Given a post that is a real-life anecdote of a complex ethical situation and a question asks if AUTHOR, NOBODY, EVERYBODY, or OTHER is wrong in the situation. Answer the question and classify your answers into yes or no.

Q: Is OTHER wrong in the post ? POST : Earlier today one of my friends left his car in the street in front of my house and I drove him to the train station. He caught a ride back with his gf and they were gonna stop by and pick up his car. But he text me saying how my dads gf is probably terrified because he just walked in like it was his house. His reasoning is because they needed to pee. But they knew i wasn't home i had told him prior I was gonna be at work. So i got really pissed about this. I think its disrespectful. Am I in the wrong?

A: yes
****
Q: Is AUTHOR wrong in the post ? POST : Tonight my husband and I had an argument where we weren’t really understanding each other. We did manage to come to an understanding on some things, but not all. Afterwards I asked him if he would consider going to couples therapy and he got pissed off real quick. 


I tried to explain that i thought it would be helpful to help us communicate, and I didn’t suggest it because I thought there was something really wrong with us. 


He took it to mean that there’s something wrong with us, or I think in the future something will be really wrong with us, and he said if it comes to that then we should just spit up. I said eventually every couple gets to a hard place, and I wanted to try and prevent that by working on issues that COULD become bigger issues in the future. Lots of couples go to pre-marriage counseling to build a solid foundation in their relationship, and his response was they only go bc the church they want to marry in requires it. And what, I don’t think we have a good foundation? I don’t think we work well together?

Our relationship is really good but there are definitely areas where it could be improved, on both sides. Since it’s a lot of misunderstanding I really think an unbiased 3rd party would be helpful. He refuses to even consider it because he doesn’t want to, there’s nothing wrong with him and he didn’t have a fucked up childhood (like me, I am in my own therapy). He said I’ve been going to therapy 2 weeks (actually 3 months) and now I just know everything and think I’m always right. He also thinks he’s always right. 


Even though we’ve been okay now, that doesn’t mean these things won’t build into something way bigger later on. I think we could try and be a better couple with a high chance of success but he thinks we’re fine and now this means something’s wrong but still won’t consider counciling because it makes him uncomfortable. He got mad at me for “pushing” it and I’m the asshole for trying to make him do something I want that makes him uncomfortable. 

AITA? 

A: no
****
Q: Is NOBODY wrong in the post ? POST : So this year I became president of my school's debate team. And I know, it may sound like I'm taking high school debate a bit too seriously. Still, debate is my passion, and I'd like to see my team go far. However, only four people got to state, and only one person, yours truly, was able to make it to nationals last year, which really irritated me. Our debate team had a couple issues:

1. As an asian myself, I can safely say debate is one of the extracurricular activities 90% of asian parents push their kids into, whether they like debate or not. So half of our team is kids who like debate and want to compete. Some kids were forced by their parents, but still take debate seriously and want to compete. The rest of the kids are either a) just terrible debaters or b) kids who blow off debate and don't show up to meetings 

2. Our debate team didn't get as much funding as compared to stuff like sports or theatre, which is frustrating. We didn't even have a debate coach. Thos is because our school isn't that good at debate. Out of a team of over a 100 people (if you're wondering, the school has about 2500) 4 people made it to state and 1 made it to nationals. That's not enough to get good funding.

3. Caps. Our team had a system in place where after 4 tournaments, you have to sit out the rest if tournaments for the year. So all the kids who are good at debate have to sit it out, and the kids who don't give a fuck about debate or those who are terrible at debate are forced to sign up for the tournament (because the school needs to fill a certain amount of slots). Then the school gets thrashed. 

So I was elected captain at the beginning of the year. My goal is pretty simple: we need to go further, win more, become good enough at debate so that the school increases our funding. The hard part is getting there. 

In the meantime, to become the best we can, I decided I needed to start asking for membership fees. Normally debate is free, but we needed to pool money for a coach. I went to the school and asked them permission to collect fees and do fundraisers and stuff. Since the principal likes me, I got the go-ahead. I started collecting a fee of $75 per person, and told people to see me if they couldn't financially afford it. Next, we did a few fundraisers: everybody brought in stuff they didn't need anymore and we did a yard sale/raffle. We threw a pool party with a $5 entry fee. Finally, we started a GoFundMe page and got our school to put it on their Facebook/Twitter. 

We finally had enough money to hire a good coach, and we did.

Next thing I did (I had the authority to do this, being captain) was remove the caps. My belief is that if you want to go to tournaments, you have to be the best. I arranged what I call tournament qualifiers: the kids in each categories would face off in rounds against each other, and the highest 5 in each category would go. 

Lastly, and most controversially, I kicked a lot of kids off the team. Debate so far has been a club where anybody could join, but I made it into a 'by try-out only' kind of club. There isn't actually a tryout, but it is similar: if you miss 5 meetings (there are 3 meetings a week), you're out. If you're falling behind (ranking badly in 2 qualifying tournaments in a row), I'll give you extra one-on-one time with the coach to improve. By the next qualifying tournament, if you don't do well, you're out.

My reasoning behind this is simple: it's a really large team, and we only can afford to hire one good coach. The coach has to spend time with 113 different people, and many of these people just aren't improving or just don't care The more people on the team, the less time he has to focus on each individual, their strengths, their flaws, and how they can improve. If we kick out the kids that aren't improving, the coach will stop wasting his time and help those who can and want to be helped. 

Some people are calling me an asshole, but I think my policy is tough but fair. If you're falling behind, I'll give you one-on-one time with the coach. If you improve, great! If not, you'll just be wasting the team's time. 

A:
no
****
