The basics are thus: I’ll state a fact that is obvious. To wins round, you must be the first that can prove it with citations.
Statements such as “A cow is not a type of rock” are obvious, bit you can’t reply with “it’s not a rock,” you need a scholarly citation.
BTW I totally got this game idea from here: Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal - Game
Judging
For the first round I’ll judge acceptable answers and not participate. However, should some others volunteer we can round robin who makes the statement then judges it.
Whomever proposes a statement, even if not judging, may not submit answers for that statement.
The Prize
I don’t know, 1000 internet points? A private class of mine? We’ll see where things go.
Game Time
Round 1
Judge: @hon1nbo
Statement: “Humans are not a type of tree”
Winner: @mblatz
Round 2
Judge: @hon1nbo
Statement: “cats are not demons sent to terrorise humans”
Winner: @mrjimmy
Round 3: FIGHT
Judge: @hon1nbo
Statement: “Boubon typically has 'bite” (where here bite refers to the drink profile)
Winner: @frank_lima
Honourable Mention: @mdredmond for the mosquito bite study involving beer consumption prompting me to clarify the statement.
Round 4: The Quickening
Judge: @hon1nbo
Statement: “Red is not Orange” (note, there is not a specific shade mentioned here, so can’t use hex values or specific wavelengths since the boundary is explicitly not clear)
Winner: TBD
1 - Premise/given: the (modern) Linnaean system of taxonomy (Taxonomic rank - Wikipedia) is in wide and accepted use across all of biological sciences, and taken to be authoritative.
2 - Fact: no organism can be in more than one Kingdom. (this would defeat the purpose of the taxonomy.)
3 - Fact: all trees are categorized under the kingdom Plantae.
3 - Fact: humans are categorized under the kingdom Animalia.
4 – Conclusion: Humans are not a type of tree. (and vice-versa.)
Point of Clarification. Are we talking about all animals belonging to the family felidae (including tigers, lynxes, housecats), restricting it to animals belonging to the sub-family felinae (including lynxes, cheetahs, pumas, house cats, etc.), or restricting it even further to animals belonging to species Felis catus (general house cats)?
Additionally, If the cat was “sent”, by what? Are we intended to dis/prove the existence of an almighty sender? Disprove the existence of demons? How does one disprove a negative?
Mosquito bites should be avoided because of the risk of contracting parasitic and viral diseases such as malaria, dengue fever, and several encephalitides. Although humans have been said to suffer more mosquito bites after ingesting liquor, little is known about whether that is true. Thirteen volunteers (12 men from 20 to 58 years old and a 24-year-old woman) were chosen as test hosts and a 30-year-old man was established as a control. We measured ethanol content in sweat, sweat production, and skin temperature before and after ingestion of 350 ml of beer (ethanol concentration 5.5%) by volunteers and compared them with a control subject. Our study demonstrated that percent mosquito landing on volunteers significantly increased after beer ingestion compared with before ingestion, showing clearly that drinking alcohol stimulates mosquito attraction. However, ethanol content in sweat and skin temperature did not show any correlation between alcohol ingestion and mosquito landings. This study shows that persons drinking alcohol should be careful about their increased risk to mosquito bites and therefore exposure to mosquito-borne diseases.
I’d reply, but this statement seems to only revolve around definitions, e.g. “define bourbon”, define “bite”. It’s like if the statement to be proven is “water is wet”…I don’t know how to “prove” that without self-referencing or circular logic. “Wetness” is a property of water, “nose” is a property of wine, “bite” is a property of bourbon/whiskey/alcohol. So all “true” as a matter of definition, therefore not provable as assertions.
Boubon actually has a strict definition: bourbon whiskey. a straight whiskey distilled from a mash having 51 percent or more corn, produced in the USA, using new charred oak barrels.
Part of the game is things like “bite” being well understood in speech here but poorly defined.
Statement: “Red is not Orange” (note, there is not a specific shade mentioned here, so can’t use hex values or specific wavelengths since the boundary is explicitly not clear)
must be true!
