Thou Shall Not Play

25 October 2013Jackson H

A debate of epic proportions took place this week. The two tag teams threw statistics hard enough to break bogus points; they flung allusions followed by a quick series of un-rebuttable arguments, cracking the opponent’s contention. The whole time, the four were transformed into debating heavyweights enticed by the glory of basking in debating superiority, and the ultimate prize, a probably-from-Costco key lime pie provided by the debate master himself, Mr. Neil Bryant. BIRT Canadian athletes should not compete in the 2014 Sochi Olympics. Round #1 (1st Affirmative): “Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee” quipped Muhammad Ali. Fischer W did just that. Enlightening, confident, loud, and surprisingly insightful he was. His words danced around the room, persuading the audience and circling the opponents, bombarding not only their hopes and dreams, but also their speeches. For eight minutes, he relentlessly pounded away at his opponents; the effects were detrimental to their intellectual health. Round #2 (1st Defendant): As strong as Woodbridge’s argument was, Tyler P, a worthy opponent, magnified its flaws. His speech brought forward both perspectives, and for a confident eight minutes, Tyler mustered energy and logic to present a fortified prolepsis: his idiolect still littered with specificity and intelligence. Tactically, Tyler punched apertures in the affirmative’s argument. Round #3 (2nd Affirmative): Chantei M furthered her partner’s points beautifully, not missing a beat while Fischer clapped unapologetically as the opposition sat lower and lower in their seats. Chantei’s voice boomed powerfully, her presence strong as she heartlessly knocked her opponents, blow after blow, into defeat. Round #4 (2nd Defendant): The battle was far from over as Cameron W stood, the hopes of his team rising with him, as this was the final chance to bring new information into the debate. He was new, yet skilled. He was shaky, yet heard; he was indubitably the brains of the opposition team — he was what they needed. His inexperience worked in his favor, as the opponents were painfully sucker-punched with every soig?e rebuttal that spewed out of his mouth, singeing any of Fischer’s remaining butterflies. Round #5 (Defendant’s summary): Without a moment’s hesitation, Tyler tagged out Cameron to maintain their team’s growing momentum. Short, and concise he was. He never repeated the same point and he never needed too, as his argument was clear and his expectations of victory clearer. Round #6 (Affirmative’s summary): Short, and concise, Fischer was not. Consumed by his debating alter ego, he was fully transformed at the end of his speech from a frivolous jock to a politician, debating like it was his destiny. Was it enough? The judges were torn between the two teams. The audience, seeming to know the answer, were engaged to the point where an interjection to finish the verdict and announce the victors loomed inevitable. Slowly, the words “Fischer and Chantei” drawled off of the judge’s tongues. The heavyweight belt of the Brentwood debate team, now metaphorically cinching the pants of both Fischer and Chantei, was won by the team with the most grit and the hardest punch. Such is life on the front lines of Brentwood’s Debate and Model UN program, home to more than 50 students on Monday, Wednesday and Friday afternoons. The challenge awaits the fit and the few who take up its siren call! Jackson H, Privett ‘15

Where Students Choose To Be