On balance, Mafia is a waste of time

Thank you, bluesteel. For this round, I will be responding to my opponent’s arguments with rebuttals, since there are no new arguments or sources allowed. Re-rebuttals (1) Mafia is a leisure activity that has cognitive benefits The cognitive benefits are grossly exaggerated by my opponent. As explained, lie detection is oft akin to guessing (due to lack of social cues). Game theory is limited to the mods (1 in 10/15 people). There is restricted emotion conveyed through text, so EQ development is slow. Respite comes at the expense of short-term and long-term regret. Advanced prediction skills are developed slowly over time (at the expense of all the negatives involved with Mafia). I never said Mafia would be too fatiguing. I said Mafia would be too fatiguing if you are already tired. Regardless, there is still slight fatigue in playing. Using the energy source, I showed that TV is less energy intensive. I did not say that you should watch it (another strawman). I did this to show that playing Mafia is not “restive”. (2) Do people regret playing mafia? I do not have to show that Mafia is not mutually exclusive with any of the others. The debate revolves around whether Mafia is a waste of time, not whether you could do other things. The regret I talk about is short-term, too, as in ‘I could have read the newspaper instead of playing Mafia’. The long-term regret is much more associated with playing an entire Mafia game (i.e. wasting 4 hours). Just because my opponent has never heard people express regret for playing Mafia does not mean his anecdotal evidence is convincing or even sufficient an argument. “Using Zarro's same logic, playing *any* game -- such as chess -- would be a waste of time because you could be pursuing your dreams instead.” My opponent perpetually strawmans my arguments. I said you could find better things to do long-term OR short-term. Chess actually provides a rigorous mental exam (Mafia provides very small cognitive benefits, as I showed earlier). My opponent claims that some people might dream of becoming the best Mafia player. I appeal to the audience: does this seem like a likely claim? I still uphold the “on balance” part of the resolution. (3) Unnecessary stress My opponent (incorrectly) argues that the stress is low due to not being generated by “real” problems. What if, after sifting through dozens of comments and constructing a comment to respond, you were incorrectly lynched? Does anyone honestly believe that is “low level stress?” What if everyone else had voted on who to lynch, whilst you were left and the one whose vote would decide the lynching? To add to this stress, keep in mind that people analyse every word of your post. So, considering that you are going to invest 4 hours of your life on this game, you cannot reasonably tell me that being accused and having to accuse is not stressful, due to the amount of life you invest in this game. The difference between “real” and non-real externalities causing stress is far less than my opponent suggests, so my opponent’s qualitative assessment is inaccurate. The improved memory and learning of the increased stress is absolutely dwarfed by the stress itself, leaving it an overall negative. My opponent then argues that this “applied” environment of Mafia is better to learn in: (1) Low levels of stress argument already debunked (2) “Can’t learn anything by reading”. This is absolute nonsense. Please tell me how people can learn about Harry Potter spells considering that they would never be able to do them. Reading specifically about body-language cues is far more effective than guessing what someone meant via text. You need to learn the body cues first before you can practise detecting them, which fits what my opponent’s study said. Again, the problem with Mafia is that text (especially delayed text communication) gives very little in terms of sub-communication, especially when people are being secretive. “Zarro argues that you can't learn to read body language from playing mafia because mafia is text-based” (1) Defies definition given for Mafia (forum game). (2) Mutually exclusive argument shown irrelevant later. (4) Social interaction (1) In this way, it is very mildly beneficial, as I showed. (2) Live Mafia defies the definition of this debate. (3) Mutually exclusive argument shown irrelevant later. (5) Not mutually exclusive I gave plenty of other examples last round, and even if you were able to get through all of those, there are plenty more (like, as my opponent suggested, chess). This claim of “not mutually exclusive” is nonsense. PLUS, I showed why Mafia itself is a waste of time, not just in comparison. This argument is irrelevant to the debate. “More importantly, she doesn't respond to the argument that her valuations are inherently subjective.” This is wrong. I gave plenty of examples, so there are plenty of things for plenty of people. For example, all people need sleep. Another example: exercise is good for people. The valuation is not subjective; it holds true for most people. “Mafia is not a waste of time if the player's personal valuation is that there's nothing they'd rather be doing.” This is not always the case. My argument involves an objective view of what resonates best for most people (hence the resolution’s “on balance” clause), an example being ‘exercise is good for you’. Here is another: Let us say Bluesteel is tired. In his mind, playing Mafia is the best thing to do. But he is tired. As he begins, he loses focus time and time again, learning nothing about human behaviour, yet continues. The next day Bluesteel wakes up an hour later than usual and misses his bus to work. This shows that it is not all subjective. Bluesteel’s values did not align with the objective values embedded within his biology, hence the blunder. If he had listened to “Zarro”, he would have gone to sleep instead. (6) Infinitely regressive This is irrelevant to the debate. I already showed that my example of better things are, for most people, objectively better. PLUS, I showed why Mafia itself is a waste of time, not just in comparison, so there is a line in which anything above is positive, and anything below is negative. This avoids infinite regression. (7) Happiness People choosing and realising to do better things with their time would make them happy. I showed a sustained connection between playing Mafia and regret (among other things), so the logical opposite (positive vs. negative emotions) of this would be people who avoid Mafia are happy. My opponent’s argument merely described the effects of happiness, rather than connecting them to Mafia. Therefore, my argument is superior. Conclusion: why you should vote for me Firstly, according to the resolution, I do not have to prove that Mafia is always a waste of time. The majority of the time (on balance), people can not only do better than play Mafia, but (and this affirms the resolution) Mafia is inherently an overall negative, and hence is a waste of time. I showed you how many better things there were to do, regardless of your individuality. It is not all subjective, as my opponent might try to fool you otherwise. You will regret playing this game over completing that thing that you could have done earlier. You will regret spending 4 hours on this game instead of putting that towards your dreams. I showed you the stress and small fatigue it causes. I showed you how, in the medium term, can make you lonely. It is a poor socialisation tool and it is a really poor way to learn about human behaviour. This, along with the regret, is why Mafia is a waste of time. So, thanks to bluesteel for the opportunity to debate you. Also, thank you to any of the judges who vote on this. I picked you all because I trust all of you to vote with, at worst, minimal bias. Though, do not feel the need to vote; it is just an opportunity for you. The resolution is affirmed :)