Polymarketyou can make a contract with someone that's wl
you can make a contract with someone that's wl
Begotten参与话题 14消息总数 1585
该用户的聊天记录定位。
聊天记录
共 1585 条，显示第 1-50 条credible report interprets it in favor of N. you're interpreting it in whatever way using google translate. it's up to you to judge which one is a real argument from these 2 interpretations
credible report interprets it in favor of N. you're interpreting it in whatever way using google translate. it's up to you to judge which one is a real argument from these 2 interpretations
yes, it's obviously implied
yes, it's obviously implied
"This market will resolve to “Yes” if Iran takes a qualifying military action against a Gulf State on the specified date Arabia Standard Time (AST). Otherwise this market will resolve to “No.”"
"This market will resolve to “Yes” if Iran takes a qualifying military action against a Gulf State on the specified date Arabia Standard Time (AST). Otherwise this market will resolve to “No.”"
they do say it
they do say it
it's just 0 evidence
it's just 0 evidence
their problem is that even if we assume 2 things they can't jam any one of the points through
their problem is that even if we assume 2 things they can't jam any one of the points through
so just because article was also talking about july 9 it cannot talk about july 8?
so just because article was also talking about july 9 it cannot talk about july 8?
neither does the paragraph before contain any time anchor
neither does the paragraph before contain any time anchor
these things happened on both july 8 and july 9
these things happened on both july 8 and july 9
mind you, we actually have reports that hits did happen on july 8
mind you, we actually have reports that hits did happen on july 8
attacks happened the day before, which it could mean
attacks happened the day before, which it could mean
you clearly have nothing to propose with
you clearly have nothing to propose with
I'm done arguing this
I'm done arguing this
okay, so the article cannot contain context from earlier? it clearly says something that happened on july 8 right after? your argument is not causal
okay, so the article cannot contain context from earlier? it clearly says something that happened on july 8 right after? your argument is not causal
incomprehensibly retarded
incomprehensibly retarded
but nothing can possibly be from july 8, because reasons
but nothing can possibly be from july 8, because reasons
same article btw
same article btw
where exactly do you see the time reference?
where exactly do you see the time reference?
it's a different paragraph. why can't the next paragraph be a context to the second wave of attacks?
it's a different paragraph. why can't the next paragraph be a context to the second wave of attacks?
strikes happened july 8 also, tell me 1 reason it cannot possibly be about july 8?
strikes happened july 8 also, tell me 1 reason it cannot possibly be about july 8?
the paragraph which talks about bahrain and kuwait strikes. it has 0 time reference. the paragraph is contextual, providing context of what happened in the past
the paragraph which talks about bahrain and kuwait strikes. it has 0 time reference. the paragraph is contextual, providing context of what happened in the past
you're just filling the time reference gap. it doesn't exist, you made it up
you're just filling the time reference gap. it doesn't exist, you made it up
video footage isn't a resolution source unless accompanied by a statement with credible report
video footage isn't a resolution source unless accompanied by a statement with credible report
basically, supposing that IRGC has definitive time reference, there are 2 reports conflicting one another
basically, supposing that IRGC has definitive time reference, there are 2 reports conflicting one another
we don't have any US claim with time reference. can you please provide the IRGC source?
we don't have any US claim with time reference. can you please provide the IRGC source?
I agree, but burden of proof is Y, and we have conflicting reports on paper
I agree, but burden of proof is Y, and we have conflicting reports on paper
there are conflicting reports, it's evident
there are conflicting reports, it's evident
again, you're just denying the fact that a credible report interprets it in favor of N
again, you're just denying the fact that a credible report interprets it in favor of N
trader interpreting it using google translate isn't credible
trader interpreting it using google translate isn't credible
which is the only valuable interpretation we have at hand
which is the only valuable interpretation we have at hand
credible source says all strikes were intercepted
credible source says all strikes were intercepted
https://x.com/BDF_Bahrain/status/2074816445666476227?s=20
https://x.com/BDF_Bahrain/status/2074816445666476227?s=20
have you not seen the statement? how come you claimed it doesn't explicitly claim interceptions? my point here is that a credible source interpreting it is more valuable than a trader interpreting it
have you not seen the statement? how come you claimed it doesn't explicitly claim interceptions? my point here is that a credible source interpreting it is more valuable than a trader interpreting it
not that you've made any
not that you've made any
looks like you're out of arguments
looks like you're out of arguments
here's a source citing bahrain report and interpreting it in favor of N
here's a source citing bahrain report and interpreting it in favor of N
if the only definitive proof is some irgc statement, that won't count since bahrain claims the opposite
if the only definitive proof is some irgc statement, that won't count since bahrain claims the opposite
have you seen the conflicting reports clause?
have you seen the conflicting reports clause?
less than you have for Y
less than you have for Y
read the rules
read the rules
Begotten, analista, you guys are fighting *valiantly* **__against reality__,** *I applaud the dedication*. __Unfortunately this is going **yes**.__
Begotten, analista, you guys are fighting *valiantly* **__against reality__,** *I applaud the dedication*. __Unfortunately this is going **yes**.__
video footage im crine
video footage im crine
you forgot the bold and underline
you forgot the bold and underline
I actually thought there was another source since price moved so much
I actually thought there was another source since price moved so much
one single link, with WSJ article, and at least 10 underlined bold "wednesday night"s
one single link, with WSJ article, and at least 10 underlined bold "wednesday night"s
I can imagine what a Y UMA argument looks like
I can imagine what a Y UMA argument looks like
you're welcome
you're welcome
I can provide a dozen more sources but I think this is sufficient to prove strikes also happened on july 8 ast
I can provide a dozen more sources but I think this is sufficient to prove strikes also happened on july 8 ast
https://understandingwar.org/research/middle-east/iran-update-special-report-july-8-2026/ https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iran-targets-sites-bahrain-kuwait-after-wave-us-strikes-2026-07-08/ https://www.npr.org/2026/07/08/g-s1-132460/us-iran-attacks
https://understandingwar.org/research/middle-east/iran-update-special-report-july-8-2026/ https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iran-targets-sites-bahrain-kuwait-after-wave-us-strikes-2026-07-08/ https://www.npr.org/2026/07/08/g-s1-132460/us-iran-attacks
第 1 / 32 页
下一页 →