The middle is not the best place to start. If you go in the middle, then the other person can go in the corner and it will ruin your strategy. If you go in the corner than the person can go in the middle and it will ruin your strategy (assuming they know what they are doing. The best course if you go in that case is in the opposite corner, but then the person just has to pic a spot that is in between corners and the game will end as a cats game. If the person starts off in a place in between corners then you make your move into an opposite corner. From there you can cut off all possible strategies. I can win or cats game any tic-tac-toe game. Needless to say I have too much time on my hands.

go pro

actually, if you do it correctly, you can win no matter what if you startin the middle

mylazy knows exactly what he's talking about. If both people know how to properly play the game, every game will end with a cat's game. If you start in a corner, if your opponent follows up in any space OTHER than the middle, you automatically win.

If you start in the corner and their first move is in the middle, they will easily cat's game if they pick any directly adjacent square, excluding the remaining corners.

Just tried this out, and if you start in the middle you will always win if you know how to follow up.

No you won't I guarantee it. I played this game with myself until I knew every strategy inside out. The middle is not a sure win. The counter to the middle is to move in the corner. From there I can counter ANY strategy you try from the middle.

You are right. Just tried it out again (in paint). Must have missed something the first time.

He didn't start in the middle, and then he lost.

Terrible tic-tac-toe player.

Like I said, I can counter you regardless of where you start. The reason he lost is because you don't get to decide where the bodies are buried just because you are the killer.

Most people buy their burial sites before they die.

So he did get to pick his moves.

Really. And they will disclose to you where they are going to be buried? And you are also assuming this is turn based and not just whoever get the kills fastest. You are making too many assumptions as to how they play their game.

I'm assuming they were playing tic-tac-toe with the normal rules, ie. one person at a time and they get to pick their square.

Anything other than that would be a fairly rash assumption.

Or you could just not make any assumption. The main thing is though, that the middle is not the best opening move. In fact it is, of the three possible opening moves, the second best, following the corner.

a) You literally cannot make no assumption, simply by acknowledging it you're making assumptions, so make sure your assumptions are reasonable.

b) Either way he lost

Really? You can literally not make no assumption. You are not making any assumption by acknowledging it. The point of acknowledging something is pretty much pointing out that you know it exists. From there you can simply observe. You know he won because he says I win. You know he placed a piece over a grave. You know he killed a guy. Every one of those things is an observation, not an assumption. Further, by acknowledging that they could be playing their game anyway they like, you are saying that you are not making any assumption about it.

a) You assume he wins because he says I won, he could have been being sarcastic

b) You assume he killed a guy, they could have just spent all day watching funerals for ***** and giggles

c) By acknowledging they play a game, you are actually assuming they are playing a game, it was never explicitly stated that they were, and even if it was there's no reason whatever narrative device was used to make it clear could not have been lying.

You assume everything, at all times. Cogito ergo sum, I think therefore I am, but that's it, you can't prove anything else. You can only assume reality is real.

And you can argue this all you want, it doesn't matter. You still made assumptions, and nothing you have said has disproven that. In fact it all supports it. Further, the middle isn't the perfect move, and there is no full proof way to win at tic-tac-toe so you saying he is a bad tic-tac-toe player based off of one game (let's just assume it is a regular game) is really stupid.

This wasn't an argument against the assumptions, it was an argument against the thing that started all this: the "he is a terrible tic-tac-toe player" thing. And the chances are that you aren't just on the "other guy's side" but rather are the other guy.

Go back to the content and you will realize how incredibly stupid b is. You cannot win unless you are playing something, so it is not an assumption. It is an inference that can't be wrong. I don't really have a good response for a though except that since they didn't say he was sarcastic you cannot think that he was being sarcastic. And "I won" would not make sense in a sarcastic context so...

a) What if he lost, but had to place the wreath for the victor to add to the humiliation? You're making assumptions that he's placing his own wreath

b) You assume that was the grave of the man in panel 1, he could have survived that stab for all we know

c) Admittedly it's hard to win without competing against something, but you assume that they're doing this as a game and aren't dead ******* serious, you also assume that what he's saying pertains to the situation and he's not just sputtering out random gibberish.

And yes, I can do this all day, that's the point, you have to make assumptions about almost literally everything the one exception being that existence exists because you have no way of proving that the world around you makes sense, or even exists and isn't just a perceptional illusion.

In fact you seem to be making assumptions about what is going through my head when I comment. I haven't made assumptions in any of this, but you keep assuming that I am and thus extrapolating what I do say. I have simply made observations.

Observations are assumptions.

You assume your perceptions are real

You are making assumptions

Any statement except "Existence exists" or some variation thereof is mired in assumption

You are making assumptions

You are making assumptions

This isn't very difficult to understand so please accept it, you are making assumptions

An once again, refer to comment 24. Refer to comment 24. Refer to comment 24. Refer to comment 24. Here, I will even tell you what it says right here so you don't have to take 3 seconds to scroll up:

"And you can argue this all you want, it doesn't matter. You still made assumptions, and nothing you have said has disproven that. In fact it all supports it. Further, the middle isn't the perfect move, and there is no full proof way to win at tic-tac-toe so you saying he is a bad tic-tac-toe player based off of one game (let's just assume it is a regular game) is really stupid."

Except no you aren't making assumptions. You are not assuming your perceptions are real, but rather you are stating what you are perceiving. The reports themselves are not assumptions. If i were to say what I see is reality, then I am making assumptions, but observing itself is not an assumption. I am not making assumptions. By your very own argument Saying something exists is an assumption because it might not exist. But once again, saying what you perceive is not an assumption, because you are reporting, you are not extrapolating, which is what asumption are in essense. I am not make assumptions. I am not making assumptions. It is not so difficult to understand. I am not making assumptions. I may make assumptions in most things in every day life, but throughout this conversation I have not.