I Fail the Maverick
I was assigned a partner, and after a lecture about
utilitarianism and deontology, our lab met up to do some practice solo debates
comparing the two philosophies. I won the first round but then lost to one of
the state champions in my group. After the practice debates, we met with our
partners to divvy up cases and evidence. I chose to write the con case.
Hours later, I was well-versed in the 1st
Amendment, Tinker vs. Des Moines, the chilling effect, and the slippery slope,
as well as the various connotations of the word “regulate”. Once I had a draft
with framework and three contentions that I was pretty proud of, I worked on compiling
evidence for our group file.
The next day was when our lab would do practice debates in
our partnerships, in order to develop our cases. Unfortunately, my partner had
fallen ill without finishing the pro case, so in the 30 minutes preceding my
round, I threw together a pretty decent pro case, considering the
circumstances. Maverick debating is never easy, especially when your cases are
untested. I can fairly say that given the fact that my pro was essentially a
rough draft with two contentions, I did reasonably well against a fantastic
team. I was given critiques and advice on how to fix my case, and then I limped
away with the shards of my pride cradled in my bruised and tenosynovitis-stricken
hands.
The next day, my partner returned and we decided to use my
pro case, since it had been tried and tested. We had the rest of our practice rounds,
and my con case lost a contention. Better evidence was found, and eventually
both cases were transformed into legible works of art.
The real tournament begins soon!
Comments