Fake It till You Make It

“All-analysis-is-contrary-to-its-own-intent-and-the-affirmative’s-presentation-of-the-1ac-has-made-their-advocacy-even-less-convincing.-Every-additional-thousand-page-paper-scientists-publish-to-convince-us-that-climate-change-is-real-is-just-indicative-of-their-own-insecurities,-and-thus-becoming-even-less-persuasive.”

This is a real-time transcription of one of my most recent debate speeches—a passionate spew at 350 words-per-minute on a post-modern philosopher. Discussing Jean Baudrillard’s critiques of information sharing is not really what one expects from “policy” debate, but the range of argumentative styles in debate is astonishing.

From straightforward discussions of the spending deficit and zero-sum international alliances, to critical race theory and post-modernist critiques of a policy’s representations, debate has pushed me into the rabbit hole of cost-benefit analysis. Do I determine the value of a policy by the economic growth it triggers or by its ethical implications?

If anything, the different outcomes of two debates having the exact same discussion have only confirmed that no real-world decision has just one right answer. Not only has extensive research educated me in various perspectives, it’s also compelled me to reconcile ideological differences and integrate ideas together. Part of my desire for pragmatism is considering the usefulness of knowledge. Even if Baudrillard is correct in his criticisms of information overload, does he present a solution? But above all, the most important aspect of my intellectual growth has been developing the mental resiliency demanded from such a high-risk, high-reward activity.

They say to “fake it ‘till you make it,” but my personal motto is to “be confident, but humble.” It’s a delicate balance—cockiness can destroy you in an activity based on perception, but if you lose the game in your head, it’s over before the debate has even begun.