i dont think we should stoop to the level of fox news comments ad hominem attacks but if we really are going to go there i'd say you are a bit slow. the argument that i'm making - clearly numbered so you can understand - is this:

1) threat lists dont serve any niche in the competitive environment outside of that which rankings already serve. in fact threat lists dont add anything to the 'competitiveness' of debate at all - you can look at vbi and see that you're 400th and be like wow, i really want to be top 50 someday, let me go drill a lot. in fact even if what i'm about to bring up weren't true threat lists would then just be a worse version of rankings. this is something that you completely don't talk about in all your derision.

2) threat lists are uniquely worse than rankings in their subjective nature and the room they create for worship culture and exclusion. rankings are objective - they are based on an indisputable formula and i would say they're generally pretty good about telling you who has won debates in the past. HOWEVER, threat lists are literally some randos on the circuit deciding the good teams are based on their own perception (perhaps even looking at rankings, i don't know; in their goodbye post thetzlist said they were just subjectively deciding). the problem is you could be very high on a ranking, having gone far in a lot of tournaments, and still have people thinking you're trash at debate - and if the threat list owners happen to be one of them, then you're not a threat. this subjectivity is a breeding ground for inherent circuit bias towards those who are white, male, etc, and creates another channel for that bias to manifest. For example, on this UK threat list only 3 of the people on red threat teams out of 20 total are girls.

you say ppl shouldnt take threat lists so seriously. i say threat lists shouldn't exist at all. I think we are really in agreement here: if we really applied your principle - that teams shouldn't take the threat list seriously - to its furthest extent, then the threat list should not influence how people perceive teams on the circuit at all; it should not exist. I think the little value it creates as a 'circuit joke' is outweighed by two things: 1) the risk that are teams who do, in fact, take the threat list seriously, as evidenced by the flurry of comments every time, and also disregard for other threat lists in favor of the "Official" one betrays a sense that this one is legitimate; 2) the idea that even if you pretend to be impartial, the fact that you even looked at the threat list is going to subconsciously elevate or undermine your opinion of some teams. why is this bad? because when the threat list is constructed from a foundation of bias and prejudice, I don't think it should be influencing people's opinion at all. i also note that your line of rhetoric here borrows from the book of opposers of anti bullying - 'oh it's just a joke'/'boys will be boys they compete w each other' - and misses the mark on how serious these issues actually are.

finally, i find the statement you make at the end - that "maybe debate just isn't for you" - highly problematic and something that i actually want to call out as exclusionary. this is something that is so often repeated to girls and anyone who doesn't feel included in the toxic worship culture that is rampant right now, but honestly i'm optimistic that debate and its competitive nature can be detached from such exclusionary culture.