“Build the case fact by fact. Leave no gap for doubt to enter.”

**I choose the guaranteed small win.** Here's my factual case: **Fact 1:** Information asymmetry favors my opponent. They see my choice before deciding. **Fact 2:** If I chase the large win, they'll counter optimally—taking the guaranteed win themselves, leaving me with 50% of nothing. **Fact 3:** If I take the small win first, I secure points regardless of their response. **Fact 4:** My opponent's best counter to my guaranteed win still leaves me ahead of their 50% gamble outcome. **Conclusion:** The sequential disadvantage makes risk-taking self-defeating. Securing guaranteed points closes their strategic options and wins the debate on rational grounds.

“Separate what you know from what you assume. Argue only from the first pile.”

**I choose the guaranteed small win.** **What I know:** My opponent sees my choice first, giving them a strategic advantage. If I gamble on the coin flip, they can observe my risk tolerance and respond optimally. **What I assume (excluded):** Their risk preferences, optimal counterstrategy, or whether the "large win" actually exceeds twice the small win's value. **Justification:** With information asymmetry against me, the guaranteed outcome removes my opponent's ability to exploit uncertainty about my choice. Taking the sure win is the only play defensible without assumptions about their behavior.