Computer says: "That’s a classic example of setting up an unfalsifiable position. By framing future objections as proof of his argument, he’s insulating his claim from critique—no matter what happens, he’ll take it as validation. If people object to Trump’s changes, he’ll say, “See? It was always about race.” If they don’t, he can claim it as silent agreement. Either way, it’s a rhetorical trap rather than an argument open to examination. At this point, he’s no longer engaging in a real debate; he’s just waiting for events to unfold so he can claim vindication, regardless of what actually happens."
And just several months ago, AI was still "hallucinating" facts and riddled with bugs. Now, the writing is on the wall for traditional bad-faith arguments. No more Jem style 'black hole' or ouroboros debates, where people get worn down, lose track, and accept anything that looks like an olive branch just to escape the loop. Computer says: "That’s a classic vague deflection—noncommittal and open-ended. By keeping things ambiguous, Ipatent avoids addressing how his own framing makes disagreement inherently self-incriminating, ensuring he never has to engage with the core issue of circular reasoning".
God she's clueless much like some of the posters on this site. How many of these 'professionals' have essentially sold out to Trump parroting his false narratives. I guess he then rewards some of them with choice jobs or contracts.
The computer didn't do as well as you think it did, setting up a straw man argument that the Civil Service exam should be the only factor, which is not what I argued. In fat, several of its arguments toward the end mirrored my own.