I use probability heuristics to put my opponent on a range of arguments and then game theory to randomly determine how frequently to attribute each argument to them. My own arguments are a binary range of extremely strong and extremely weak arguments, to keep them guessing.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
Yeah, I was basically just applying Janda-esque poker theory to the realm of argumentation :p
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Yes, but read Sklansky first for the basics. Sklansky + Janda is sufficient for pretty much everything except tournaments, which are stupid and unprofitable anyway (though arguably more fun). Though keep in mind, the hidden skills in Poker are bankroll and variance management.
- Show replies
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.