Jennifer was nice enough to forward to me an e-mail I wrote about two years ago when I was still at CU, which I thought was funny as fuck:
Also, what the hell is that? Everyone on the planet "Went to Nationals" for
some speech and debate event. Guess what: NOBODY CARES! Going to nationals is
not an accomplishment, really.
Here's Greg's 4-step guide to doing well in debate:
1) Get a coach who basically writes your cases
2) Get a very muddled idea of philosophy so you can vaguely refer to Locke,
Kant, Rousseau and eastern religions without understanding a damn thing. This
is infuriating to anyone semirational, and will confuse them. This is what your
aim is: Confusing them. Which leads to....
3) Learn to talk fast. The more you say, the higher probability you will say
something relevant. Most judges are volunteers whose knowledge of debate is
basically "Debate? Oh boy! Lots of arguing!"
4) Speak condecendingly. Any valid questions asked of you are to be treated as
if it was the most obvious thing in the world. Example:
"So you say that Critique of pure reason supported the idea that cavemen were
90 foot tall monsters. Can you elaborate?"
"CLEARLY, you have not read the text, but let me explain. Kant uses the
word 'transform' which is also used by cavemen. QED."
That's about it. Remember to never be concice or clear. That'll screw you.
Also, a leather attache never hurt.
The things I find funny about it are, of course, that they're all perfectly true. These were, of course, written referring to high school Lincoln-Douglass, but each have their own analogs in Parli or probably any debate style.
cranked out at
2:06 PM | |
|
