> What a lot of people failed to learn from debates club, is that a formal "win" is a net loss of a relationship.

In US competitive debate, debaters learn very quickly that whether you "win" or "lose" is not decided by themselves or their opponent but by the judge. You don't measure your success by whether being argumentative made you feel good or whether you felt like you won but by whether the judge evaluated what you said and what the other person said and signed a ballot in your favor. That actually involves a lot of "reading the room" and self-awareness about how other people will hear you when you talk. Good debaters solicit feedback from their judges and coaches to ask them how they can do better. And good judges look past the bluster, penalize debaters who use bad faith tactics, and reward debaters who succeed on substance. Judges are accountable for their decisions too - they have to explain to the debaters why they voted the way they did, which encourages judges to evaluate debaters carefully and give good feedback.

Again I think it is a caricature to say that a person who does debate structures their personality around it and tries to turn everything into an argument. I concede as a high schooler I went through a phase like this; then I went through college, matured a bit, got other hobbies and priorities and came to understand how to use the skills I learned as a debater in a positive-sum way.

That whole wall of text completely ignoring my point. Not only that, I now have a very negative opinion of you... simply because you completely ignored what I wrote.

What I learned from your response, is that debates in US teach you - ignore the principles of the argument, fail to follow up and say(or write) a lot of words. (to "win")

Funny, that to me you've become the caricature that you're complaining about.

The irony of someone arguing about high school debate being bad and then making piss poor arguments of zero substance is not at all lost upon me although it looks like it whizzed past you. I think someone like you would've benefited more debate than anyone else.

And yet here you come. Replying to my comment, using the same exact techniques created specifically "to win".

Literally evoking the feeling of being attack, by introducing thinly veiled insults into your comment.

What do you think would result from such a retort? (specifically after you called my perspective "piss poor")

PS: I have debated many times at school and afterwards. Your condescension is poorly hidden

I wrote what I wrote because I thought you had some sense of curiosity about the people you complained about and I thought this was an appropriate space to talk about each other's beliefs and experiences. I did not expect your hostility!