Yes...There is an actual Snowflake Handbook.

[BIAD]

Nice catch on that point. I haven't delved fully yet and no doubt there are many subtle nuances like your point.

But damn...some of it is just creepy.

Jude

It is creepy, I agree that something just doesn't seem right about it.

If you look on that particular area of the document and accept that there 'may' be a valid
educational reason for setting a debate arena in this manner, then I would've thought that
an explanation for such hawkish positions of a suggested debate would be above the 'rules'
listed.

But no explanation is there. There are rules of course and these lay out in a manner that is
conducive to urging a debater to speak from the position of emotion.
'...Explain that sharing should be based on one's own feelings, experiences and perceptions...'

Simplicity is a great assistant in anything we do and here with this set of instructions -and that's
basically what this is, the Instructor is being required to posit biased ground rules for a reason
that's obvious throughout the Dialogue Guide.

The mantra is not appreciating diversity, the initial preface states that a liberal white superiority
is standard across the world and sympathy, allowances and some-sort of obligation to the 'lesser'
must be accepted by anyone not fitting into any of the identities listed.

With the base-line being that all white hetrosexual males are beyond reproach when it comes to
interacting with other races, it automatically sets an emotive grievance into the group and forms
a malcontent pyramid with white males 'burdened' with a faculty-forced 'privileged' guilt being
perceived as at the apex and non-Caucasian young men and women, young folk of alternative
sexual preferences and white females, placed on lower levels.

In itself, this would be seen as a powder-keg to any rational person, but the idea of creating such
a situation could be argued only on a basis of analysing fallout for a debate only.
If this was so, then the participants would be informed of the leaning before any such discussions
and if not, certainly afterwards.

Either way, it's a social experiment without consent of all parties and is extremely dangerous.

I have my own personal view and I'm reluctant to place it here because it's simplistic explanation
does have flaws.  It's in regards of the 'target' of this type of teaching.
Who are the rules aimed at with the potential to erode self-confidence...?
And in general society, what would this particular section of a society be utilised for in cases of
extreme conflict?