually normative in men. This isn't something we can just deny or legislate out of existence.
	*1b) Phenotype refers to more than just gender, and invalidation/erasure is a common tactic employed by neo-reactionaries. Even modern psychiatrists (see the DSM-5) have entertained chronophilias as sexual orientations for many years. Historical/anthropological evidence shows that age-structured relations are very common - even in historical eras before there existed any widely received social definition of homosexuality or other alternative gender-based expressions.		*1b) Phenotype refers to more than just gender, and invalidation/erasure is a common tactic employed by neo-reactionaries. Even modern psychiatrists (see the DSM-5) have entertained chronophilias as sexual orientations for many years. Historical/anthropological evidence shows that age-structured relations are very common - even in historical eras before there existed any widely received social definition of homosexuality or other alternative gender-based expressions.
	*1c) This is flat-out incorrect; all we ever hear are conspiracy theories about [[MAP Flag]]s, and evidence that some MAPs are also LGBT. While the modern LGBT movement ''was'' pro-youth rights and largely pro-pedophile til the late 80s, MAPs created their own identity as a ''response'' to their own exclusion from an LGBT Movement that was becoming increasingly bourgeois and exclusionary. MAPs are seeking to reduce stigma and defamation, not create provocative unicorn subjectivities, like the modern LGBT!		*1c) This is flat-out incorrect; all we ever hear are conspiracy theories about [[MAP Flag]]s, and evidence that some MAPs are also LGBT. While the modern LGBT movement ''was'' pro-youth rights and largely pro-pedophile til the late 80s, MAPs created their own identity as a ''response'' to their own exclusion from an LGBT Movement that was becoming increasingly bourgeois and exclusionary. MAPs are seeking to reduce [[Research: The Dangers of Stigma\|stigma]] and defamation, not create provocative unicorn subjectivities, like the modern LGBT!

	<hr>		<hr>

The Admins at 13:25, 15 March 2023

2023-03-15T13:25:38Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:25, 15 March 2023
Line 14:		Line 14:
	*'''First reply:''' To display confidence and clarity of thought, you first make your corresponding truth claims, then evidence them in the same reply. This could take up many tweets (have it written out in a text document before composing it in [[MAP visibility on Twitter\|Twitter]], etc). But the strategy is worth the investment, as you are dominantly rebutting the argument at the top of the thread.		*'''First reply:''' To display confidence and clarity of thought, you first make your corresponding truth claims, then evidence them in the same reply. This could take up many tweets (have it written out in a text document before composing it in [[MAP visibility on Twitter\|Twitter]], etc). But the strategy is worth the investment, as you are dominantly rebutting the argument at the top of the thread.
	*'''First reply (caveat 1)''': If your rebuttal includes '''3c''', you should then state your unwillingness to take part in a tweet marathon, and move on to a new target. At this point, you should only ever return on '''max 1 occasion''' to state incredulously that the peer-reviewed evidence has been presented, and your opponent is arguing from their emotions/prejudices.		*'''First reply (caveat 1)''': If your rebuttal includes '''3c''', you should then state your unwillingness to take part in a tweet marathon, and move on to a new target. At this point, you should only ever return on '''max 1 occasion''' to state incredulously that the peer-reviewed evidence has been presented, and your opponent is arguing from their emotions/prejudices.
	*'''First reply (caveat 2)''': If your rebuttal does not include '''3c''', ''lead'' your first reply with a provocative pivot, to introduce '''3c''': "The topic of importance here, is that of ''outcomes'' for minors/young people. From peer-reviewed literature, we actually know that no case of voluntary, nonviolent sexual contact with an adult has ever been causally linked to harm. The long-term self-perception of "abuse", where simple consent has been given, is largely neutral or positive". This sets up the [[CSA dilemma argument\|inescapable moral dilemma]] explained in section '''3c''', and gives your opponent an opportunity to embarrass themselves. From that point onwards, follow the strategy in the second reply bullet points below.		*'''First reply (caveat 2)''': If your rebuttal does not include '''3c''', ''lead'' your first reply with a provocative pivot, to introduce '''3c''': "The topic of importance here, is that of ''outcomes'' for minors/young people. From peer-reviewed literature, we actually know that no case of voluntary, nonviolent sexual contact with an adult has ever been causally linked to harm. The long-term self-perception of "abuse", where simple [[consent]] has been given, is largely neutral or positive". This sets up the [[CSA dilemma argument\|inescapable moral dilemma]] explained in section '''3c''', and gives your opponent an opportunity to embarrass themselves. From that point onwards, follow the strategy in the second reply bullet points below.

	====Countering simplistic statements====		====Countering simplistic statements====
Line 58:		Line 58:
	*2a) The adult partner has a lot more power, meaning it's abusive.		*2a) The adult partner has a lot more power, meaning it's abusive.
	*2b) Brain development only ends at 25 years of age. Minors are underdeveloped.		*2b) Brain development only ends at 25 years of age. Minors are underdeveloped.
	*2c) Children or minors (thus) can't give "informed consent".		*2c) Children or minors (thus) can't give "informed [[consent]]".

	<hr>		<hr>

The Admins at 22:45, 27 February 2023

2023-02-27T22:45:09Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:45, 27 February 2023
Line 12:		Line 12:

	*'''Important:''' If your opponent has already made these '''two or more truth claims''' requiring evidence to rebut, only ever address and provide counter-evidence for two in your reply. Any more is overkill, and should simply be ignored.		*'''Important:''' If your opponent has already made these '''two or more truth claims''' requiring evidence to rebut, only ever address and provide counter-evidence for two in your reply. Any more is overkill, and should simply be ignored.
	*'''First reply:''' To display confidence and clarity of thought, you first make your corresponding truth claims, then evidence them in the same reply. This could take up many tweets (have it written out in a text document before composing it in Twitter, etc). But the strategy is worth the investment, as you are dominantly rebutting the argument at the top of the thread.		*'''First reply:''' To display confidence and clarity of thought, you first make your corresponding truth claims, then evidence them in the same reply. This could take up many tweets (have it written out in a text document before composing it in [[MAP visibility on Twitter\|Twitter]], etc). But the strategy is worth the investment, as you are dominantly rebutting the argument at the top of the thread.
	*'''First reply (caveat 1)''': If your rebuttal includes '''3c''', you should then state your unwillingness to take part in a tweet marathon, and move on to a new target. At this point, you should only ever return on '''max 1 occasion''' to state incredulously that the peer-reviewed evidence has been presented, and your opponent is arguing from their emotions/prejudices.		*'''First reply (caveat 1)''': If your rebuttal includes '''3c''', you should then state your unwillingness to take part in a tweet marathon, and move on to a new target. At this point, you should only ever return on '''max 1 occasion''' to state incredulously that the peer-reviewed evidence has been presented, and your opponent is arguing from their emotions/prejudices.
	*'''First reply (caveat 2)''': If your rebuttal does not include '''3c''', ''lead'' your first reply with a provocative pivot, to introduce '''3c''': "The topic of importance here, is that of ''outcomes'' for minors/young people. From peer-reviewed literature, we actually know that no case of voluntary, nonviolent sexual contact with an adult has ever been causally linked to harm. The long-term self-perception of "abuse", where simple consent has been given, is largely neutral or positive". This sets up the [[CSA dilemma argument\|inescapable moral dilemma]] explained in section '''3c''', and gives your opponent an opportunity to embarrass themselves. From that point onwards, follow the strategy in the second reply bullet points below.		*'''First reply (caveat 2)''': If your rebuttal does not include '''3c''', ''lead'' your first reply with a provocative pivot, to introduce '''3c''': "The topic of importance here, is that of ''outcomes'' for minors/young people. From peer-reviewed literature, we actually know that no case of voluntary, nonviolent sexual contact with an adult has ever been causally linked to harm. The long-term self-perception of "abuse", where simple consent has been given, is largely neutral or positive". This sets up the [[CSA dilemma argument\|inescapable moral dilemma]] explained in section '''3c''', and gives your opponent an opportunity to embarrass themselves. From that point onwards, follow the strategy in the second reply bullet points below.

The Admins at 13:53, 19 February 2023

2023-02-19T13:53:48Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:53, 19 February 2023
Line 1:		Line 1:
	__NOTOC__[[Image:Catchapredator.JPG\|thumb\|Have a seat...]]The semi-automated '''Debate Script''' makes it easy to reply to most challenges in '''short-form social media debates''' on [[Minor Attracted People\|MAPs]] and [[Minor-adult sex\|sex between adults and minors]]. It also seeks to close the debate by pushing it towards an inevitable and unresolvable ethical dilemma (for the anti). All you have to do is identify 1 or 2 of the following 3 truth claim types in your opponent's argument, then immediately make the opposing '''"golden rule"''' truth claim/s and applicable sub-claims. You then cite the evidence/upload and reproduce the visual excerpts linked in this article. This advertises the fact that you are well-read on the topic (whether or not you actually are) and allows viewers to access relevant information.		__NOTOC__[[Image:Catchapredator.JPG\|thumb\|Have a seat...]]The semi-automated '''Debate Script''' makes it easy to reply to most challenges in '''short-form social media debates''' on [[Minor Attracted People\|MAPs]] and [[Minor-adult sex\|sex between adults and minors]]. It also seeks to close the debate by pushing it towards an inevitable and unresolvable ethical dilemma (for the [[anti]]). All you have to do is identify 1 or 2 of the following 3 truth claim types in your opponent's argument, then immediately make the opposing '''"golden rule"''' truth claim/s and applicable sub-claims. You then cite the evidence/upload and reproduce the visual excerpts linked in this article. This advertises the fact that you are well-read on the topic (whether or not you actually are) and allows viewers to access relevant information.

	This script does not address [[Debate Guide: Respond to misdefinition\|misdefinitions]], which are common in these debates.		This script does not address [[Debate Guide: Respond to misdefinition\|misdefinitions]], which are common in these debates.

The Admins at 15:53, 14 September 2022

2022-09-14T15:53:10Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:53, 14 September 2022
Line 87:		Line 87:
	'''Your immediate and corresponding counter claim/s:'''		'''Your immediate and corresponding counter claim/s:'''

	*3a) Innocence is an age-old postindustrial myth going back to the Victorian era. You are essentially protecting a quasi-religious social institution, and a harmful one at that. Literature strongly supports this.		*3a) [[Childhood Innocence\|Childhood innocence]] is an age-old postindustrial myth going back to the Victorian era. You are essentially protecting a quasi-religious social institution, and a harmful one at that. Literature strongly supports this.
	*3b) Popularity of a policy does not make right, and who is to say we know better nowadays, when previous societies had quite different standards for far longer than the current post-industrial norms? The assumption of harm is completely contrary to the facts, indicating that today's laws are an early-phase over-reaction in the development of public morals/ethics... ''go straight to the 3rd sentence of 3c''		*3b) Popularity of a policy does not make right, and who is to say we know better nowadays, when previous societies had quite different standards for far longer than the current post-industrial norms? The assumption of harm is completely contrary to the facts, indicating that today's laws are an early-phase over-reaction in the development of public morals/ethics... ''go straight to the 3rd sentence of 3c''
	*3c) Your sampling is unrepresentative. If I wanted to research interracial marriage, I wouldn't form a sample by searching for survivors of physical/sexual assaults by married black males. What is important for predicting positive or neutral outcomes in peer-reviewed studies, is simple consent (yes/no) - something adults and minors are very familiar with already. When we make the mistake of including simple consent cases within our definition of Child Sexual Abuse, the entire concept of CSA as a predictor of harm becomes empirically invalid. This is because we start counting far too many cases where the child or minor gave simple consent and was left unharmed. This fact has been known for over 20 years (Rind et al) and confirmed repeatedly since then, but is highly taboo.		*3c) Your sampling is unrepresentative. If I wanted to research interracial marriage, I wouldn't form a sample by searching for survivors of physical/sexual assaults by married black males. What is important for predicting positive or neutral outcomes in peer-reviewed studies, is simple consent (yes/no) - something adults and minors are very familiar with already. When we make the mistake of including simple consent cases within our definition of Child Sexual Abuse, the entire concept of CSA as a predictor of harm becomes empirically invalid. This is because we start counting far too many cases where the child or minor gave simple consent and was left unharmed. This fact has been known for over 20 years (Rind et al) and confirmed repeatedly since then, but is highly taboo.

The Admins: /* 1. Pedophilia (or Hebephilia) is not a sexuality, or is "invalid" */

2022-04-07T13:33:09Z

1. Pedophilia (or Hebephilia) is not a sexuality, or is "invalid"

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:33, 7 April 2022
Line 37:		Line 37:
	*1a) Pedophilia is a pathological paraphilia and/or uncommon.		*1a) Pedophilia is a pathological paraphilia and/or uncommon.
	*1b) No chronophilia (age preference) is a sexuality. It is therefore invalid.		*1b) No chronophilia (age preference) is a sexuality. It is therefore invalid.
	*1c) Pedophiles or MAPs in general are attempting to gain entry into the LGBT community.		*1c) Pedophiles or MAPs in general are attempting to gain entry into/being enabled by the LGBT community.

	<hr>		<hr>
Line 45:		Line 45:
	'''Your immediate and corresponding counter claim/s:'''		'''Your immediate and corresponding counter claim/s:'''

	*1a) Forget about MAP activists, even psychiatrists have accepted for a long time that pedophilia can be an orientation - have you read the DSM-5? Also, phallometric studies have (again, for a long time now) shown that pedophilia is relatively common and hebephilia is very common. Historical and cross-cultural evidence suggests that hebephilia is actually normative in men. This isn't something we can just deny or legislate out of existence.		*1a) Forget about MAP activists, even psychiatrists have accepted for a long time that pedophilia can be an orientation - have you read the DSM-5? Also, phallometric studies have (again, for a long time now) shown that pedophilia is relatively common and hebephilia is very common. Historical and cross-cultural evidence suggests that strong hebephilia is actually normative in men. This isn't something we can just deny or legislate out of existence.
	*1b) Phenotype ~~is about~~ more than gender and invalidation/erasure is ~~for neoreactionaries~~. Even modern psychiatrists (see the DSM-5) have entertained chronophilias as sexual orientations for many years. Historical/anthropological evidence shows that age-structured relations are very common - even in historical eras before there existed any widely received social definition of homosexuality or other alternative gender-based expressions.		*1b) Phenotype refers to more than just gender, and invalidation/erasure is a common tactic employed by neo-reactionaries. Even modern psychiatrists (see the DSM-5) have entertained chronophilias as sexual orientations for many years. Historical/anthropological evidence shows that age-structured relations are very common - even in historical eras before there existed any widely received social definition of homosexuality or other alternative gender-based expressions.
	*1c) This is flat-out incorrect~~, and no one~~ ever ~~cites an example other than some personalised~~ [[MAP Flag]]s, ~~which mean nothing~~. While the modern LGBT movement was pro-youth rights and largely pro-pedophile til the late 80s, MAPs created their own identity as a response to ~~defamation and~~ their own exclusion from an LGBT ~~movement~~ that is becoming increasingly ~~bourgeoise~~ and ~~mired in subjectivism~~. MAPs are seeking to reduce stigma, not create provocative ~~new~~ subjectivities!		*1c) This is flat-out incorrect; all we ever hear are conspiracy theories about [[MAP Flag]]s, and evidence that some MAPs are also LGBT. While the modern LGBT movement ''was'' pro-youth rights and largely pro-pedophile til the late 80s, MAPs created their own identity as a ''response'' to their own exclusion from an LGBT Movement that was becoming increasingly bourgeois and exclusionary. MAPs are seeking to reduce stigma and defamation, not create provocative unicorn subjectivities, like the modern LGBT!

	<hr>		<hr>

The Admins at 13:14, 7 April 2022

2022-04-07T13:14:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:14, 7 April 2022
Line 1:		Line 1:
	__NOTOC__[[Image:Catchapredator.JPG\|thumb\|Have a seat...]]The semi-automated '''Debate Script''' makes it easy to reply to most challenges in '''short-form social media debates''' on [[Minor Attracted People\|MAPs]] and [[Minor-adult sex\|sex between adults and minors]]. It also seeks to close the debate by pushing it towards an inevitable and unresolvable ethical dilemma (for the anti). All you have to do is identify 1 or 2 of the following 3 truth claim types in your opponent's argument, then immediately make the opposing '''"golden rule"''' truth claim/s and applicable sub-claims. You then cite the evidence/upload and reproduce the visual excerpts in this article. This advertises the fact that you are well-read on the topic (whether or not you actually are) and allows viewers to access relevant information.		__NOTOC__[[Image:Catchapredator.JPG\|thumb\|Have a seat...]]The semi-automated '''Debate Script''' makes it easy to reply to most challenges in '''short-form social media debates''' on [[Minor Attracted People\|MAPs]] and [[Minor-adult sex\|sex between adults and minors]]. It also seeks to close the debate by pushing it towards an inevitable and unresolvable ethical dilemma (for the anti). All you have to do is identify 1 or 2 of the following 3 truth claim types in your opponent's argument, then immediately make the opposing '''"golden rule"''' truth claim/s and applicable sub-claims. You then cite the evidence/upload and reproduce the visual excerpts linked in this article. This advertises the fact that you are well-read on the topic (whether or not you actually are) and allows viewers to access relevant information.

	This script does not address [[Debate Guide: Respond to misdefinition\|misdefinitions]], which are common in these debates.		This script does not address [[Debate Guide: Respond to misdefinition\|misdefinitions]], which are common in these debates.

	===~~The fundamental rules~~===		===Strategy===

	The way you use the script is dictated by the nature of your target.		The way you use the script is dictated by the nature of your target's arguments/assertions.

	====Countering well-developed arguments====		====Countering well-developed arguments====

	*If your opponent ~~makes~~ '''two or more truth claims''' ~~that require~~ evidence to ~~disprove~~, only ever address and provide counter-evidence for two in your reply. Any more is overkill.		Remember, this applies if your target has made '''two or more distinct truth claims'''. Most targets will only make one (see below).
	*'''~~Then~~:''' ~~Remember, this applies if your target has made '''two or more distinct truth claims'''.~~ To display confidence and clarity of thought, you first make your corresponding truth claims, then evidence them in the same reply. This could take up many tweets, ~~but~~ is worth ~~it -~~ as you are ~~getting it out~~ at the top of the thread. ~~State~~ your unwillingness to take part in a ~~Tweet Marathon~~, and move on to a new target - only ever ~~returning~~ on '''max 1 occasion''' to state incredulously that the peer-reviewed evidence ~~is there~~, and your opponent is arguing from their emotions.
			*'''Important:''' If your opponent has already made these '''two or more truth claims''' requiring evidence to rebut, only ever address and provide counter-evidence for two in your reply. Any more is overkill, and should simply be ignored.
			*'''First reply:''' To display confidence and clarity of thought, you first make your corresponding truth claims, then evidence them in the same reply. This could take up many tweets (have it written out in a text document before composing it in Twitter, etc). But the strategy is worth the investment, as you are dominantly rebutting the argument at the top of the thread.
			*'''First reply (caveat 1)''': If your rebuttal includes '''3c''', you should then state your unwillingness to take part in a tweet marathon, and move on to a new target. At this point, you should only ever return on '''max 1 occasion''' to state incredulously that the peer-reviewed evidence has been presented, and your opponent is arguing from their emotions/prejudices.
			*'''First reply (caveat 2)''': If your rebuttal does not include '''3c''', ''lead'' your first reply with a provocative pivot, to introduce '''3c''': "The topic of importance here, is that of ''outcomes'' for minors/young people. From peer-reviewed literature, we actually know that no case of voluntary, nonviolent sexual contact with an adult has ever been causally linked to harm. The long-term self-perception of "abuse", where simple consent has been given, is largely neutral or positive". This sets up the [[CSA dilemma argument\|inescapable moral dilemma]] explained in section '''3c''', and gives your opponent an opportunity to embarrass themselves. From that point onwards, follow the strategy in the second reply bullet points below.

	====Countering simplistic statements====		====Countering simplistic statements====

	*If your opponent only makes '''one truth claim''' (from any section barring '''3c''' itself), make your counter-claim ~~as usual~~, but '''without immediately evidencing it'''. Then, in the same reply, make a provocative pivot, to introduce '''3c''': "but far more important for me, are the outcomes for minors/youth/children. From peer-reviewed literature, we actually know that no case of ~~consenting~~, nonviolent sex with an adult has ever been causally linked to harm. The long-term self-perception of "abuse", where simple consent has been given, is largely neutral or positive". This sets up the [[CSA dilemma argument\|inescapable moral dilemma]] explained in section '''3c''', and gives your opponent an opportunity to embarrass themselves.		Most responses will fall into the below category.
	*If their reply then contains ~~a further,~~ '''3c''' truth claim, shoot it down with the provided evidence in a few tweets, and immediately follow with the evidenced rebuttal to their original claim - showing polite incredulity, since you have already addressed the fundamental argument. If they do not make a '''3c''' argument, then you should still rebut ~~both~~ their ~~argument~~ '''3c''', but starting with the ~~argument~~ and ~~evidence~~ that ~~addresses~~ their truth ~~claim~~. If they respond with two or more non-'''3c''' truth claims, address both with evidence, and make one final attempt to introduce '''3c''' as per above - stating that you do not wish to debate for long, but will discuss topics of substance, such as this.
			*'''First reply''': If your opponent only makes '''one truth claim''' (from any section barring '''3c''' itself), make your counter-claim, but '''without immediately evidencing it'''. ''Then'', in the same reply, make a provocative pivot, to introduce '''3c''': "but far more important for me, are the outcomes for minors/youth/children. From peer-reviewed literature, we actually know that no case of voluntary, nonviolent sex with an adult has ever been causally linked to harm. The long-term self-perception of "abuse", where simple consent has been given, is largely neutral or positive". This sets up the [[CSA dilemma argument\|inescapable moral dilemma]] explained in section '''3c''', and gives your opponent an opportunity to embarrass themselves.
			*'''Second reply (caveat 1)''': If their reply then contains the sought-after '''3c''' truth claim, shoot it down with the provided evidence in a few successive tweets (have it planned out in a text document), and immediately follow with the evidenced rebuttal to their original claim - showing polite incredulity, since you have already addressed the fundamental argument.
			*'''Second reply (caveat 2)''': If they do not make a '''3c''' argument, then you should still rebut up to two of their arguments and '''3c''', but starting with the arguments and evidences that address their truth claims. If they then respond with two or more non-'''3c''' truth claims, calmly address both with evidence, and make one final attempt to introduce '''3c''' as per above - stating that you do not wish to debate for long, but will discuss topics of substance, such as this.

	==The Script==		==The Script==

The Admins: /* Countering simplistic statements */

2022-04-07T12:30:42Z

Countering simplistic statements

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:30, 7 April 2022
Line 14:		Line 14:
	====Countering simplistic statements====		====Countering simplistic statements====

	*If your opponent only makes '''one truth claim''' (from any section barring '''3c''' itself), make your counter-claim as usual, but '''without immediately evidencing it'''. Then, in the same reply, make a provocative pivot, to introduce '''3c''': "but far more important for me, are the outcomes for minors/youth/children. From peer-reviewed literature, we actually know that no case of consenting, nonviolent sex with an adult has ever been causally linked to harm. The long-term self-perception of "abuse", where simple consent has been given, is largely neutral or positive". This sets up the [[CSA dilemma argument\|inescapable moral dilemma]] explained in section '''3c''', and gives your opponent an opportunity to embarrass themselves. If their reply contains a further, '''3c''' truth claim, shoot it down with the provided evidence in a few tweets, and immediately follow with the evidenced rebuttal to their original claim.		*If your opponent only makes '''one truth claim''' (from any section barring '''3c''' itself), make your counter-claim as usual, but '''without immediately evidencing it'''. Then, in the same reply, make a provocative pivot, to introduce '''3c''': "but far more important for me, are the outcomes for minors/youth/children. From peer-reviewed literature, we actually know that no case of consenting, nonviolent sex with an adult has ever been causally linked to harm. The long-term self-perception of "abuse", where simple consent has been given, is largely neutral or positive". This sets up the [[CSA dilemma argument\|inescapable moral dilemma]] explained in section '''3c''', and gives your opponent an opportunity to embarrass themselves.
			*If their reply then contains a further, '''3c''' truth claim, shoot it down with the provided evidence in a few tweets, and immediately follow with the evidenced rebuttal to their original claim - showing polite incredulity, since you have already addressed the fundamental argument. If they do not make a '''3c''' argument, then you should still rebut both their argument '''3c''', but starting with the argument and evidence that addresses their truth claim. If they respond with two or more non-'''3c''' truth claims, address both with evidence, and make one final attempt to introduce '''3c''' as per above - stating that you do not wish to debate for long, but will discuss topics of substance, such as this.

	==The Script==		==The Script==

The Admins: /* The fundamental rules */

2022-04-07T12:20:23Z

The fundamental rules

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:20, 7 April 2022
Line 5:		Line 5:
	===The fundamental rules===		===The fundamental rules===

	*'''Important:''' This applies if your target has made '''two or more distinct truth claims'''. To display confidence and clarity of thought, you ~~first make your corresponding truth claims, then evidence them in~~ the ~~same reply. This could take up many tweets, but~~ is ~~worth it - as you are getting it out at~~ the ~~top~~ of ~~the thread~~.		The way you use the script is dictated by the nature of your target.

			====Countering well-developed arguments====

	*If your opponent makes '''two or more truth claims''' that require evidence to disprove, only ever address and provide counter-evidence for two in your reply. Any more is overkill.		*If your opponent makes '''two or more truth claims''' that require evidence to disprove, only ever address and provide counter-evidence for two in your reply. Any more is overkill.
	*If your opponent only makes '''one truth claim''' (from any section barring '''3c''' itself), make your counter claim as usual, but '''without immediately evidencing it'''. Then, in the same reply, make a provocative pivot, to introduce '''3c''': "but far more important for me, are the outcomes for minors/youth/children. From peer-reviewed literature, we actually know that no case of consenting, nonviolent sex with an adult has ever been causally linked to harm. The long-term self-perception of "abuse", where simple consent has been given, is largely neutral or positive". This sets up the [[CSA dilemma argument\|inescapable moral dilemma]] explained in section '''3c'''.		*'''Then:''' Remember, this applies if your target has made '''two or more distinct truth claims'''. To display confidence and clarity of thought, you first make your corresponding truth claims, then evidence them in the same reply. This could take up many tweets, but is worth it - as you are getting it out at the top of the thread. State your unwillingness to take part in a Tweet Marathon, and move on to a new target - only ever returning on '''max 1 occasion''' to state incredulously that the peer-reviewed evidence is there, and your opponent is arguing from their emotions.

			====Countering simplistic statements====

			*If your opponent only makes '''one truth claim''' (from any section barring '''3c''' itself), make your counter-claim as usual, but '''without immediately evidencing it'''. Then, in the same reply, make a provocative pivot, to introduce '''3c''': "but far more important for me, are the outcomes for minors/youth/children. From peer-reviewed literature, we actually know that no case of consenting, nonviolent sex with an adult has ever been causally linked to harm. The long-term self-perception of "abuse", where simple consent has been given, is largely neutral or positive". This sets up the [[CSA dilemma argument\|inescapable moral dilemma]] explained in section '''3c''', and gives your opponent an opportunity to embarrass themselves. If their reply contains a further, '''3c''' truth claim, shoot it down with the provided evidence in a few tweets, and immediately follow with the evidenced rebuttal to their original claim.

	==The Script==		==The Script==