I totally agree with temperance. I was a cross-X debater from 1998-2001 (although I didn't compete nationally). I share the same memories of Clinton disads and recognize our ambassador to Afghanistan as the author of "The Khalilzad Heg Good Card." I had three tubs full of expando files that I carried around plenty of campuses on an old dolly. I still can't stop flipping my pen.

The Washington State circuit of the time wasn't "radically libertarian" the way the circuit of a previous poster was. There was some of that, but ultra-left postmodernism was a lot more prominent. It was quite possible to win rounds using "queer theory" arguments. I won some rounds with a normativity affirmative, to give any current or former debaters an idea what the circuit was like about 5 years ago.

Impromptu speaking and the sorts of events described in the article also didn't get a lot of respect, although the circuit did have a lot of Lincoln-Douglas. "Individual Events" were something your coach made you do, not something important.

I was a "spread debater," and it was very annoying having judges with the attitude of Anonymous. Being able to speak clearly at such a high rate is a skill. We all spent lots of time in our bedrooms reading really fast with pens in our mouhs so that we learned to articulate. I am still able to take notes faster than most people, due to my experience debating in this way. A specialized debate vocabulary evolved to facilitate taking notes ("flowing") while people are speaking that quickly, and it is even possible to do a "stand up 1AR." In a good round of "spread debate," arguments don't get "dropped" and everything is argued in detail.

Although I'm not currently doing anything policy-related with my life, debate has helped me tremendously with my paper-writing skills.

As a long time competitor in the hyperelite Texas Forensics Association and current debate coach in UIL, I can see the rounds described...I remember one memorable putdown regarding an ancestor that came up during a CX round. It involved one debater-Mr. Cullen, directed to Mr McCullough. During the CX, Cullen says nothing for 2 minutes. Everyone waits with bated breath. Then, Cullen asks about McCullough's ancestry..."You're Scottish, right?" Yes... "Your ancestors came through Ellis Island, right?" Yeah.... "And Cullough was often Anglecized, right?" Yes. "And the prefix Mc means 'son of'?" Yes, but I don't see where this is going.... "Well, if Cullen is the anglicized Cullough, and Mc is 'son of', then I have to ask you-who's your daddy?"

When I saw a picture of a young woman at the top of Mark Oppenheimer's piece, I was pleased at the thought of learning more about her and her fellow debaters at the championships.

Imagine my surprise, then, when I saw only one girl specifically mentioned in the article (and then only her name and appearance), and only boys quoted.

If I were a debater, this would look very much like a great set-up for a piece of oratory on sexism. I wonder how the girl in the picture feels about the fact that her face was good enough for the article, but her words weren't.

As this year’s World Individual Debating and Public Speaking Champion, as well as the “…fop with the Windsor-knot tie and the super-starched cuffs…” readers should note that Mr. Oppenheimer’s take a great deal of creative license with this article and does not capture the essence of the tournament. More importantly, none of us competitors spoke to Mr. Oppenheimer knowing that our remarks (whether Kiran Dhillon’s, Andrew Rusk’s or the description of Steven Kryger) would be employed to caricature us in the manner he has.

Furthermore, Mr. Oppenheimer’s concerns over the tournament, whether they be about the lack of spontaneity in speaking or offense are misplaced. He regrets to note that two categories (interpretive reading and persuasive speaking) are designed to be prepared before the tournament and the other two (impromptu speaking and parliamentary debate) are designed to be more (as he would say) “off-the-cuff”. Competitors do well when they follow the descriptions given to them for their categories.

As to his second concern, this “surfeit of decency” occurring, I think this stems more from his own biases then the tournament itself. He may find that the “best of high school debate” is “not so much profundity as a profound sense of fun”, but it’s a mix of both that makes tournaments like these interesting to those who attend. In fact, Mr. Oppenheimer fails to explore in detail (the way he does with Eric Levitz’ brilliant after-dinner speech) the more serious persuasive speeches and parliamentary debate rounds at the tournament. In these contexts, the civility you decry is necessary when dealing with serious topics like genocide; it’s not all a joke or a game.

First of all, in response to "Eva"'s comment about the woman in the pictue- I am she. And I think that a man who can declare at the beginning of a piece about a debate tournament after he is been out of the debate circle for ten years, that he was expecting two people he had never seen to sweep the tournament demonstrates a gross misunderstanding about the purpose and nature of the World's. Debating may be a tough competition, but at the World's level, fortune plays as much of a role as talent and experience. Not to mention, although we are all competing for the top spot, the true spirit of World's is comraderie, cultural understanding and friendship. To have written a two page article focusing on derogatory and false comments about our ability to speak without preperation, and what people were wearing, and not once to mention the relationships built, friends made, and the fun had, is an affront to debating and in particular the World's, at which we all made such close connections and were treated to fabulous "after-hours" events, and where we have shared an experience that will last a lifetime.

Oh yes... and if you are going to use my picture, at least have the decency to know my name. Even at the World's, we are not defined nor indentified by our nationality, but our individuality.