debate woes (kill the novi)

Summary of the day: way too many tests, did well on all of them... still have a bit of homework to do and need to run, am procrastinating. Today was my mom's b-day, we went to dinner. I ate a half of a mudslide dessert. It was the best thing I've tasted in years. Then I came home and took laxatives. Well I guess small victories come with small losses.

SO... Nick, this kid who's doing debate. He's driving me CRAZY. It's not really about jealousy. I don't think he'll be good at LD. It's about making fun of something that is sacred to me. WHY IS HE DOING LD?!!!! He is so much more of a policy type. He'd fit in there way better. He doesn't care about morals. He doesn't care about ethics and philosophy and what's right and wrong. He's just come barging into my sacred, emotional sanctuary and defiled it with sarcasm and... and apathy. HE DOESN'T FREAKING CARE... WHY DOES HE HAVE TO DO THIS??!!!! Anyway, yesterday in history he was talking to some kids about ethics and utilitarianism like he knew everything about philosophy (he's really... arrogant, but in an unnatural way), and it bothered me so much that to avoid diving over the desk and strangling him I ripped out a piece of paper and angrily wrote this:

I can't stand it, can't stand his... aloofness, his prestige, his arrogance, that annoying quality of his, whatever it is. I can't stand him invading my clean, beloved world of philosophy.
He has to do everything I do (I'm sure this has nothing to do with me if I think rationally, but still... Debate is my sanctuary, it is my life, and he is defiling it). I can't handle him taking over my fragile ecosystem, my only world of confidence and hope, the activity that saved my life... and morals, ethics, philosophy... all these things are the foundation of my life and my reasoning.
I think I'm going to explode, or rather implode. I want to light his utilitarian case on fire. It would be a fitting, utilitarian action. His debate case in ashes would be the greater good for the greater amount of people. Especially me. Deontological? Sure why not. Nobody ever said combustion and natural laws of flaming debate cases were immoral. Kant, check. Rand? Of course. I'll be happy and defending my emotions as an individual by watching it burn. Plato? I'm rising out of the concrete world into the pure idea world of Nickless debate. Locke? Our government has a responsibility to destroy his case, as it is pontentially socially harmful. If they fail to do so, I am responsible as a citizen in the social contract to vaporize it. William James? Yep. It's pragmatic to my survival as a sane human being. Democritus? Yes, the atoms in the ashes won't split or divide. Aristotle? Yes, it is a kind act, a humane act for the greater purpose of my happiness which is every individual's final goal. Earlier Greek philosophers? Yep, something remains in the reaction, the element of Earth in the ashes, but something is also changed by the element fire. So explainable.
RESOLVED: It is perfectly philosophically and morally correct to burn Nick's debate case. I stand only in affirmation. (Now I'll have to repeat the process with vaporizing Nick).
Speaking of Lindsay-aided combustion, anyone seen Mr. Pogreba (stupid bastard GRR) lately?

Apparently there's a bit more violent anger in me than I thought.