Here is the practical picture. You get a nice candle set, or a fancy kettle, and you will never use it. You have three real options: keep it in a closet, throw it out, or give it to someone who will actually enjoy it. Only the third option does anyone any good. The giver's intent was to make you happy and show they thought of you. That part already happened. You received the thought. The object is now yours, and what you do with it is your call. Most givers, if you asked them, would rather see the gift used than rot in a drawer. Nobody buys a scarf hoping it becomes a permanent shelf ornament. The wrong version of regifting is easy to name: handing over something stale, broken, or obviously mismatched, or giving it back to the person who gave it to you, or passing it to a friend who will clearly spot the awkward link. Those are failures of care, not proof the whole practice is rotten. Do it well. Check the item is in good shape, strip off any card, and pick a person it truly fits. The alternative has costs too. Waste is a cost. Clutter is a cost. Guilt over an unused object is a cost. Regifting turns one unwanted item into one gift that lands well, and nobody loses. That seems like a pretty decent trade for a little tact.
Clock not started — the 48-hour rebuttal window begins once both debaters have posted an opening statement.
Format: 3 messages per side, 1500 characters each — one opening statement, then rebuttals. Filed: 1/3 · 0/3.
Jump to comments ↓Opening statement
Regifting is wrong — open seat
Sign in to take the open side.
What people are saying
Sign in to join the discussion.
No comments yet — be the first to weigh in.