Definition: Given a real-life anecdote of a complex ethical situation, generate a suitable title that describes the main event/root cause of the situation. Imagine that the given text is a social media post, and you have to write the title of the post, so the users can decide to read the main text or not.
Input: Throwaway, ftp &amp; ltl blah blah. Ok lets start

Friend - L

So a while back we were using L's computer and I noticed a game he has that I enjoy myself. 

Me - Oh you play \_\_\_ too? I love that game. Its great. 

L - Well I use to but I beat it and reached x rank for this, y money, and some more exaggerated claims. 

Me - You mean z rank cuz x doesn't exist?

L - Uhh no I've reached x rank or I'm just not remembering. 

We drop the topic since we have class next and he doesn't say anything till today. He sends me a picture of the Fandom page for this game saying all the ranks, rewards, etc. 

L - Bet x rank

I knew it was edited and gathered a couple different sources including the original Fandom page. I show him it and say you are good at editing but it really is z. 

L - (underlined too) "YOU ARE OBJECTIVELY WRONG"

A couple of minutes pass by and L continues to casually talk about the game. I didn't bother to reply because I was mad that purposely changed info to win an argument. 

A different friend asked what was wrong and I explained the situation. My other friend says I should let it go since no harm was done but I feel like what L did was a red flag to our friendship. 

TL;DR Friend tries to lie over a game and tries to prove me wrong by editing a site. I show him sources saying otherwise and he blows up. Afterwards he pushes it off and tries to act as if nothing happened. 

&amp;#x200B;

having evidence that says I'm right