If anything pisses me off more then people bull****ting, it's when one, or both sides in a debate (Australian debate, which is a 3vs3 thing) spew psuedo-intellectual speculative garbage, and the adjudicators (sp?) are biased and stupid enough to believe it. Today's topic was "Sex should only be experienced in a permenant lifelong relationship". Of course the topic has to be extremely abiguous since you can never tell when a relationship is lifelong untill you die. Not only that but they use relationship so it's ambiguous enough not to use marriage as an extremely effective example but not too ambiguous so that you can refer to marriage in everything the affirmative says without actually saying it. The affirmitive's first speaker basically stated that they were the affirmative side, it said about 3 sentences, the other 2 were condescendingly defining each word in the topic as if we didn't understand basic english. The 2nd Affirmative said the same and stumbled through a rebuttle using ambiguity, which should be extremely easy to do, but she still made a mess of it. The final speaker basically is an idiot, he begged the question by saying that the negative are idiots because they don't agree with their side. (When that was pointed out that they are AGAINST the topic he stumbled himself into mumbling and sat down) The negative's first speaker was good, and got the best speaker award like he deserved, (which is good that it went to the right person instead of someone who read of a peice of paper for once). The 2nd speaker was really the joker of the class, so he made a farce of the topic and arguments really well actually, considering the topic itself is a farce. And the 3rd speaker basically rebutted the other team saying that not everyone is christian/catholic etc. so you can't apply bible laws to them. Talked about hedanists (sp?) etc. As it turns out both adjudicators (sp again?) are friends of the affirmative team and are affirmative on the topic itself. The adjudicators said affirmative won by 1 point (a good tactic so it looks like you're not biased). This happens multiple times in RE class during debates at least one team spews bull****, (usually the side which quotes the bible) and despite rebutting with segregation of church and state and the fact not everyone is christian the adjudicators (which are inevitably all christian) ignore the other teams arguments and give the points to their team. Is it just my school or does everyone spew bull**** from their mouths? Why do people BS? Do people actually believe the psuedo-intellectual speculative BS that people say? For details on Australian Debates; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debating#Australia-Asia_debating Edit: As you can tell this type of debating is extremely prone to bias and is inherently unfair for the affirmative team since they go first and can't rebut the negatives last man.