|Greg Jennings, something I had only done a couple times before. I felt somewhat bad for him a lot of the weekend, since his final APDA tournament he had to debate with someone significantly worse than he was (I outranked him in, I believe, one round out of six - I picked up the 3 to his 4, mostly on the basis that I had more speeches.), despite the fact that it worked out in my favor (inasmuch as I was able to go).
One of the things I did realize during nats was how much more fun I have when I get to debate things which actually interest me. When we or other people run "historical" cases, typically about cold war policy and the like, I just can't really get into it. I think the entire cold war was ridiculous, both sides sabotaging a better world at every possible opportunity, along with the precident of American atrocity which set the stage for us to be almost universally hated in the 21st century. So asking whether the Soviets would have done well to invade Yugoslavia is just not something I'm interested in. Same with whether or not Mao should take some action. Questions about actual rights, even if it's in the form of contract law, is just something I tend to do much better with. Paradoxically, the one thing I hate the most (economic policy) is the only exception to this rule.
cranked out at 3:17 PM | |
|template © elementopia 2003|