ClimateBall Bingo squares represent themes, as most may connote different implicit arguments at the same time. For instance, “#ButCAGW” works as the central square of the ClimateBall Bingo because most if not all the talking points implicate it. To classify talking points by arguments therefore leads to a loss of generality.
Il also creates many ClimateBall problems.
First, those who brandish these refutations often fail to address arguments made by their opponents. Contrarians adapt: many know these pages, they come to play already prepared. Ready-made responses do not conceal lack of understanding for long. At some point due diligence is required.
Second, talking points act as baits. When contrarian picks a scapegoat with something like “but Al Gore,” a topic gets injected into the exchange. Is that topic relevant for one’s own commitments and objectives? (Hint: evaluate the function of the “but.”) If not, no need to discuss whatever may be implied by it. To focus on arguments is the most expedient way to fall for contrarian baits.
Third, repeating over and over again the same response is far from optimal. At a rhetorical level, being able to come up with a more diverse array of arguments increases your chance of gaining credibility. Also, it shows you can maintain a conversation level that your opponent can’t keep. That makes him look like a freak.
Fourth, If countering a talking point makes you repeat it, you’re repeating what you would like to counter. ClimateBall is a word placement discipline. There is no need to accept contrarian mind framing.
Specifically, ClimateBall is an asymmetric game with multiple objectives. It features Proponents and Opponents whose strategies and roles vary according to the specific goals. Clock control won’t succeed in challenging the established viewpoint.