Aspire, Adapt, Achieve
TFA State. For many of us, those words bring a mixture of emotions- nostalgia, excitement, and a tiny dash of nerves. I look back on TFA as one of my happiest debate memories, as well as a moment that solidified my debate career.
That’s the big picture, at least. Now, I’m going to do something that’s a huge no-no in WSD, and get into the technical. If you search up my team’s record at the tournament, you’ll see a 6-0 prelim streak, but you may also notice one consistent thing- my name in every single round, with a point value attached. The reason for this isn’t because my team consisted of only 3 people or that I demanded to debate every time; instead, it was because I was the only one able to do the second and reply speeches. That was my identity, my trademark, and role within the team. Typically, this would be fine, but the larger problem was this- no one else on my team would do it. Everyone was set in their own positions, and that was the strict routine we followed.
Now, I’m not here to argue that if you’re good at a position, you shouldn’t do it. Rather, I believe in order to become better-skilled debaters, we must cultivate a culture in which a team member is able to do multiple roles. For example, a second speaker can most likely give a good Opposition first speech, because of the rebuttal element in both speeches.
The problem with rigid roles is that it limits growth, both individually and as a team. In my case, my former team had a set lineup, but we never explored the possibility of being flexible and taking on different positions. If we had, we could’ve put our true “best lineup” rather than sticking to our comfort zone (or what we were used to). Not only could this have improved our performance, but it also would have helped us build essential skills and made us better debaters overall.
To some, team versatility goes against the common phrase “better safe than sorry.” But in debate—especially in WSD—playing it too safe can backfire. When every speaker locks themselves into one role, the team becomes predictable and worse, vulnerable. I’ve found that the most resilient debaters are the ones who embrace versatility. Being able to switch roles isn’t just a strategic advantage; it builds trust and respect between teammates. For example, on my current team, whenever I go in as a first or third speaker, I have a greater appreciation for what they do, and it also provides a way for all of us to learn and adapt from one another.
Flexibility creates a stronger, more cohesive unit—one that isn’t dependent on any one person. It also fosters a mindset that encourages growth, because you’re not just stuck doing what you’re good at; you’re constantly challenging yourself to become better, to step out of your comfort zone, and to develop new skills. This is not always easy- it requires a willingness to make mistakes, face discomfort, and sometimes take a step back from roles you’re attached to. But true mastery lies in embracing the whole process, knowing that each position has something valuable to teach you.
My experiences have taught me that versatility unlocks potential: it allows us to face challenges head-on. It builds resilience, which is necessary—because in debate, the only constant is change. Those who can adapt will always come out stronger.
