Resolved: Fool is competitive #debate

Debate rules:

  • Only ToL (not FoL, ToS, etc.) may be presented as evidence
  • No non-ToL terms (“Powerwolfing”, “Town”, etc.)
  • Posts are limited to 280 characters
    • Formal syllogisms don’t count towards this limit

I’ll begin.

Fool requires skill to win because you must act evil enough to make BD want to lynch you, but not so evil that BD thinks you are doing it on purpose. Striking such a balance requires skill.

oh no



Fool requiring skill is not the main issue anyone who knows what they’re talking about has with the class

Also the arbitrary restrictions are just ???



Just make a bunch of short posts

It’s easy to dodge the “I don’t have an argument so keep yours as short as mine” filter :stuck_out_tongue:


Classes that actively encourage players to play badly are bad

Fool (is a class that) actively encourages players to play badly (by making it so that evils intentionally look suspicious so people will think they’re a fool)

Therefore Fool is bad

Also that was a formal syllogism so technically that post counts as 0 characters rather than 241


Classes that discourage BD players from attempting to use social means to deduce evils rather than relying solely on mechanics are also bad

Fool is a class that does all those things

Therefore Fool is bad

1 Like

It also messes with mechanics

I saw it :eyes:

1 Like

Oh no

The humanity

1 Like

Technically yes




gerund or present participle: competing

  1. strive to gain or win something by defeating or establishing superiority over others who are trying to do the same.

  2. take part in a contest.

The contest is to win, but the opposing party in this case doesn’t necessarily need to beat you to win themselves. This subverts what most would consider competition, but is technically still a contest.


Disagree on the point that you’re making in regards to the prompt.
Skill doesn’t necessarily mean it’s competitive, since a contest requires a battle for supremacy.

As an erratum to my prior post on the matter, a class that fundamentally does not need to compete to win is not competitive, as that is the very grounds for competition.

A neutral killer is competitive, as it competes against both BD and Scum.
Merc isn’t competitive as it does not compete.
Alch isn’t competitive for same reason. Nobody wants it dead.
Scorned could be a stretch case for the opposite, but under the dictionary definition it is not.
Sellsword is competitive. It competes against BD.

Old inq was competitive. New one technically isn’t, but realistically is.

Then comes fool, whose wincon comes from being in the crossfire of BD and Scum. It requires skill, but is not competitive as a fool (while it does come with penalties upon winning) does not directly come into conflict with either sides’ win conditions, nor does it interact with other neutral’s win conditions

debate has no basis.
Thanks for listening to ted talk

1 Like

Post invalid

What was intention when creating this debate?

Deliberately appearing suspicious is not necessarily bad play. You need to establish that premise first before following with the “Therefore Fool is bad” conclusion.

I already said in my opening that it requires skill to appear suspicious in the right way.