The Written Podcast: Am I Hypothetically Right or Wrong?

Surely the whole point of a hypothetical debate is that neither side is right or wrong, and yet the whole nature of a debate is both sides share different viewpoints, thus alluding to the other person being wrong; or am I misunderstanding something?

Hypothetical debates are fluid with their meaning, anyway, aren't they? Commonly used as a way for a character in a story to subtly admit they done something wrong by using the phrase, "but what if, hypothetically..." and also commonly used to discuss topics based upon the individual person's perspective and knowledge of whatever is they're discussing. Some take it seriously, some take it not so seriously, others accidentally take it seriously, and a small percentage don't understand don't play along and refuse to accept anything remotely not real, by using the phrase after being pitched a hypothetical question, "but that won't happen, though." This can be annoying, but isn't the subject of this article.

The hypothetical debate I've been building up to happened the night before writing this article, because it's still fresh in my mind and maybe keep the nature of the debate alive long enough for me to get the words written. Last night, I and three friends were playing Red Flags, a card game where you set up dates for the other person. Each round someone is the designated "single" person, and the others play 2 white cards known as positive traits for their partner. Once everyone has played their 2 cards, a third red card is played - a negative trait. The goal of the game is to convince the "single" person to pick your person to be their partner and win points. The game continues for as long as anyone wants. We weren't really competing to a specific score, just played until we had enough.

Red Flags can be immediately comparable to Cards Against Humanity, a card game solely focused on absurd hypotheticals, and when I say absurd, I really mean completely absurd. Anyone who's played the game knows why I can't go any further into the nature of the game. Red Flags is a little light-hearted compared to Cards Against Humanity, but still include the absolute absurdities. They're solely hypothetical and should never be taken seriously. But you still have to convince the "single" to pick your cards, so the nature of the game is structured around debating, and those debates can get a little hairy, but again shouldn't be taken as serious, but I fell into one of the personas and started to take it seriously, purely because I was adamant my set of cards were the best. And I know what I've just said; being adamant about your set is the purpose of the game, but let me explain the hypothetical situation.

My set of cards were: "writes poetry", and "never gets jealous". I played those cards because I believed simplicity would win. In a game about struggling to choose between the best of the worst, a straightforward set of traits would overcome the absurdity of the others, with no need to debate. The other set of cards were "casually practises spellcasting", and "chance of dropping legendary loot upon death." My friend who had the role of "single" asked me what type of poetry the person writes, and I thought I'd play it safe and state all types as a blanket safe-guard. He then immediately dismissed my person because of the chance of writing something he wouldn't like... can you spot the key word in this paragraph? It's chance. I picked up on that and the debating began.

He's a massive MMO player, and so loves his legendary items. They are exceptionally rare so most of the time you find nothing, but on the small occasion you come across something, I have no problem with liking that moment. The change of finding a legendary item is an opportunity I can understand why you want to take, because not taking it has a guaranteed 0% chance of not getting the legendary item. That part I can understand. But, let's flip the scenario and apply to my side of the debate.

His reasoning for immediately dismissing my partner was on the rare chance she'll write something he doesn't like, whereas the other chance involves the rare chance she'll give him something he does like. That's the issue I had here, because there's more of a chance my partner will write poetry he does like than he doesn't, whereas the other side has a more of a chance of my friend's partner will not drop something he likes, therefore becoming something he doesn't like.

The debate went on and someone pointed out the stats of acquiring a legendary item in of my friend's favourite game, which was 0.02% out of 100, which means there's a 99.8% chance he'll have something he doesn't like, which is nothing at all. I took those stats and placed it onto my card and stated that my partner would write poetry he does like 99.8% of the time and the remaining 0.02% would be something he doesn't like. And yet he's picking the loot because there's a chance he'll have something he doesn't like over the poetry which has more of what he likes... the debating lasted for quite a while, and we no one had played any red cards yet, which is the game itself.

I ultimately lost that round and the point went to my friend who played the card with the loot, simply because the red card did in fact change make it very difficult for me to defend, and when it was played, I had to accept the loss and move on, but that debate was still ringing through my head, and I remained convinced his reasoning for going for the loot was wrong.

So the question is: Am I wrong, is he wrong, or does it not matter in the slightest? For most of you, it doesn't matter. It's a hypothetical situation that'll never happen so making that decision within the context of the game has no immediate effect on the world; the person who you pick in the game doesn't suddenly become real. I will admit that I took that debate a little too seriously at the time, and I missed some opportunities to say some golden one-liners which came to my head the moment I settled down in bed, because that's just how it always works.

The idea is meant to ignite a friendly debate among friends involving situations that'll never happen, but since we're competing for points, shouldn't it be necessary to pretend as if it were real? Or am I misunderstanding something?

Thanks for reading

Antony Hudson

(TonyHadNouns)