GLAAD

[JGlass]

Hitman, if you keep this up, you're going to go the route of From The South. You're a good poster, but you've made yourself look like such a bigoted ass in this thread that you might very well be laughed off the forum. I can't remember the last time I saw something you posted that I found anything good in, and that doesn't bode well for you because I'm easily impressed.

Please, shut up. You must be getting tired of EVERYONE that isn't a total dumbass owning you.

 

[UltimateHitman]

JGlass, explain how I'm bigoted when I clearly pointed out earlier that I did not have issues w/gays, have gay friends, and am equally as offended when heterosexuals are groping in public as much as homosexuals? You can't. Calling me a bigot is being just as judgmental as you say straight people are to gays.

Sly, how about some proof that it's NOT hypocrisy? I actually gave very viable examples how it was not laziness or cowardice or ignorance, as you attempted to point out.

So let me get this straight. You pointing out things you cannot prove w/hard, factual evidence is different than anybody else doing that, according to your "opinion". Riiiiiiight. You cannot prove those convictions any more than you condemn me for not "proving" mine. So what's the saying about the pot and the kettle? And again, I'm not upset at all. I'm laughing at your ego, but that's about it.

Gelgarin:
"One the subject, TNA actually devotes a portion of every show to a campaign in which faces and heels alike denounce bullying over such issues as sexual orientation."

That's the most intelligent point made to refute my statement that I've read. Yes, they do have an anti-bullying campaign message. However, does that permit them to freely use that type of derogatory verbiage? So if I start an anti-bullying campaign in my community it would be fine for me to go on television and call people ****?

And where is the proof that they actually have no knowledge of it? I fail to see how something of that sort would slip "under their radar". With the network of individuals that watch TNA programming, WWE employees included, somebody would have caught it. To say that it went "under the radar" just because it's not as highly watched as WWE is also pretty presumptive.

And lastly, what you are saying is that it's ok to be slanderous to homosexuals if you are not a PG rated program on television? So, by that logic, it's ok for people (such as TNA employees and fans) that are not children to be ok w/the use of that word? (And actually, since I've seen advertisements on TNA that show the crowd and the crowd has children in it, that would mean that the "adult oriented" argument can also be deemed null and void.)

That would mean since many people on here are over the age of 18 and thus deemed adults, it's ok to say, hear, and otherwise use that, or any other, slanderous term as they deem fit.

 

[DirtyJosé]

TNA is the only other professional wrestling organization on television. If you think that they don't have access to information about the usage of derogatory words on their programming also you're deluded.

As I mentioned before, WWE is targeted towards a younger audience. TNA is not. WWE is a company with a long history and employees who are usually in direct mainstream media coverage week in and week out. TNA is not. Again, this isn't a TNA vs WWE comment, it's just the truth. Many many WWE fans don't even know TNA exists. When TNA has the kind of influence WWE has, you'll probably see them start taking the same kind of criticisms.

Furthermore, GLAAD not having a working relationship with TNA like the one they've developed with WWE still really has nothing to do with the conversation. From the start, it's seemed like a silly excuse, a silly little line you could throw in to try and justify your idiotic world view.

However, after responding to you earlier, and seeing how you're all over Sly's nutsack

What if I was on his nutsack? What if I was? What's so wrong with that?

I would have to say that, or something presumably worse, is apparent.

You know, I'd rather be many many things than a pretentious ass hat like you.

P.S. Dirty, I don't know what you're thinking, but my OP said GLAAD were hypocritical and I'm still saying that so I don't know how you think my opinion's changed. Sounds like the same viewpoint to me.

The clear message of your OP was that you felt special interest groups like this were bullshit because they only wanted the moneys. You didn't really stumble about with your piss poor hypocrisy argument until Slyfox started tearing into you.

For the guru of the forums you do seem to get butthurt quite easily, btw.

Whether you meant Sly or myself (I'm the guru of the forums? HA!), no one here is getting butt hurt but the insecure and stubborn dip shit who started the thread because his drunk ass is mad that the world is changing around anachronistic mouth breathers like himself.

 

[Slyfox696]

Sly, how about some proof that it's NOT hypocrisy? I actually gave very viable examples how it was not laziness or cowardice or ignorance, as you attempted to point out.

So let me get this straight. You pointing out things you cannot prove w/hard, factual evidence is different than anybody else doing that, according to your "opinion". Riiiiiiight. You cannot prove those convictions any more than you condemn me for not "proving" mine. So what's the saying about the pot and the kettle? And again, I'm not upset at all. I'm laughing at your ego, but that's about it.

The difference here is YOU were the one who made the allegation. I don't have to prove anything, because I'm not the one alleging anything. Any reasonably intelligent person can understand that. Since you're the one charging them of hypocrisy, you're the one with the burden of proof.

The fact of the matter is, for there to be hypocrisy, GLAAD would have to act opposite of their position, which they don't. They might not have targeted TNA, but it doesn't mean they act the opposite of their stated intention. Just like when I don't watch basketball, that doesn't mean I don't really like basketball. Do you understand now?

 

[Gelgarin]

That's the most intelligent point made to refute my statement that I've read. Yes, they do have an anti-bullying campaign message. However, does that permit them to freely use that type of derogatory verbiage? So if I start an anti-bullying campaign in my community it would be fine for me to go on television and call people ****?

First: Verbiage is not being used in the proper context. People aren't impressed by vocabulary when you use words correctly, let alone when you misuse words in an attempt to look intellectual

Second: No it would not be OK, it would make you a bit of a shit. That being said, if GLADD failed to appear outside your house the next day condemning you for being a shit that would not render them hypocrites. There are ten thousand examples of homophobia every single day. GLADD is a comparatively small non-profit organization. Outside of the deal they've just stuck with the WWE (which happened because the WWE wanted it, not because GLADD pushed for it) the most high profile thing the organization has ever done is writing to newspapers to ask them to include civil partnerships alongside marriage listings.

You're seriously going to sit there and tell me that overlooking a comparatively minor incidence of homophobia that you can present no evidence that they even knew about renders them hypocrites?

Let me outline exactly how daft your logic is without resorting to something as radical as a basketball metaphor (after all, I borrow enough of Sly's material as it is). By your logic, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, PETA, The RSPCA, the World Wildlife fund, the NAACP and every other issue based charity ever to have existed in the history of the world are hypocrites.

There are human rights violations that Amnesty International have not fought against. There are incidences of cruelty to animals that the WWF has remained silent on. You think the NAACP actively battles against every example of racial intolerance in society?

Picking your battles does not make you a hypocrite.

And where is the proof that they actually have no knowledge of it?

How the fuck can anybody prove something like that? Seriously, you cannot prove a negative. You are the one claiming that GLADD have knowledge of things in TNA (that have never been highlighted on TV or picked up by mainstream media, or even by the internet dirt-sheets, therefor the burden of proof lies on you.

I fail to see how something of that sort would slip "under their radar". With the network of individuals that watch TNA programming, WWE employees included, somebody would have caught it. To say that it went "under the radar" just because it's not as highly watched as WWE is also pretty presumptive.

I suggest it went under the radar because it went under the radar. Know how I know? Because it's not on the damn radar. Nobody is commenting on it. I spent ten minutes on youtube trying to find a video of one of these incident in TNA and could find nothing. You think the same holds true if you do a search for John Cena and Homophobia?

And lastly, what you are saying is that it's ok to be slanderous to homosexuals if you are not a PG rated program on television?

Show me where I said this.

So, by that logic, it's ok for people (such as TNA employees and fans) that are not children to be ok w/the use of that word?

Show me where I said this.

(And actually, since I've seen advertisements on TNA that show the crowd and the crowd has children in it, that would mean that the "adult oriented" argument can also be deemed null and void.)

Not really. Post watershed on SPIKE TV, which is just about the most adult network that isn't out and out porn.

That would mean since many people on here are over the age of 18 and thus deemed adults, it's ok to say, hear, and otherwise use that, or any other, slanderous term as they deem fit.

Look; unlike others I'm prepared to treat you with a minor level of respect. This is not going to continue of your going to babble incoherently like this and try to refute arguments that I never came close to making. Either you legitimately failed to understand my post, in which case you should just say so. Or, and I consider this far more likely, you've got so entrenched desperately trying to defend an original statement that even you can see is total rubbish that you are no longer interested in listening to reason.

Either way, back down. You accomplish nothing here. Any impartial reader is going to come away thinking your an idiot (notice a complete absence of anyone taking your side - and this is a debate with fucking Slyfox in it) at best. Your opinion does not make logical sense, and from a personal standpoint I'd find myself respecting you far more if you simply fessed up and backed down instead of perpetually arguing against people who are both in the right, and better at this than you.

See reason.

 

[ABMorales787]

 

[UltimateHitman]

As I mentioned before, WWE is targeted towards a younger audience. TNA is not. WWE is a company with a long history and employees who are usually in direct mainstream media coverage week in and week out. TNA is not. Again, this isn't a TNA vs WWE comment, it's just the truth. Many many WWE fans don't even know TNA exists. When TNA has the kind of influence WWE has, you'll probably see them start taking the same kind of criticisms.

So since they don't have as big of an audience, even though they do have one, and they are more adult, they are exempt from being held accountable for their derogatory remarks? Does that mean they get free reign to use the word ******, too? So by that reasoning, any movie that is PG-13 or above is perfectly within their right to slander homosexuals all they want? Ok.

Furthermore, GLAAD not having a working relationship with TNA like the one they've developed with WWE still really has nothing to do with the conversation. From the start, it's seemed like a silly excuse, a silly little line you could throw in to try and justify your idiotic world view.

Didn't say the working relationship had anything to do w/it.

What if I was on his nutsack? What if I was? What's so wrong with that?

Because you are and it's quite sad.

You know, I'd rather be many many things than a pretentious ass hat like you.

A suck up and a follower. I'll pick my own path, thanks.

The clear message of your OP was that you felt special interest groups like this were bullshit because they only wanted the moneys. You didn't really stumble about with your piss poor hypocrisy argument until Slyfox started tearing into you.

From my first post. "...so quick to jump at people's throats for the most ignorant fucking shit but clap and cheer and laugh when their "own kind" act just as, if not more, repulsive."

From my second. Before Sly made a comment, mind you. "I said special interest groups are hypocritical..."

So you're wrong again. Said it before Sly came along.

Whether you meant Sly or myself (I'm the guru of the forums? HA!), no one here is getting butt hurt but the insecure and stubborn dip shit who started the thread because his drunk ass is mad that the world is changing around anachronistic mouth breathers like himself.

You're a bandwagon jumper, I was most certainly not referring to you. Nice case of vanity though.

What I find amusing is that I never said anything about the cause they represent. I said the organization was hypocritical, not the cause. And I also mentioned other special interest groups being that way too.

So because I don't agree w/the Black Panthers, I'm a racist. Come to think of it, I don't agree w/the KKK either, so I'm racist against caucasians, too.

I gave the definition of both hypocrite and hypocritical. Then pointed out how it relates. Being a hypocrite is not only based "doing" the opposite of what you stand against. It can be showing favoritism and also inaction regarding the same situations. I'll take Merriam-Webster's definition.

Gelgarin mentioned "if GLADD failed to appear outside your house the next day condemning you for being a shit that would not render them hypocrites."

No disrespect, but not a valid point. A person saying something inside of their home or caught by one or two people in a community is a lot different than somebody saying something on national tv. Two different animals. If there is a public outcry in a community, I would venture to say that it would raise a few more eyebrows than Joe Shmoe overhearing somebody call their buddy a *** walking down the sidewalk.

I also find it amusing that I'm being told to "change my opinion". Isn't that what straight people say gay people need to do?

So a person's opinion is now wrong. Prove it. And the "no you" stance doesn't fly. It's transparent. You can't. First of all, it's an opinion. Secondly, when you refute an opinion by saying it's wrong, only fact can disprove opinion. I have not heard any facts to sway my opinion, so my opinion doesn't change. That's how it works. Want to refute it? Give me a reason. And TNA catering to a more adult crowd doesn't cut it. Vince Vaughn caters more to an adult crowd yet "The Dilemma" trailer was brought up by GLAAD. So the rating of a program is not sufficient.

Here's a nice little article that sums it up. http://www.afterelton.com/gay-agenda-03-18-2011. In this, it shows that GLAAD considers ANY usage of the word ***, even from an openly gay individual (i.e. Perez Hilton) as offensive. Yet others are allowed to use it openly and freely. If you're going to take even other homosexuals to task, you should be taking on everything w/the word spoken or prominently displayed. Again, proof I'm wrong or my OPINION is not.

A lot of instances of my assuming things are being mentioned. Yet I have seen many instances of supposition in other posts. I'm "privileged" being only one in a long line. That's funny. So you know me and my circumstances? Or are you just making assumptions based on somebody's race?

And if assumptions are so wrong, then why are people making them about me? Can't argue against assumptions and then turn around and make them yourself. I won't even tell you what that is called. I think you know.

Another one is that the TNA instances were simply not noticed. I fail to see how that can be construed as fact. If we're going to talk assumptions, then everybody w/an opinion is making assumptions. And that pretty much takes care of 99.9% of the forum.

Simply calling somebody stupid and playing rep games, especially in an "everything goes" setting merely shows how childish a person actually is and how fragile of an ego they have. The fact is my opinion is not wrong, and neither am I. In fact, others mirror my opinion. More prominent ones than the people here. Sorry, but just because I'm against the popular opinion doesn't mean I'm wrong, or that I should change my opinion to appease people on a discussion forum.

 

[Gelgarin]

Christ...

 

[Shadowmancer]

It seems that the Trolleteriat is still alive and well on WZ

 

[DirtyJosé]

So since they don't have as big of an audience, even though they do have one, and they are more adult, they are exempt from being held accountable for their derogatory remarks? Does that mean they get free reign to use the word ******, too? So by that reasoning, any movie that is PG-13 or above is perfectly within their right to slander homosexuals all they want? Ok.

See that? It's the point, going right over your head. GLAAD has probably never seen anything from TNA. If many many wrestling fans these days have never heard of them, it's not a big stretch to imagine that.

Didn't say the working relationship had anything to do w/it.

You make it seem like the reaction and fallout with the Cole comment is GLAAD jumping at the chance to make some big money, when in actuality it was McMahon who brought it to their attention first. In this matter, GLAAD didn't go after WWE; WWE brought it to them and asked "How can we fix this?".

Because you are and it's quite sad.

I'm sorry, I fail to see how I'm on his nutsack when I called you out as being an idiot before he had said anything in this thread. Go ahead and look it back up if you wish. Funny that; multiple people thinking the same thing about you. Maybe that should tell you something.

A suck up and a follower. I'll pick my own path, thanks.

Yes, yes, tell yourself whatever it is you think you need to hear to feel better from the ass raping Sly delivered to you.

From my first post. "...so quick to jump at people's throats for the most ignorant fucking shit but clap and cheer and laugh when their "own kind" act just as, if not more, repulsive."

And invalid point from the start as you've yet to come anywhere near explaining it in any rational manner. When you can point out homosexuals having acted in a bigoted and violent manner to heterosexuals for hundreds of years then maybe you'd have a point.

From my second. Before Sly made a comment, mind you. "I said special interest groups are hypocritical..."

Again, an invalid point. Unless somehow you really believe that GLAAD speaks for and represents the entirety of the whole of the homosexual community, which would make you an idiot.

So you're wrong again. Said it before Sly came along.

And once Sly and others came along to shoot out every leg you had to stand on, it became the only line you could repeat. Which was kinda the point all along.

You're a bandwagon jumper, I was most certainly not referring to you. Nice case of vanity though.

Thank you.

What I find amusing is that I never said anything about the cause they represent. I said the organization was hypocritical, not the cause. And I also mentioned other special interest groups being that way too.

You also made it seem like GLAAD is hypocritical because guys make out in the streets sometimes.

So because I don't agree w/the Black Panthers, I'm a racist. Come to think of it, I don't agree w/the KKK either, so I'm racist against caucasians, too.

To think GLAAD is anywhere near what those two groups are/were clearly demonstrates what kind of idiot you are.

I gave the definition of both hypocrite and hypocritical. Then pointed out how it relates. Being a hypocrite is not only based "doing" the opposite of what you stand against. It can be showing favoritism and also inaction regarding the same situations. I'll take Merriam-Webster's definition.

And again, since this was a point you raised in the first place, the burden of proof lies on you to prove GLAAD is showing any favoritism here. Remember that bit about being a non-profit? Maybe, just maybe, they don't have the funds to jump on every single bigoted asshole on television. Maybe, just maybe, they have to use their resources only on the battles that matter, and in that regard WWE>TNA.

Gelgarin mentioned "if GLADD failed to appear outside your house the next day condemning you for being a shit that would not render them hypocrites."

No disrespect, but not a valid point. A person saying something inside of their home or caught by one or two people in a community is a lot different than somebody saying something on national tv. Two different animals. If there is a public outcry in a community, I would venture to say that it would raise a few more eyebrows than Joe Shmoe overhearing somebody call their buddy a *** walking down the sidewalk.

Oh? But didn't you say inaction is equivalent to hypocrisy?

I also find it amusing that I'm being told to "change my opinion". Isn't that what straight people say gay people need to do?

First of all, what a classic argument. You really paint yourself in a flattering manner. Second of all, no. Gay people and gay supporters don't give a shit what your opinion is, they just want to be treated like proper human beings. If you can't see that distinction, you are even dumber than I give you credit for.

So a person's opinion is now wrong. Prove it. And the "no you" stance doesn't fly. It's transparent. You can't. First of all, it's an opinion. Secondly, when you refute an opinion by saying it's wrong, only fact can disprove opinion. I have not heard any facts to sway my opinion, so my opinion doesn't change. That's how it works. Want to refute it? Give me a reason. And TNA catering to a more adult crowd doesn't cut it. Vince Vaughn caters more to an adult crowd yet "The Dilemma" trailer was brought up by GLAAD. So the rating of a program is not sufficient.

Vince Vaughn is also a much more public personality than anyone in TNA, so yeah, wrong again. Go ahead and keep missing the point though.

Here's a nice little article that sums it up. http://www.afterelton.com/gay-agenda-03-18-2011. In this, it shows that GLAAD considers ANY usage of the word ***, even from an openly gay individual (i.e. Perez Hilton) as offensive. Yet others are allowed to use it openly and freely. If you're going to take even other homosexuals to task, you should be taking on everything w/the word spoken or prominently displayed. Again, proof I'm wrong or my OPINION is not.

I'm sorry, I'm not taking seriously any publication, online or otherwise, which refers to a "gay agenda". I'm not gay, and I'm on their side entirely. It's not an agenda. It's a rights struggle. Go back and hide in your basement, chump. If you really want to see GLAAD go after everyone equally, maybe you should cut them a check to help them.

A lot of instances of my assuming things are being mentioned. Yet I have seen many instances of supposition in other posts. I'm "privileged" being only one in a long line. That's funny. So you know me and my circumstances? Or are you just making assumptions based on somebody's race?

Regardless of your skin color, you are privileged enough to feel that a group dedicated to improving living conditions for a group of people denied rights and terrorized for many many years are simply acting out of a desire for money and couldn't possibly be actually trying to do a good thing. You are privileged to feel that the struggle for Gay rights is somehow offending on your right to be an ignorant dip ship. Really, that's all I care to know about you.

And if assumptions are so wrong, then why are people making them about me? Can't argue against assumptions and then turn around and make them yourself. I won't even tell you what that is called. I think you know.

From the look of this thread, you clearly don't.

Another one is that the TNA instances were simply not noticed. I fail to see how that can be construed as fact. If we're going to talk assumptions, then everybody w/an opinion is making assumptions. And that pretty much takes care of 99.9% of the forum.

Hell, I've never seen any of the moments you've mentioned. And I've been watching Wrestling since I was a little kid. So maybe you should post a video or something. Or even better, send the tape to GLAAD. Then you could see whether they act on it or not.

Simply calling somebody stupid and playing rep games, especially in an "everything goes" setting merely shows how childish a person actually is and how fragile of an ego they have. The fact is my opinion is not wrong, and neither am I. In fact, others mirror my opinion. More prominent ones than the people here. Sorry, but just because I'm against the popular opinion doesn't mean I'm wrong, or that I should change my opinion to appease people on a discussion forum.

So I see you have other mouth breather friends to go along with those token black and gay ones you talk about so often whenever it's convenient to. Also, you clearly missed what "everything goes" entails around here. Of course, that wouldn't be the first time you were ignorant about the world around you.

 

[UltimateHitman]

On the road to Wrestlemania, bitches! (Oops. Now I'm a sexist... )

Didn't think I forgot about all of you, did ya? Nah, just had more important things to do.

From the GLAAD website: "...holding the media accountable for the words and images they present..."

Nowhere does that say that usage of a word is acceptable in one form of media or by one individual and not acceptable by another. I also didn't see a clause that excludes something because it wasn't as highly watched as another. It's still on public television. And you can point to TNA and Spike TVs demographics all you want, but that's the demographic who's attitude they want to change, so I'm sure it would be relevant.

I provided a link that showed books that were allowed to be published and mass distributed with the derogatory term "***". However, in other circumstances, they denounce the use of said word. It has to be one way or another, you can't have both. If you are solely against the use of the word in any way, then you eliminate it from being presented in a public manner.



I said everything I needed to. I presented an opinion and gave examples as to why I felt that way. One of the people opposing it used the logic of "Herp derp, you're stupid and use a dictionary". Which is amusing because I even referenced Merriam-Webster. I'll stick w/them, instead of somebody's opinion. Incidentally, the "you're stupid" comment is also wrong. I'm consistenty above average to excellent on tests, in courses, and in real life scenarios so that refutes the theory. Wow, two wrongs in one discussion.

I would like to commend Gelgarin, though, because he actually gave a very good example of an opposing opinion. It wasn't enough to change my views on the matter, but it was the most intellgent reasoning from the opposing side. Much respect and kudos go out to him.

The other most vocal was Dirty. He actually was a great example of a contradictory attitude. Saying I was prejudiced towards homosexuals (that one was easy to dispute) yet showing his own prejudiced opinion towards caucasian males by saying I was "privileged" solely based on race and/or gender. A false statement and a bigoted one. Thank you for making that point for me.

I'm not going to quote your last post (although I was tempted) because you simply make things up that is way out in left field. I've already addressed them, but thanks for playing. Pick up your consolation prize on the way out.

So, to sum it all up, I did what I had to do: explain my opinion. I presented it in the proper format, broke no forum rules, and tried to be as tactful as I could considering the circumstances. I always knew somebody was full of himself, but to that extent I had no idea. Having a delusional bubble that large is really not a blessing. I'm sure this person has a therapist, but if not, I would highly recommend one. It could only help.

Oh, before I go, spare me the "why can't you just let it go?" routine. The same could be said of anybody who kept responding to me. That's another thing I find funny about this forum. I've noticed it often (especially regarding Stormtrooper) that when somebody has a stance and defends it, a lot of people respond and then throw out the "just stop" card when they further expain their position (as common practice in a discussion), yet they themselves don't practice what they preach.

 

[Tiger Chaos Theory]

Jesus christ.

 

[JGlass]

You could leave well enough alone, could you?

 

[ZeroVX]

So can someone explain to me why I'm being compared to this guy so much?

Other than Sly and Gelgarin don't like either of us?

 

[JGlass]

Because you both make obviously terrible arguments and you don't even realize it.

 

[Mac Attack]

Some people care way too much.... But I'll lave it up to everyone else to decide who I'm talking about...

 

[Slyfox696]

Because you both make obviously terrible arguments and you don't even realize it.

I find it humorous that Zero sees it in Hitman but not in himself.

 

[JGlass]

I find it humorous that Zero sees it in Hitman but not in himself.

It really sums it up perfectly. If Hitman sees it in Zero but not himself we'd have a match made in heaven.

 

[Gelgarin]

For me it stretches nowhere beyond the strangely high opinion you both seem to have of the skills you do not in fact possess.

Plus Zero has a bad attitude, which is entertaining when coupled with posting ability, and a nuisance when not.

 

[ZeroVX]

Plus Zero has a bad attitude, which is entertaining when coupled with posting ability, and a nuisance when not.

OK, I can understand the lack of reasoning skills you guys have said I have, but this?

The only reason I give you a bad attitude, for the record, is because I find you to be an arrogant prick. Sidious-levels, even.

 

[Gelgarin]

I am an arrogant prick, so is Sly, so are you and so are a great many other people. The difference is that we have the posting ability to back it up. You in contrast make horrible posts containing poorly constructed arguments and showing a lack of reasoning... and still act like a twat to people who disagree with you.

 

[ZeroVX]

And you're basing this on how many debates I've had?

 

[Gelgarin]

Two or no.

 

[ZeroVX]

Yeah, two. One with you, I'm guessing, and the one with Sly. And since, like you said, you're both arrogant pricks, and I've already expressed my dislike of you, that hardly seems enough to base an entire opinion on.

 

[Slyfox696]

And you're basing this on how many debates I've had?

Most of them?