My Friends Talking Trash About Me in the Restroom; I Should (Nonchalantly) Walk Out of the Stall

Even if my name wasn't Undefeatable, I'm sure that my confidence and swagger are shared by many voters and readers alike.

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.

RESOLUTION: My Friends Talking Trash About Me in the Restroom; I Should (Nonchalantly) Walk Out of the Stall

POSITION: Con

OPENING STATEMENT:

My opponent has insisted on presenting a singular narrative regarding the hypothetical presented in the resolution, furthermore, note that my opponent is quite vague regarding the resolution itself. My opponent essentially argues - point-blank - that not facing your bullies is "cowardice", that if you don't try to present some narrative of "okay-ness" that you wouldn't report the behavior to teachers. I am here to systematically dismantle that position. 

INTERPRETING THE RESOLUTION:

The nterpretation is quite obvious, an individual (Me) is in a stall in the restroom, presumably to use it, and overhears his friends talking about him trashily - and that his response OUGHT (should) be to leave the stall nonchalantly

My opponent and i would most likely agree on the following proposition: One ought to avoid pain which does not result in greater pleasure

The first premise is demonstrated quite conclusively, and the conclusion is a logical necessity given the two prior arguments truth. To demonstrate such a claim it would be relevant to be clear - by "confront" I mean bring awareness to the bullies that you are there. It is quite clear that IF you present yourself to the "bullies" in question, THEN one of two things will happen. The bullies will drop the bullying, or they will continue on moreso. The second is much more likely given their manipulative qualities-  they are quantified in the resolution as "friends", clearly, they aren't going to be discouraged by your presence. Therefore, in order to avoid MORE BULLYING and thereby more pain, one ought to avoid detection. 

Recalling C1 syllogism as well as the argument itself, I present another perspective from which the individual ought not leave the stall.

Regarding confronting stress, addiction, trauma, anything - it is well documented that not rushing an individual is key in helping someone recover or cope.  The same applies to bullying, forcing someone to confront bullies - especially bullies that you previously thought were friends - can be extremely distressing depending on that individual's prior condition, there is no harm in waiting for help. 

REBUTTALS will be presented in round 2

Con wastes many character defining terms and outlining resolution, but I see no significant difference from common sense ideas. 

He delivers two short arguments, one, that the manipulative friends talking behind your back would hurt you more if you "confronted" them, but has very little support for this. Conversation and confrontation are key to resolving situations especially with people you know well. It's well known that confrontation increases openness in a relationship, that frustration can bottle up if you continue avoiding the problem. Con's argument is not known for certain -- it's entirely possible, as I presented, that the friends become aware and either fearful or embarrassed that you heard them talk trash for them. But the chances of stopping is far closer to zero when you stay inside the stall. Con has presented no evidence that his side would solve the primary problem presented in the scenario. Even if my argument wasn't convincing enough, the act of walking itself has many merits, with even a short walk known to clear the mind and improve your body. 

Con's argument also only works if we consider the first case -- innocence -- and value only momentary gain. As explained in my reasoning, the cathartic force of nature of feeling temporary pain and guilt can be necessary in a lot of cases to rehabilitate people and make them know that what they did is wrong. Consider how celebrities often have Cancel Culture in modern day which can be devastating, but is a very powerful tool to prevent them from acting dangerously, being racist, sexist, or otherwise go against common societal standards. Even though the friends' trash talk is unlikely to have such a vast impact on a regular person, it can still feel reasonably powerful. Con's explanation doesn't tell us how manipulative friends would stop talking if you just sat in the stall to wait it out. 

Con also argues that one shouldn't rush to resolve grief, however, he doesn't notice how my case already is quite patient and slow. Firstly, notice how we are *walking* out, rather than running out, thus reducing the possibility that we are rushing through things. Secondly, if you re-read my first round, I advocated for washing your sins and germs away with a healthy 30 second soapy rinse, which fully counters con's arguments and adds some action to the mix. I find it unlikely that you would be able to patiently just sit there and try to let the grief run its course through your head, all the while then negative thoughts and words are still echoing in your head. 

As you can see, my case is still patient and intelligent, with minimal conversation in case you are not certain what to say. But it practices meeting your problems head on and trying to get through them. Because you've got to leave the stall some time or another. I don't see why you have to keep waiting it out, and how that reduces pain in the short term or the long term.

Now back to con.

Con seems to have decided to truly stand with his side of the premise and sit in his "stall", waiting out the brunt and the blow of damage from arguments. But what he doesn't realize, is that people may hear the trash talk. His friends will keep talking, and other people will acknowledge the statements, if you do not do anything. We know that failing to show up to a debate is bad manners, and Con would normally be deducted conduct point for this, if possible. Similarly, I'd argue that purposefully staying in the stall is also failing to acknowledge the trash talk. Certainly, you may not enjoy it. But what matters for the pro side is that you let them know you know. Because you're gaining control of your choices from now and you're going to be more careful. Whether about choosing your friends, or whether you potentially repeat your mistake.

All of Con's arguments have been deflected.

I walk out nonchalantly. Vote for pro, my body language states. Because I'm confident if I'm innocent, repentant if I'm guilty, and overall moving forward with the flow of life.

Thanks for the debate.