Master, human-readable reference. The skills grep this file. Every counter is checked against these patterns by a separate Kontrahent (opponent) pass before it ships — the builder never grades its own counter. A live own-goal kicked this off: a Bitcoin energy counter ("Bankensystem zieht mehr Strom") that dies instantly to "Banking wird von Milliarden genutzt, Bitcoin nicht" (true per-capita). That is the canonical aggregate-vs-per-capita failure.
#The patterns
| Pattern | Trigger shape | Default verdict |
|---|---|---|
aggregate-vs-per-capita |
Compares absolute totals across differently-sized groups (no denominator). | KILL — unless the per-capita math is run and the point still wins. |
whataboutism |
"And what about X?" — deflection away from the claim. | KILL — redirect to the claim. |
survivorship |
"Hat alle Prognosen / jeden Crash überlebt" — only the survivors are visible. | KILL — it hides the ones that failed. |
cherry-picked-timeframe |
Selective start/end date that flatters the point. | KILL — unless the full series is shown. |
appeal-to-future-tech |
"Wird sich künftig lösen / die Technik wird besser." | KILL — it concedes the present. |
naked-aggregate-quote |
A bare quota on a young / small / recent group. | KILL — use cohort / parity / trajectory instead. |
is-ought |
Cites current law against a reform ("ist doch legal / steht so im Gesetz"). | REFRAME as a burden-shift — do NOT kill the fact. |
#Canonical example (aggregate-vs-per-capita)
Counter: "Das Bankensystem zieht mehr Strom als Bitcoin." Rebuttal: "Banking wird von Milliarden genutzt, Bitcoin nicht." (true per-capita)
The absolute total has no denominator, so the rebuttal is true AND strong AND unanswerable with the Aktenlage → KILL the point. Run the per-capita math first; only ship the comparison if it still wins on a per-user basis.
#Kill-vs-keep rule (stated once)
KILL a point only when its strongest rebuttal is:
- true — factually correct, and
- strong — it actually lands, not a quibble, and
- unanswerable with the Aktenlage — nothing in our evidence beats it.
All three must hold. If even one fails, do NOT kill — answer it (build the rebuttal-answer into the counter) or reframe it. A patched-but-still-weak point is an open own-goal; drop it (weglassen, per gungho) rather than ship it half-armored. Rank surviving counters by rebuttal-resistance and lead with the unbreakable one.
#The is-ought exception
is-ought is the one pattern that is reframed, never killed. When an opponent cites current
law against a reform ("das ist doch legal", "steht so im Gesetz"), they have confused IS with
OUGHT: that something is currently legal says nothing about whether it should be. Do NOT drop the
underlying fact. Instead, reframe as a burden-shift — the opponent now has to argue that the
status quo is right, not merely that it exists. The fact stays; the frame moves.