some of the most important lessons i’ve learnt during my years as a debater:
no matter how your teammate screws up, you go up on that podium, support that point and try to convince the adudicators that he is the best damn prime minister they’ve ever seen.
it is not important for debate partners to be bosom buddies. even if you hate the crap out of your partner, when you enter a debate together, you are expected to work together [refer to no.1].
shag buddies do not necessarily make the best debate partners. mortal enemies do not necessarily make the worst debate partners.
all of the above lessons have to do with teamwork. all of the above lessons i learnt the hard way.
i have has to stand up for first or second or even third speakers [in the reply speech] who just blows his load off course and completely throws the whole team’s argument line in a different direction. but i have also had people standing up for me when i make that wee sorta error.
i have had partners, especially in british parliamentary debates, whose company i completely loath but by some tea leaf reading and lucid dreams, coach thought that we would work frighteningly well together. and yes, i have lost good friends because tho we got along ust fine in class and things, but we just couldn’t gel together as a team.
i guess what i am trying to say is that picking who is to be on a team is important, not just in debates, but also in real life. sometimes we have the luxury of picking who be in our team. sometimes we are allowed the luxury of liking who is in the team.
but always, always, we support who we end up with on a team. professionaly first. personally, if ever, second.
it is when some people cannot tell the difference between professional arguments and personal arguments that pisses me off.
such is the debate of life.