I’d love to help but I’ve never done this category, sorry!
To any debaters, please feel free to reblog with tips for anon!
alrighty so i had a fucking 10 hour long tournament on saturday, and the second round i debated against this cute kid and we kept making eye contact during cross even though we’re not supposed to, and after we beat them i deadass went on tabroom and STALKED HIM and found his name and found his social media and he accepted my follow request! ayeee im living. also debate boys are usually cute ngl
Chris Traeger and Ben Wyatt have such first speaker / second speaker energy
Still killing it out here. Novice and Open champions #landslide
Based on a real experience
lawful good: “is everyone ready?”
neutral good: “their case, our case.”
chaotic good: *fumbles with beeping timer*
lawful neutral: “i’ll just be going down my opponents’ case.”
true neutral: THERE IS NO TRUE NEuTRAL IN DEBATE
chaotic neutral: *starts speech before anyone is ready*
lawful evil: “is anybody not ready?”
neutral evil: “judge ready? partner ready? opponents ready? timekeeper ready?”
chaotic evil: “as an off-time roadmap, i’ll be reading an offensive overview that you can flow by our case as another contention, going down my opponents’ case with responses, and then — if time allows — going back over our own case.”
opponent: *calls out evidence i’ve been misconstruing this entire round*
So I do Public Forum debate and I have a partner and I’ve been low-key coming out to people at school, but Idk if he’s homophobic so I act Super Heterosexual ™ around him and I just needed to vent that
at my last tournament, there was this one judge who, after the round was over, called both teams over to where he was sitting and asked super leading questions so basically we had to redo the entire debate right there but there was no like timings or anything so whenever i tried to talk this asshole from the other team kept talking over me until I finally just said “stop making incorrect assertions and listen to me” and then went on a five minute rant about the justice system. thank god we don’t have civility points anymore bc I was ready to strangle someone and it definitely showed.
my opponent: we don’t need unclos for navigational rights in the sea
me: weird flex but ok
unpopular opinion: flowing during rounds is entirely pointless. flowing sucks.
It was the first varsity tournament of my sophomore year. The topic: on balance, the benefits of genetically modified foods outweigh the harms. Because of the wording of the resolution we used a cost benefit analysis. Let it be known however, there are very few harms when it comes to genetic modification.
The benefits of genetic modification include how they help make crops healthier, how it helps farmers yield larger harvests, how GM crops can be used to make better vaccines, how genetic modification limits pesticide usage, and how genetically modified organisms are more resilient to the natural forces. Frankly, there’s even more benefits (and stats to support them), but the list would be ridiculously long. The costs include several false reports of prenatal bleeding caused by GM crops, some small farms being harmed economically by big corporations, the endangerment of one species of monarch butterfly, and the potential creation of superweeds in select environments.
These costs are hardly evident in comparison to the benefits. As such, my affirmative was extensive, articulate, and thorough. This was the first time I was truly proud of a case. The negative, on the other hand, was a disaster.
I wrote two separate negative cases. One had three relatively weak contentions. The other had the same contentions, but I wrote in a red herring contention. The strategy is simple: write a short, easily beaten contention in the middle of a case. This hopefully makes it so the opponent focuses on the one contention, as opposed to the rest of the case. With the genetic modification case the red herring was that GM crops endanger one species of monarch butterfly.
At the tournament, the coin flipped in our favor all three rounds and we wound up both affirmative and speaking second. Needless to say, with the strength of my case and luck on our side, Crackshot and I won all three rounds.
It is also of note that the second round of the tournament was the first I faced one of my rivals, Alec. He was always kind to me, but never courteous in our debates. Each time we faced off, he brought along a different partner. I remember this first face off because our judge was my father’s old debate coach. It really bugged Alec that I was a year younger than him and the judge already knew me. We would later face him three more times, but I’ll get to that later.
This meet was important because for the first time ever, Crackshot and I broke to finals. It was a big deal to us, so the second the round posted we hustled to our room early and waited for everyone to arrive.
Our opponents arrived soon after, and much to our chagrin they were seasoned veterans. It was a boy and a girl, both seniors. The boy, being ill, refused to shake anyone’s hand. He was slender, meticulous, and was their first speaker. The girl was calculated and cruel, but had dyed hair to almost humanize her. We would soon learn that she could talk circles around the Crackshot. In fact, she’s part of the reason Crackshot started to speed up his speeches.
In a stroke of bad luck, we lost the coin toss. They took the affirmative. We took second speaker. We hadn’t run the negative yet. It was poorly written. It was sloppy. We were un-practiced. And our opponents were superior. On top of that I had included that red herring contention. It was only a sentence: in a study done by the Institute for Modern Technology, GM crops eliminate habitat for the monarch butterfly, a species whose population is already down 50%. It was ridiculous. We were screwed.
As the round began I lost myself. I was flustered through my speeches, their first speaker walked over me in my crossfire. Crackshot did his best, but he was no match for her experience and poise. If I recall this was the first of only a few times I ever took off my jacket and rolled up my sleeves mid-round.
I lost all hope, so during that final speech I pretended to take notes. I was drawing a little cartoon. It was of a prickly plant wearing a cape. A super weed. But during that final speech I saw something. Crackshot was still steadfast. He left everything on the floor and refused to give up. This was our first finals round, and he wasn’t letting anything stop him. I appreciated his rigor. When I crumbled, he carried on. As a team we could be unstoppable.
We lost that round. Pretty handily. We took sixth place at the meet overall, and they gave us a small trophy. That was the best we had ever done, and hearing them say our names on the stage is a feeling I never will forget.
I still have that drawing of the superweed. Every time I look at it I remember that thrill. The thrill of winning. The thrill of competition. Most of all, the thrill of someone having my back. Crackshot had my back in that meet, and for the rest of highschool.
I kept that drawing in my briefcase the next three years. This is the fifth of eight lucky charms that we kept with us at each meet, and I always thought this one held the most weight. It started us on a path of countless wins for the next three seasons.
Saturdays in Hell
I’m writing a series of memoirs about my days in forensics. It’s going to act as somewhat of a guide to succeed in the difficult world of speech and debate. Stay tuned because I’ll be posting stories intermittently!