My Friends Talking Trash About Me in the Restroom; I Should (Nonchalantly) Walk Out of the Stall
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
Con: My Friends Talking Trash About Me in the Restroom; I Should Stay in the Stall
Sources are not necessary
First, let's present what if I was innocent.
So when my friends are talking trash about me in the restroom, walking out is what would show them here and now what I wanted. I came here to use the restroom, and I'll go out when I'm done. Because I accept that they talk trash about me. Everyone's going to talk bad about me sometimes. But the question is whether you feel like you are bothered, scared, or uncertain, and let their talking continue, which can make the guilt worse. Sure, it might be passive-aggressive when they see me come out with their wide eyes wondering, while I maintain a poker face, taking a full 30 seconds to wash my hands. But their fear and embarrassment would teach them and let them reflect on their actions. Because without someone to make them aware and take a step back, they may as well continue spreading extra rumors about you in secret.
If I hide here in the stall, I feel like you're not going to be willing to go to the counselor or teacher. Maybe you don't think they can help. Maybe you're embarrassed. Regardless, the cowardly action of waiting for the storm to pass will not always work. You can't keep hoping that the bullies will go away if you ignore them. Not in this way, at least. The Pro Position is letting them KNOW you are ignoring them. That you will not let it affect you. It seems ironic to reveal the ignorance, but I say this is quite similar to going on strike or civil disobedience. Remember how Rosa Parks did not choose to stay home and just let her rights go ignored. Remember how the civil rights movement actively protests by showing itself. Even if you are nonchalant, non-verbal signals can still make it clear that your message means their offending words will not break you.
Con Has some potential arguments that I can think of and can knock down here. Perhaps the strongest idea would be that you deserved the offensive words (perhaps by being a jerk), countering the very confident walk-out theme I presented in the beginning. In this case, you obviously cannot be the victim here. Is merely staying and listening to a more humble and accepting approach than walking out? It's difficult to say for sure. But it takes control and power to be able to accept these words and walk out as well. More power than it takes than to sit still and do nothing. Because I argue that washing your hands would be symbolic of washing your sins as well; this is a common theme in Christianity. Regardless if you are religious or not, I still think the connection works. You are forced to walk the walk of shame and vouch to change for the better. It's harder for a guilty person to remain malicious or threatening if they are exposed to the very people who blame them for their problems.
As you can see, regardless of whether the trash was true or not, you should walk out of the stall as if nothing had happened. I'd prefer if I was innocent, where I can proudly know I was unaffected, unlike Con sitting in the toilet, spiraling into a depressive loop. But even if I was guilty, my side, now the more difficult decision, is the more cathartic choice and would help change myself for the better. Because when a bad person is faced with their consequences, they are forced to recognize their mistakes and change. Whether that be your trash-talking friends, or yourself.
I rest my case.
- The extent of the resolution is to leave the stall, any further action asserted by pro that ought to be done by the individual is inherently untopical as it falls outside of the resolution (topicality is an a-priori issue)
- The adjective "nonchalantly" is of vital importance to the debate, if the adjective is found to be inadequate for what the individual ought to do, then my opponent has failed to uphold their burden of proof.
- Inner Guide
- A-AVOIDING HARM
- B-MENTAL FORTITUDE
- Humans ought to avoid pain that is not resultant in greater pleasure
- Confronting said "friends" from the resolution would result in pain without any greater pleasure
- Therefore, Humans ought not confront said friends from the referenced resolution