Resolved: In the game "Mafia," the Town should abide by the Policy, "Lynch All Liars"

C1) Removal of responsibility Pro says that any reason good enough to convince people to hop on the bandwagon can be used by mafia as their explanation for the lynch. Pro says that LAL falls into this category. The difference as I have been arguing through the debate is that LAL is a "policy." If a townie is acting in an anti-town manner, then other players would want them lynched. The mafia members would then bandwagon to ensure that the player is lynched. After the lynch happens however, the mafia members will be forced to explain exactly why they voted on the mislynch and to give details about how the townie was acting "anti-town." Mafia would need to articulate those reasons and use sound logic in order to not be suspected. With a policy lynch such as LAL, they no longer are responsible. LAL assumes that lying is the ultimate mistake and every liar is lynched regardless as to whether they are town or mafia. There is a difference between the mafia being forced to give concrete reasons for a mislynch and them being given a free pass by being able to say "he lied."Pro's scenario:Townie: "Why did you vote on the mislynch?"Scum: "Because of the reasons presented for the lynch."Well, the scum in this case would be accused of bandwagoning and would be unable to escape scrutiny. In my scenario however, when the scum says "Lynch all Liars" as a response to voting on the mislynch, they escape all scrutiny as long as the townies all agree that LAL is a sound strategy. To summarize, LAL is not like any other reason given for a mislynch which are usually ambiguous. LAL is unambiguous, gives no leeway for discretion, and is unlike any other reason given for a mislynch. For this reason, LAL does in fact provide a safe haven for absolving mafia than any other reason for the mislynch.C2) LAL gives the mafia free mislynchesPro says: "Why would such a townie lie if it doesn't give the town any new information? That is a BAD lie. Such lies should be discouraged, and LAL does just that."Pro himself proved my case through examples. Townies may lie to protect their role (QT mafia), to get the mafia to waste a kill (HvV), or to protect themselves from getting lynched (QT mafia). All of these scenarios benefit the player in question and by extension, town. If a townie lies to prevent themselves from getting lynched, they are preventing a mislynch which is ultimately an anti-mafia strategy. However, when they are caught lying, if the town lynches them for lying, they are mislynching as well as giving the town no information on how to catch the actual mafia. This moves the mafia one step closer to their victory.These mislynches can be considered "free" mislynches because town is one player down and all the mafia cite the policy "Lynch all Liars" as a reason for the mislynch. The townie in question had good reasons to lie but town gains no information from those mislynches.C3) Town Liars vs. Scum LiarsPro calls a scenario where townie liars are lynched before mafia liars "fantastical." As I have explained before, mafia can work together as a team and if two liars are caught simultaneously, the townie liars are likely to be lynched first due to the collective persuasive power of the mafia.Pro says that with LAL, liars are lynched as soon as they are ousted. I don't disagree with this at all. My point is that if a townie liar is caught in a mislynch or lose (MYLO) situation, then town loses. If a townie liar is caught at the beginning of the game, it moves the mafia one step closer to their victory. Townies are lynched for reasons other than lying. They could be counterclaimed, framed, have an unprovable role, and a whole host of other things. Half the town doesn't have to lie in order for town to lose which is what Pro claims.Pro also claims that the only good cause for lying is eliminating scum and a 1-for-1 trade off ALWAYS benefits the town. However, other good causes exist such as lying to protect themselves from getting lynched which prevent a mislynch and makes it harder for the scum to get a win.C4) Overall Success"Con contradicts himself here. In Contention 3, he uses mafia working together to get lying townies lynched first as a basis for his argument against LAL. Here, in contention 4, he states he is not doing that. It cannot be both ways."Pro completely misrepresents my point here and doesn't even address it. He initially said in round 3 that I am assuming that all lying townies are lynched before lying mafia. I clarified in my round 3 that I was assuming nothing of that sort. I gave my example with four mafia M, N, O, and P and five townies A, B, C, D, and E. I showed that if all the scum and one of the townies lied, even if three of the scum are eliminated first, the moment the lying townie is killed, the game ends. So, lynching all liars indescriminately (as they are caught) is a bad idea. Pro doesn't respond to it at all and fabricates a non-existent contradiction that he claims I have. I'll extend my points and add that were this debate were a mafia game, I would push for Pro's lynch due to his false logic. C5) Pro's Examples"I don't think townies should stop lying and it is not my position that townies should stop lying. I have been explicit in this from the beginning and to suggest that "Pro wants to abolish lying" is an outright misrepresentation of my position."Pro suggests LAL as a means to abolish lying in the future. He imagines that liars are lynched with zero tolerance, they would be discouraged from lying and a utopia could be created where no townie lies. This is Pro's eventual goal and not a misrepresentation."Any lie that doesn't serve that purpose (to eliminate scum) is a bad lie, LAL or no LAL."I have shown many instances where lying is justified and not "bad" even if doesn't directly eliminate scum. If the scum are eliminated indirectly (by powerful roles being protected or the scum being tricked into wasting kills,) the lie is still a "good" one. C6) Lying vs. MisleadingI showed why misleading is not an alternative as players want unambiguous answers. Pro agrees and concedes his point.C7) Caution vs Lynching Pro made this contention claiming that mafia will be bolder in lying if the response was caution as opposed to lynch. After I showed that lynches will only put the mafia one step closer to their victory with no information gained, he drops the point entirely. He wants to lynch townies in order to discourage lying in future games, but by adopting a detrimental strategy of lynching townies, town is putting themselves at a disadvantage. Why deliberately lose games just to teach people not to lie in the future if you can still win while working with those lies? Conclusion:Pro never addressed my arguments about how LAL can be harmful to the town by moving the mafia closer to their victory simply dismissing them as "bizarre." What is so bizarre about MYLO? It routinely happens in nearly every game. Townies lying isn't a "bizarre" scenario either as Pro pointed to multiple games where townies have lied all of which finished in the previous couple of weeks. If we were to go further down, we would find even more lies. Pro paints LAL as a long term strategy designed to discourage lying, yet he does not point out why lying is in any way more detrimental to the town than LAL itself. If Pro wants to discourage players from lying because it would lead to a town loss, how is going on a lynching spree lynching every person that lies and losing many games in the process any more beneficial? Not all liars should be lynched. There are ways to find scum through character and role claims which forces town to be more discerning of their lynches. The mafia must not be given free passes by lynching all liars. Players have good reasons to lie such as protecting their role from being revealed or pretecting themselves from a lynch. LAL therefore in an anti-town strategy and in a mafia game, town should not lynch all liars but be more discerning in who they lynch.