#my combined status as a finalist in oratory and runner-up in congressional debate actually did land me a slot in an event at nationals

[astriiformes]

This has come up while talking with friends a couple of times in the last few days and it’s such an on-brand Nate anecdote I thought it’d be worth sharing with the rest of you

The only debate event I ever participated in in high school (I was heavily involved in Speech & Debate for most of it, but most of what I did was on the speech side of things) was called Congressional Debate, which was basically what it sounds like. Competitors submit their own bills, a few of them make it onto the docket, and everyone pretends to be a chamber of Congress for a little while, giving persuasive speeches primarily on the fly about their thoughts on the bill up for debate, or arguing against others, while everyone else in the room asks questions that either bolster or tear down the debater’s point, based on which side they’ve decided they want to argue

Now, here are two facts about how the event usually works. A lot of the bills people submit are on much more traditional “politics” -- things like foreign policy, economics, and the like. The other thing is that the strategy most good competitors (and basically everyone who becomes a finalist) take is to get up and talk as often as possible, with middling-quality speeches because they’re trying to make the judges see and take note of them as prolific. The people who are the best at balancing that with a reasonable amount of quality and professionalism and are the best at sounding like they know what they’re talking about usually win.

I did not do those things

The bill I submitted, which was one of I think only two from our school that actually made the docket (though it was low down enough it tragically didn’t end up being one of the debates, because I would have had a lot to say on it), was on increasing funding for NASA. When our team did preliminary research to make everyone packets with information to use, I chose to take on providing info on my own bill and another that had made the docket on space law and asteroid mining. One of the speeches I remember that I actually gave was on environmental regulation issues related to irrigation. 

The other thing was that my strategy flew in the face of how you were supposed to do things. I’m an orator. I can debate decently, but I really shine when I get the chance to write things out and work from there. So instead of being prolific, I went for quality over quantity. Every round, I would write out one really thorough outline, with hooks and bullet points and the occasional joke or personal anecdote that felt right. And I would get up there and work with what I had to give a well-crafted, thoughtful, persuasive speech (though it didn’t hurt that doing such thorough research also meant I was able to field questions on the fly very well, which I think enhanced the image of knowing what I was doing). Between sessions, my coach actually pulled me aside to say “I don’t know how exactly what you’re doing is working, but it is.” 

I ended up getting perfect scores on all of my primarily science-oriented speeches (though I think one of them was actually on humanitarian aid of some kind instead), nominated as a finalist, and was well-received enough that a lot of the chamber voted for me, landing me 4th place in the entire national qualifying tournament and the runner-up for Nationals.

My takeaway from the whole affair is that, had I decided to go into politics, I would be running on a platform of primarily science-based issues and mostly have success due to being a well-liked, intelligent public speaker -- and frankly, I’m a little annoyed there aren’t more candidates like that out there. How do I tell American politicians that said strategy actually works