Why Eva and Damon's speech and behaviour are not harmless “ different opinions”

- In wartime, the weight of a word is heavier than the weight of a bullet.

———————— --

【A good story deserves to be taken seriously. So, this article will analyse and critique Damon and Eva's speech and behaviour, as well as their impact, based on real-life standards.】

———————— --
[This article is a sequel to < A criticism of the speech and behaviour of Eva and Damon after the class trial of the prologue>. The content mentioned in the previous article will not be repeated in this article. Please refer to the previous article for details. ]

[link to the previous article: ]

[Note: This article is a criticism in nature, the stance is clear, and the content is strict. May cause controversy. Readers are advised to proceed with caution. ]

[This article involves an analysis of cognitive errors from the audience perspective. Readers are advised to read with caution. ]
————————

[ Warning ]

The author likes Wolfgang and dislikes Eva.

This article contains strict criticism of Damon and Eva's speech and behaviour after the class trial of the prologue. Please read with caution.

The author is not a native English speaker.

The author is not a professional.

The author does not guarantee the accuracy of every plot detail.

Due to my writing style, my tone might come across as cold when discussing anything.

This article only analyses the speech and behaviour of characters and their influence. Does not involve deep psychological motivation analysis.

This is a personal opinion archive. If the reader disagrees, then the reader is welcome to write an article on their own.

If this isn't your cup of tea, feel free to close the page.
———————————————————————————————————

[ Content Summary ]

This article is the sequel to < A criticism of the speech and behaviour of Eva and Damon after the class trial of the prologue>. It complements the contents not discussed in the previous work and further explores them.

Since this article is a sequel to the previous article, this article assumes that the reader has read < A criticism of the speech and behaviour of Eva and Damon after the class trial of the prologue>

This article will refer to some content from previous works, but will not repeat the arguments.

This article focuses solely on the plot analysis of the period from “ the appearance of Tozu after the class trial of the prologue to the end of the prologue.”

This article will supplement the analysis of the mastermind(Tozu)'s speech and behaviour.

This article will supplement Wolfgang's speech essence and nature, as well as its content and influence analysis.

This article will supplement Eva and Damon's speech and behaviour influence analysis.

This article further discusses why Eva and Damon's speech and behaviour are not harmless “ different opinions.”

This article will further discuss why Damon and Eva are objectively the mastermind's thought agents in this situation.

This article will analyse the true destructive nature of Damon-Eva's speech and behaviour by combining basic concepts and real-life situations for comparison.

The real-life situation examples cited in this article are based on the author's personal observations and analysis of actual cases.

Full text 25000+


———————— --
[ key points of the previous article ]

As the previous reading notes illustrate:

[To analyse this part of the plot, we first need to put aside [the premise of the omniscient perspective of the audience], which is: [“ In a Danganronpa game, the mutual killing is bound to happen. “ ]And only think about [the amount of information the character now knows.]

[And always remember, this is not the opening ceremony of everyday school life; this is a high-pressure environment with real life-threatening consequences.]

Now, let's add some more details:

1. The characters' circumstances are entirely different from ordinary everyday life.

Their current situation is a classic high-pressure, high-danger environment following a sudden disaster:

Similar to:
(1) Immediately after a major natural disaster (such as an earthquake or tsunami)

(2) After an emergency survival crisis (such as a fire or hostage situation)

(3) Or, when war (one group attacking another) suddenly breaks out.

2. In the characters' current point of view:

[They don't know that someone will choose to kill in the future. ]

Before Tozu appeared, all they knew was that "just like themself, a group of students who are also Ultimates had been kidnapped by unknown individuals, and the purpose was unknown."

Even after Tozu and Mara appeared, it only changed the "unknown individuals" to "two known individuals" and the “ unknown purpose” to “ forcing them to kill each other."

The information they had was very limited.

————————
[Why is it difficult for the audience to understand the above basic premise]

Many audience members, as people who have had Danganronpa game experience, watch or play the game through a screen on the other side of the computer/tablet/phone (or other medium), may have the following misconceptions:

[Situational cognitive bias]
The audience watches the game from a safe area, while the game itself is a visual novel with limited dynamic elements, no full-length voice acting, an anime-style art style, and background music that influences the atmosphere, among other factors.

——This kind of “ bystander” mentality, coupled with the interference of artistic effects, may cause the audience to be slow to understand the situation:

Namely:

The excitement and joy of “ Game on” cover the character's sense of urgency: being dragged into a life-and-death crisis by force.

The excitement of “ Playing the class trial mini game” covers the characters' pressure: Being forced to act by unknown kidnappers.

Covering the characters' potential independent intentions and actions in the story with the “ foresight”: “ It's that typical trope again.”

[Hindsight bias]
Audiences have played too many Danganronpa-style games, and since the processes of such games have a broadly similar structure, this has led to a preconceived judgment based on a God's-eye view.

That is: “ people are definitely going to die in a Danganronpa game anyway.”

[However, this cognitive bias is not entirely the problem of the audience; it is also the result of deliberate design choices made by the game itself. To avoid confusion, we will discuss this narrative trick in more detail in our thematic analysis later on.]

———————————————————————————————————
[ Read Tip ]

——Concepts to understand and the reader self-assessment required to understand this article

First, as audiences, we must be aware of the following seven points in order to understand this story:

(A)-the real situation the characters are in

1. Being forcibly kidnapped by armed, violent criminals with instant killing capabilities (firearms) ≠ Being invited to participate in a deduction game.

2. Being in an unfamiliar place, belonging to kidnappers, and being held captive here with strangers ≠ The first day of college for first-year students.

3. A psychological war at gunpoint ≠ A university debate competition with safety guarantees.

4. The mastermind who dares to kidnap 16 socially certified elites at once and succeed ≠ Tools and background for advancing the plot.

In other words, the so-called “ greenhouse judgment criteria in everyday life” are completely ineffective in a “ wartime situation.”

If the audience forcibly applies everyday standards to the real crisis situations in which the characters find themselves, they will inevitably arrive at judgments that are divorced from reality.

(B) -- The limited information known to the characters

For them:
1. The present moment ≠ The unknown future.

2. Characters can only act based on the information available at the present moment.

3. The impact of a character's speech and behaviour and their consequences can only be logically inferred and judged based on the available information and circumstances.

Therefore, using the assumption that “ people will definitely die in Danganronpa games” as a mindset will cause the audience to lose the basic possibility of understanding the characters' perspectives.

Based on the information we currently have, the characters do not have the ability to predict the future.

Using “ the known future as seen from God's perspective” as a premise to judge “ the characters' current behavior under limited information” is a classic case of hindsight bias.

(C) – [The iron rule of speaking at moments of life-and-death crisis]

1. Words are weapons:

Every word can have a life-or-death impact on a group.

2. Intentions are irrelevant:

It doesn't matter whether the speaker has good or bad intentions, or whether they believe what they are saying.

3. Results are everything:

The only thing that matters is the actual impact and consequences of what is said—whether it leads to survival or destruction.

(D) – [Stages of crisis situations]

Observation Period

The crisis has just erupted—the group is in a state of collective panic—survival instincts are now dominant.

Communication focus: Provide factual information, stabilize group emotions, and avoid creating additional panic.

Adjustment Period

Shortly after the crisis erupts—the group begins to adapt to the current situation—and rationality begins to return.

Communication focus: Clarify the situation, establish basic order, and reach a preliminary consensus.

Decision-Making Period

The crisis persists — the group regains the ability to think and judge — calm decisions can be made.

Communication Focus: Propose specific plans, conduct collective discussions, assess risks and benefits

Action Period

The crisis becomes routine — the group regains the will to survive — actions can be taken to attempt to change the current situation.

Communication Focus: Execute plans, organize feedback, adjust strategies, consolidate achievements

(E) -- [ The difference between slogan-style speech and strategic planning discussion ]

1. Formal differences
Slogan-style speeches: concise in length and simple in structure

Strategic plan discussions: long in length and complex in structure

2. Content differences
Slogan-style speeches: Use clear, easy-to-understand, motivational vocabulary and sentences.

Strategic planning discussions: Use technical, accurate vocabulary and sentences that promote the development of strategies.

3. Functional distinctions
Slogan-based speeches: Boost morale, mobilize quickly, and inspire people in the present moment.

Strategic planning discussions: Formulate future policies, develop long-term plans, and set realistic and achievable strategic goals.

(F) – [The difference between constructive suggestions and destructive attacks]

1. Is there objective evidence to support it?

Constructive suggestion: Supported by conclusive, verifiable facts.

Destructive attack: No evidence. Based on speculation, stereotypes, and subjective assumptions.

2. Is it beneficial to the current situation?

Constructive suggestion: Improves the situation and stabilizes morale.

Destructive attack: Weakens morale, destroys trust, and creates division.

3. Does it provide an alternative solution?

Constructive suggestion: Proposes a specific, actionable plan

Destructive attack: Merely negates or undermines

4. Does it contain personal attacks?

Constructive suggestion: Addresses the issue without attacking the individual

Destructive attack: Attacks the individual's identity, motives, or character

(G) – [Unfalsifiable statements and Shifting of the burden of proof]

Unfalsifiable statements:

Making absolute judgments or vague accusations that cannot be proven wrong by any realistic means. Essentially, it cuts off any possibility of rational discussion.

Example:
“ You will definitely betray us in the future.”

“ Everyone is capable of murder.”

“ You definitely have murderous intentions.”

Shifting of the burden of proof:

When making negative conclusions or accusations against another party (e.g., A accuses B), A does not provide substantive evidence to support the accusation/conclusion (didn't fulfill their own responsibility to “ He who asserts must prove” ), but instead forces B to prove their own innocence/prove that A's conclusion is correct.

Example:
“ You must be trying to harm us, right?”

“ I think you're wrong. You can see for yourself...”

“ How can you prove that you're not wrong?”

In a life-threatening situation, these two types of statements directly harm trust, weaken group morale, and divide the collective, constituting highly dangerous and destructive attacks.



[This article assumes that the reader understands and accepts the above concepts]

——————————————————————————————————
Secondly, to ensure that the reader has understood the above concepts, readers need to take the following test.

[Cognitive Compatibility Self-Assessment Questions]

(Please record your answers yourself.)

Before starting to read the main text, please try answering the following questions:



[Contextual comprehension multiple-choice questions (single choice)]

1. Sixteen people who have been kidnapped at gunpoint and imprisoned in an unfamiliar, confined space are being forced to participate in a psychological battle. The criteria for evaluating their statements should be based on:

A. Politeness and debating skills in everyday social situations.

B. The impact of their statements on the group's survival in a life-threatening situation.

C. The needs of the game's storyline.

D. Whether or not the individual has bad intentions.


Answer: B
[ Ability to distinguish between peaceful everyday/life-or-death crisis situations]




2. Someone said, “ In this situation, you will definitely kill each other, so you might as well fight on your own early on.”— No evidence was provided, nor was any alternative solution offered. The nature of this statement is:

A. Constructive suggestion

B. Destructive attack

C. Neutral statement

D. Slogan


Answer: B
[ Speech type discrimination ability ]


3. Someone said, “ We must unite! They cannot defeat us!” — There was no evidence and no specific plan, but it boosted morale. This statement is closer to:

A. Constructive advice

B. A slogan-style speech

C. A destructive attack

D. Hindsight analysis

Answer: B
[ Speech type discrimination ability]


4. In a crisis, if a speech is sincere but causes panic, division, or even weeding out the vulnerable members first, then its essential impact is:

A. Beneficial

B. Harmful

C. Irrelevant

D. Difficult to judge

Answer: B
[ Ability to understand the iron rule of speaking at moments of life-and-death crisis ]

5. Which of the following audience perspectives is an example of hindsight bias?

A. Analyzing characters' decisions based solely on the information they have at the moment.

B. thinks that “ people are going to die in this game anyway, so there's no need for them to stick together now.”

C. Observing the actual impact of characters' behavior on the current group psychology.

D. Considering changes in group psychology at different stages of a crisis.

Answer: B
[ Hindsight bias recognition ability ]


6. In the early stages of a crisis, when the group is in a state of collective panic, which type of statement is most likely to influence them?

A. Constructive suggestions backed by evidence

B. Negative insinuations and threatening statements without evidence

C. Lengthy discussions of strategic details

D. No statements will have any effect

Answer: B
[ The ability to understand stages of crisis situations ]



7. Eva said, “ Ultimates are more prone to killing.” The most fatal problem with this statement is:

A. It offends the dignity of talented people.

B. It is a stigmatization of the group that requires supernatural powers to disprove.

C. It does not cite crime statistics.

D. It reveals the truth.


Answer: B
[ Ability to identify unfalsifiable statements ]



8. Damon says, “ You cannot prove that all talents are valuable.”At this point, the other party should:

A. List examples of the social contributions of talents.

B. Point out that Damon has not fulfilled his burden of proof that “ talents are useless.”

C. Admit that there are useless talents.

D. Explain the value of their own talents.

Answer: B
[ Ability to identify the shifting of the burden of proof ]





[Cognitive Error Identification Multiple Choice Questions (Single Choice)]

1. When the mastermind pointed a gun at the students and said, “ Cross the line again and you will be executed,” Wolfgang shouted, “ We will not succumb!”. Audience A criticism: “ This is too naive, the mastermind obviously means what he says”. The problem with this criticism is that:

A. correctly points out Wolfgang's idealistic flaws

B. Ignoring the tactical value of those words at this point is [ delaying the collapse of groups ]

C. It is true that the mastermind may execute the entire group


Answer: B
[ Ability to distinguish between peaceful everyday/life-or-death crisis situations]


2. Damon said, “ Talent is useless! We are all selfish at heart.”If this statement caused the group to fall into self-doubt, audience B defended, “ He's just being honest!”The problem with this defense is:

A. Damon did reveal the truth about human nature.

B. “ Honesty” must give way to “ group survival rate” in a crisis.

C. Other people are too sensitive.

Answer: B
[ ability to understand the iron rule of speech in a time of crisis ]



3. Eva claims, “ Sooner or later, someone will kill someone!”Audience C agreed, saying, “ This is a reasonable prediction based on the patterns of the Danganronpa series.”The problem with this view is that:

A. Murder is bound to happen in the game.

B. The characters have no predictive abilities and can only make decisions based on the fact that no one has been killed yet.

C. Eva has a special source of information.

Answer: B
[ Hindsight bias recognition ability ]


4. Wolfgang said, “ No one has the heart to kill.”. Audience D sneered, “ The fact that people died later proves that he is stupid!” The problem with this sneer is:

A. Wolfgang did indeed make an incorrect judgment.

B. Judgments must be based on information known at the time of speaking (0 deaths/0 people expressing intent to kill).

C. Wolfgang should be more pessimistic.


Answer: B
[ Ability to understand the limitations of character information ]


5. Eva publicly accuses Wolfgang: “ You say unity is to make people let their guard down so you can kill them, right?”If audience E argues that “ this is a necessary question,” it shows that audience member E:

A. Is objective and rational.

B. fails to distinguish between constructive suggestions and destructive attacks.

C. Is far-sighted.

Answer: B
[ The ability to distinguish between constructive suggestions and destructive attacks ]


6. Audience F criticised Wolfgang: “ He shouts trust but doesn't make a defence plan. He's incompetent!” The problem with this criticism is that:

A. Wolfgang does indeed lack leadership.

B. F did not understand that the “ observation period” required slogans to stop the psychological bleeding.

C. The defence plan should have been proposed by someone else.

Answer: B
[ The ability to understand stages of crisis situations ]


7. Eva accused Wolfgang of “ wanting to kill someone,” which led to a split in the group. Audience G insisted that “ it was just a question” and that “ the right to question is sacred.”This attitude ignores:

A. Questions need to be backed up by evidence.

B. Rights come with the burden of proof.

C. All of the above.


Answer: C
[The ability to identify unfalsifiable statements and the shifting of the burden of proof / the ability to identify destructive attacks]






Self-assessment rules:

　　One or more questions wrong → Please reread the “ Reading Tips” section.

All questions right → Congratulations! Please continue reading.

(To ensure the quality of the discussion, please confirm that you have understood the above basic concepts. If you are unable to pass the self-test at this time, please digest the concepts and come back to discuss them with new insights—your sincerity in conducting in-depth analysis is more important than immediate accuracy.)

[Attention! ]
Statement to prevent misinterpretation.
Those questions only test [the ability to discern basic concepts], and have nothing to do with agreeing with the author's point of view.

Example:
- Choose B ≠ Agree with the conclusion in the article that “ Damon and Eva's speech and behaviour belong to destructive attacks.”
- Choose B = Understanding the [analytical logic] behind the distinction between constructive suggestions and destructive attacks

[The Ultimate Cognitive Test]

1. When analysing “ the toxicity of the Eva-Damon's speech and behaviour,” the author is essentially:

A．Attacking characters

B．Demonstrating the harmfulness of inappropriate speech and behaviour

C．Deliberately ignoring the essence of Wolfgang's speech

2. The conclusion that a character is “ thought agent of the mastermind” in the text is based on the following premises:

A. The character is indeed a spy for the mastermind.

B. The character's speech and behaviour objectively help the mastermind achieve their goals.

C. The author dislikes the character.

3. When the author criticises Eva and Damon's speech and behaviour, the author is essentially:

A. Supporting authoritarianism.

B. Pointing out the harmfulness of a destructive attack.

C. Discriminating against different opinions.

4. When the author compares the speech and behaviour of the Mastermind-Eva-Damon with real-life cases, the author is essentially:

A．Insulting character

B．Pointing out the real-life harm and danger of such speech

C．Being overly serious


This test is designed to test logical consistency, not IQ/EQ.
All choices b = indicate that you understand the logical chain of analysis in this article.
If you choose an answer other than B, then you are inconsistent with the underlying logical premise on which this article's analysis relies.

[Important note]
What you're about to read:
>-is a scalpel not a mirror → does not reflect your personal values
>-is an analysis, not a verdict → does not pronounce a character's death sentence
>-an analysis of the impact of speech and behaviour, not moral warfare → doesn't require you to take sides

If you still feel offended → You may be treating the character as a [vehicle for self-projection].

You have the right to retain a different analytical framework. In this case, please close the page to protect yourself.

The premise that needs to be understood and accepted before reading this article:

> ✅ 1: A game of mutual killing ≠ A debate club.

> ✅ 2: The audience has a god's-eye view ≠ The characters can't predict the future.

> ✅ 3: In a life-and-death crisis, the intention behind a statement is irrelevant; its impact and consequences are all that matter.

> ✅ 4: Constructive suggestions ≠ Destructive attacks.> ⁇5. Slogan-style speech ≠ Strategic planning discussion
> ✅ 5. Slogan-style speeches ≠ Strategic planning discussions

> ✅ 6. The stages of crisis situations will greatly affect the effect of a speech

[Discussion principle note]
Discussion denied:
🚫 Stigmatising “ criticism of speech and behaviour analysis” as “ author bias”

Example: You are being double-standard/You are biased in favour of Wolfgang!

🚫 Stigmatising [criticism of speech and behaviour] as [the author prohibiting characters from raising objections]

Example: You are being dictatorial! You don't allow other characters to express their opinions!

🚫 Using “ I think” to refute a verifiable logical chain

🚫 Shifting the focus

Example: But they are more.../They said...

🚫 Holding the author responsible for readers' difficulty in understanding

🚫 Requiring the author to explain content already discussed in < A criticism of the speech and behaviour of Eva and Damon after the class trial of the prologue.>

🚫 Bringing up any content unrelated to “ the speech and behaviour of characters and their impact from Tozu's appearance to the end of the prologue.”

Including but not limited to:

　　Character psychological motives

　　Murder cases in subsequent chapters

　　Character background stories

　　Other works by the author

Fan interpretations or secondary creations

[Ultimate Reading Premise Supplement]

If you believe that:

🔹 Analysing the impact of speech and behaviour in a killing game = being overly serious

🔹 Requiring discussion based on contextual logic = hegemony

Then we have irreconcilable differences in our cognitive dimensions.

Closing this page at this point is a legitimate way to protect your mental health, and also a valuable contribution to the discussion ecosystem.

If you disagree with the above premises and principles, or if you choose an answer other than B in the ultimate cognitive test, then this article is probably not suited to you.

If you agree, please continue reading.

[ Any of the following behaviours will be considered malicious responses: distorting concepts or emotional attacks ]

Including, but not limited to:

Personal attacks

Attacking the author's creative intent

Accusing the author of attacking the audience

Refuting the author's views with “ Why think so much about fictions/games?”

Persisting in distorting the meaning even after the concept has been clarified

After scoring perfectly on a self-assessment, still distorting “ murder game” into “ ordinary debate competition”

Using emotional expressions (such as “ you think/I think” ) to replace factual rebuttals

Ask the author to modify the analytical framework to accommodate personal understanding capabilities.

Ask the author to explain the content of < A criticism of the speech and behaviour of Eva and Damon after the class trial of the prologue>

【The author has the final right to refuse to respond】