Why Eva and Damon's speech and behaviour are not harmless “ different opinions”
Let's review the reading tips again:
——This is not a peaceful and safe university debate club where students have the luxury of leisurely arguing about the rightness or wrongness of their views.
——This is an emergency psychological war under the barrel of a gun, after being kidnapped by armed criminals, with shots just fired (if Mara (the second mastermind) had wanted to, Grace would already be dead), and the possibility of someone else being shot in the very next second.
——This is a forced, anti-human, twisted game of mutual killing where students are forced to participate, with the constant threat of real death; it is not the civilised societal opening ceremony marking the start of campus life after freshmen enrol in everyday life.
[The fundamental difference between a peaceful debate and a killing game]
Peaceful debate:
1. Personal safety
No one will face the possibility of being shot to death for saying the wrong thing.
2. Equal standing
Debaters have equal standing, and one side (such as the mastermind) does not have complete control, while the other side (such as the students) is in a situation where their life or death is entirely dependent on the will of the other side (the mastermind).
3. Fair rules
There are referees and rules, and there is no bias toward either side.
Killing Game:
1. No security guarantees
Anyone can face death at any time.
2. Absolute power oppression
The Mastermind has instant lethal force control, and the students are defenseless.
3. No rules or regulations
The Mastermind is the sole arbiter, and the life and death of all students depends on the Mastermind's whim.
———————————————————————————————————
[The prerequisite for everything: stages of crisis situations]
After the prologue class trial, the Mastermind (Tozu) has just appeared, the rules of the killing game have just been revealed, and Mara has just fired her gun.
The current state of the groups is in the [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.
Why? Allow me to reiterate:
——In sudden, high-pressure crisis situations, the human brain is unable to process complex information, and thinking becomes simplified, making it easier to accept ideas implanted by the outside world without noticing their potential problems.
——Even basic concepts that would normally be strongly/absolutely rejected in a normal environment (such as betrayal/violence/murder) ——can be possibly accepted as long as they satisfy one's strongly stimulated survival instincts.
This is why every statement made during the observation period is extremely important—they can directly influence or even change the psychological state and future behavior of the group.
At this moment, the impact of any statement will be countless times greater than in everyday life.
—————————
[Wolfgang's speech type classification]
Original lines quote:
["There's no need to cry, Ms. Taulner."
"We're all civilised here. No one is going to kill people simply because they've been ordered to."
"A match between unprepared, unfit players...You could hardly call that a match."
"In much the same way, this game you've proposed...a killing game between students who don't have the heart to kill... Do you seriously think we'll abandon our morals so quickly?"]
["Regardless, I finally have an answer to your previous question."
"You asked me if I knew anything about my friends besides their names and talents."
"Truthfully, I don't...but I'll continue to trust them as if I do...because they're Ultimates."
"They are charged with the betterment of society. And they have proven themselves to be above simple acts of self-interest..."
"We will not succumb! Even if you trap us, fire guns at us, and force us to endure farcical courtroom procedures!" ]
[ The difference between slogan-style speech and strategic planning discussion ]
1.
Key points of Speech 1:
Students are civilised individuals who don't have the heart to kill and would not abandon their morals quickly.
Key points of Speech 2:
I trust them; they are Ultimates, above simple acts of self-interest, and will not succumb.
Length: The full text of the speech is less than 150 English words.
Conforms to the formal characteristics of slogan-style speeches: concise in length and simple in structure
2.
Key words of the speech:
Civilized, don't have the heart to kill, Ultimates, charged with the betterment of society, above simple acts of self-interest, will not succumb
Conforms to the content characteristics of slogan-style speeches: Use clear, easy-to-understand, motivational vocabulary and sentences.
3.
Overview of the speech's effect:
The group responded positively immediately after the two speeches. Some group members began to internalise Wolfgang's logic, and the silent members did not raise any objections. The group gradually formed a strong sense of unity against the enemy and a desire to survive.
Conforms to the functional characteristics of slogan-style speeches: Boost morale, mobilize quickly, and inspire people in the present moment.
So the essence of Wolfgang's speech is slogan-style speech rather than strategic planning discussion. Nor is it a suggestion.
[Stages of crisis situations——Observation Period]
1. Does it provide factual information?
“We're all civilised here.”
“Because they're Ultimates.”
“Even if you trap us, fire guns at us, and force us to endure farcical courtroom procedures!” (reality anchoring)
Yes. Emphasizes factual information that is currently known to the group.
2. Does it stabilize the group's emotions?
“No one is going to kill people simply because they've been ordered to.”
“students who don't have the heart to kill.”
“They have proven themselves to be above simple acts of self-interest.”
“Do you seriously think we'll abandon our morals so quickly?”
Yes. Repeatedly implant the suggestion that “no one will kill/betray.”
3. Does it avoid creating additional panic?
“I will continue to believe in them.”
“We will not give in!”
+ Overall, the speech does not cause suspicion and panic among the group
Yes. Take the lead as an example. Clearly reject the Mastermind's demands. Didn't implant any suggestions that could worsen the group's psychological state.
Therefore, Wolfgang's speech meets the requirements of [Stages of crisis situations - Observation Period].
[Key details]
1.
After Wolfgang's first speech was interrupted by Tozu's unfalsifiable trap, the temporary void of speech that appeared was actually very fatal:
——It gave Tozu the opportunity to further intimidate and induce the group, controlling the course of the psychological war.
If Grace had not directly used force to interrupt Tozu's speech, greatly damaging the authority of the Mastermind and breaking the group out of their “brainwashed” state, creating breathing space for Wolfgang's second speech, then Wolfgang would most likely never have found another opportunity to fight back.
This is the fatal danger of Tozu's unfalsifiable trap—it cannot be refuted by any logical reasoning.
The more a person relies on logic and rational thinking, or should I say, the more reasonable they are, the easier it is for them to get stuck when encountering this kind of trap.
Therefore, the only way to counter this kind of trap is to use the same “unreasonable” method.
2.
Wolfgang's second speech actually skillfully avoided Tozu's unfalsifiable trap.
Tozu's trap has three requirements:
1. Requires omniscience
2. Requires mind-reading
3. Requires foretelling the future
Once the group begins to follow and accept Tozu's trap logic, even if it is only trying to meet the first requirement, they will immediately fall into a never-ending, inescapable self-proving cycle—a falsification that even supernatural powers cannot achieve, so how could mere mortals?
Therefore, Wolfgang's response here is very clever and appropriate:
1. “Truthfully, I don't...but I'll continue to trust them as if I do...because they're Ultimates.”
Directly admit that he cannot know everything, fundamentally avoiding the trap of being omniscient.
Shift the focus from [unknown information] (cannot know everything) to [known information] (the group‘s shared identity of being Ultimates).
2. “They are charged with the betterment of society. And they have proven themselves to be above simple acts of self-interest...”
Use a positive shared group identity and its inherent known behavioral characteristics to avoid unknown individual positions.
(Even if these behavioral characteristics are based on social stereotypes and are not necessarily entirely objective reality)
Shift the focus from “unable to know individual stances” (unable to read minds) to “known collective behavioral consensus.”(Social behavioral consensus of those who have obtained the “Ultimates” title)(Even if it's a stereotype)
3. "We will not succumb! Even if you trap us, fire guns at us, and force us to endure farcical courtroom procedures!”
Repeat the current situation that the group has already experienced, to motivate the group not to give in at this moment, and avoid speculating about the unpredictable future behavior of the group.
Shift the focus from [fear and suspicion of future individual stances] (unpredictable future) to [known shared experiences] (imprisonment, being shot at, being forced to play court games).
—— --
Tozu's first statement was actually a comprehensive blow to Wolfgang's first statement:
[Tozu's speech impacts rereview]
1. “ Do you even know anything about them”
(insert suspicion again)
2. “ Regarding killing, where do they stand?”
(Blurring the distance between students and the Mastermind—the distance between civilization and barbarism)
3. “ Is where they currently stand on the issue the same as where they're willing to stand?”
(Attempting to undermine the potential for real unity of the group [now] by creating a fictional [unknown] “ future panic”)
4. “ You wouldn't be here, all dressed up in that fancy shit, if you were so naive.”
(By using a “ choose a label” type personal attack, forcing Wolfgang into a position of being seen as “ either naive or hypocritical”, completely avoiding the actual impact of Wolfgang's speech (some in the group expressed support), thereby further undermining the effectiveness of Wolfgang's speech.)
[Impact of Wolfgang's first statement]
1. “We're all civilised here.”
(emphasizing that we = civilization, pointing out that the Mastermind's nature = barbarism, and creating a psychological boundary between the group and the Mastermind)
[Mastermind 124 counterattack]
2. “No one is going to kill people simply because they've been ordered to.”
(emphasizing the absurdity of the Mastermind's logic, awakening basic ethical values, and implanting the idea of opposing killing each other)
[Mastermind 1234 counterattack]
3. “students who don't have the heart to kill”
(once again implanting the implication of opposition to killing and creating a sense of security)
[Mastermind 1234 counterattack]
4. "Abandon our morals” (awakening moral consciousness and making the concept of murder negative)
[Mastermind 1234 counterattack]
From this, we can see that almost every speech made by Tozu (Mastermind) was intended to undermine Wolfgang's previous statements.
The fact that Mastermind made the act—— “undermine Wolfgang's statements” itself-- means from Mastermind's perspective, Wolfgang's statements were potentially effective and could jeopardize his plan to make the students kill each other, so it needed to be undermined with a speech.
————
[Additional focus: the essence of “debate scenes”]
In psychological war, the impact of ‘dialogue’ in the form of “two people with opposing positions refuting each other in front of a group” is never directed at the other party, such as actually persuading or refuting the other party.
Such speeches appear to be a “back and forth” between two people, but in fact, their real impact is on the group of bystanders, and their form of expression is similar to a “stage play.”
Every word influences the psychological state and collective behaviour of the group.
If a speech can strike a blow to the opponent and weaken their credibility, then it can influence the audience's psychological tendencies and sense of identity, gaining the “high ground” and an advantage.
If the momentum is overwhelmed by the other party, it damages one's own image, weakening one's influence over the audience and putting oneself at a disadvantage.
——-——
[Eva-Damon's speech type classification]
[The difference between constructive suggestions and destructive attacks]
1.
Eva's speech was sophistry and personal attacks based on no evidence and subjective speculation, while Damon's speech agreed with Eva's sophistry and personal attacks based on subjective speculation.
For details, see:
< A criticism of the speech and behaviour of Eva and Damon after the class trial of the prologue>
Meets the first criterion for destructive attacks:
No evidence. Based on speculation, stereotypes, and subjective assumptions.
2.
Eva-Damon's speeches undermine morale, destroy trust, and create division.
See the section below:
[Why Eva-Damon's speech and behavior have objectively become the thought agents of the Mastermind]
Meets the second criterion for destructive attacks:
Weakens morale, destroys trust, and creates division.
3.
Eva and Damon did not propose any alternative solutions
See the section below:
[Why Eva-Damon's speech and behavior have objectively become the thought agents of the Mastermind]
Meets the third criterion for destructive attacks:
Does not provide alternative solutions. Only negates or undermines.
4.
Eva made personal attacks against Wolfgang, and Damon made personal attacks against all group members
See the section below:
[Why Eva-Damon's speech and behavior have objectively become the thought agents of the Mastermind]
Meets the fourth criterion for destructive attacks:
Attacks the individual's identity, motives, or character
In summary, the speeches of Eva and Damon are not constructive suggestions but destructive attacks.
If Eva and Damon want to refute Wolfgang's speech and make constructive suggestions, they must meet all the constructive conditions listed in “The difference between constructive suggestions and destructive attacks.”
【Stages of crisis situations-Observation Period】
1. Does it provide factual information?
“ Compared to normal people, Ultimates are more prone to killing”
“ Ultimates will do anything to further their own goals”
“ Unless that was your plan all along? Is it possible you want to make people vulnerable... so that it will be easier for you to kill them?”
“All of us have a clear motivation to leave this place, even at the cost of other people's lives.”
“It's clear none of us has the same goal.”
“Most Ultimate are just dullards obsessing over some pointless hobby. Their talents don't contribute anything of worth.”
“The only thing they're capable of is leeching off public attention for their own goals.”
“There's no way the rest of you can't ‘improve the world we live in.' with your niche fixations.”
——Content: Unsubstantiated sophistry + subjective speculation + equivocation
——No factual information provided
2. Does it stabilize the group's emotions?
“ Compared to normal people, Ultimates are more prone to killing”
“If you continue to convince all of these people to trust each other, they'll only be more vulnerable.”
“All of us have a clear motivation to leave this place, even at the cost of other people's lives.”
“Most Ultimate are just dullards obsessing over some pointless hobby. Their talents don't contribute anything of worth.”
“The only thing they're capable of is leeching off public attention for their own goals.”
“There's no way the rest of you can't ‘improve the world we live in.' with your niche fixations.”
——Content: Stigmatization of collective identity + undermining the only psychological support currently available to the group (trust and unity) + stigmatization of the collective survival instinct + personal attacks
——Didn't stabilize group emotions
3. Does it avoid creating additional panic?
“Once you realize your dreams can only be achieve if you escape...you'll resort to murder.”
“All of us have a clear motivation to leave this place, even at the cost of other people's lives.”
——Content: Change “someone may kill someone” from a possibility to a certainty
——Didn't avoid causing additional panic
In summary, Eva-Damon's speeches are completely against the requirements of the “Stages of crisis situations—Observation period”.
The Mastermind's calm attitude and his provocation, “Phew...Do I sense anger? Hatred? An unquenchable sense of bloodlust?”
This attitude was in stark contrast to his previous embarrassing state after being beaten by Grace, proving that the Mastermind had regained control of the situation—Eva and Damon had already achieved the Mastermind's goal for him.
————
Let's review it again:
[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.
In life-threatening situations, especially during the high-risk observation period, every word spoken is a real psychological weapon with practical restorative or destructive effects.
[Again, allow me to emphasize]
——In sudden, high-pressure crisis situations, the human brain is unable to process complex information, and thinking becomes simplified, making it easier to accept ideas implanted by the outside world without noticing their potential problems.
——Even basic concepts that would normally be strongly/absolutely rejected in a normal environment (such as betrayal/violence/murder) ———can be possibly accepted as long as they satisfy one's strongly stimulated survival instincts.
Does Wolfgang really believe what he says?
Do Damon and Eva really believe what they say?
Is Wolfgang speaking out of a sense of responsibility or a desire to perform?
Are Damon and Eva speaking out of kindness or malice?
It doesn't matter.
To put it more absolutely, or to put it more clearly:
“Who is this person who is making this speech?” also doesn't matter.
What is this person's name, what is their background, what kind of person are they, what is their personality like, what do they like and dislike...None of this matters.
All of these things are clear to zero the moment a life-death crisis strikes.
Just as during an earthquake or tsunami, survivors do not dwell on each other's past experiences.
At a fire scene, victims do not ask each other's names.
When war breaks out, refugees do not inquire about each other's hobbies.
Only the impact and consequences of a speech are the sole criteria for judgment.
— Therefore, to analyze the nature of a speech, the only standard is to see which direction it pushes the situation toward.
The specific impact and results of Eva-Damon's speech will be detailed below.