No, see, that's the thing: If I'm the traitor, the coin thing could be plausible. You would say something about that there's no coin that you'd have because you're not a traitor.
If you're not a traitor, you should be arguing that no coin with your fingerprints exists.
You argued that no coin
S exist.
Do you see the difference? You'd be following the train of thought because I'd have information that you don't. I'd be the informed minority. But, you rightly pointed out that coins do not exist. This is the truth, but it's a truth that you simply
shouldn't know. It wouldn't matter if your PM didn't mention the coins because if I'm the traitor, I'd have the coin knowledge.
Instead of debating whether you did or didn't know about the coins, your better shot is to aim for my weakness: The fact that I lied about the coins in the first place. See, the neat part about this is that even if you acknowledged the coins' existence, I could spin that to my advantage. So, the fact that it was a lose-lose for you is what you should be aiming it. But, you'll have to walk back your stance a bit and incur a bit of a hit to your credibility. Honestly, it feels like you're already in a no-win situation here. You should be trying to make me look guilty for that. It's a bit scummy on my part.
Fallacy, shooting from the hip, which candidate would you pick?
Caz, for being more blunt and straightforwards.
I'm definitely inclined to believe them, more. Web's spouting nonsense about coins, but really, there's no validity there. If Caz is the town candidate, then they're fully justified in assuming the other one is lying - and webadict would have to know this.
The fact that webadict is choosing to ignore that fact and use some elaborate flavor scheme makes me think Caz is the town candidate.
Haha. Would you like to point out which part of my scheme was elaborate?