More Hardball Debate Questions

A satirical sequel to 'Hardball Questions For The Next Debate' — elaborate setups ending in punchline 'questions' for the 2016 candidates. Jill Stein's organics/pesticides/autism activism → 'do you believe Vox zines cause autism?'; Gary Johnson gets the pure 'crisis in Updog' gag; Trump's Bannon-ran-Biosphere-2 history → 'your team destroyed one of the two self-sustaining ecosystems capable of supporting human life; the other is Earth; how scared should we be?' The Hillary section smuggles in a genuinely substantive, well-referenced takedown of the Implicit Association Test (Blanton et al; the Oswald et al and Carlsson & Agerstrom meta-analyses — the IAT doesn't predict discrimination) plus Scott's media-association reinterpretation, ending 'would you take an IAT for how easily you associate your own name with crooked?'

Quality 66 · Strong. A well-crafted, genuinely funny political satire whose Hillary/IAT section carries unusual substance (a legit, sourced critique of implicit-bias research). The Stein/Johnson/Trump sections are lighter pure comedy, so depth is uneven. Strong-low.

Claude’s paradigm shift 48 · Moderate. An established format (a sequel); the IAT critique is substantive but not original to this post. Moderate.

Real-world impact 2 · Minor. A within-blog satire; the embedded IAT critique carries some discourse value. Within-blog influence.

Humor 3/5 · Scissor Statement. Primarily comedic — the whole piece is a comedy format (the Updog gag, the Biosphere-2 question), genuinely funny and intentional, consistent with the Humor-3 of the original Hardball Questions. Scissor-tier. 3.