Stepping into Cypress Creek High School before Spring Break this year will surely prove to be a dangerous venture. From March 6-8, 2014, approximately 130 debate teams will swarm the school that is just minutes from Houston, to compete in the annual TFA State Debate Tournament. These teams, needing to obtain twelve qualifying points during their seasons to earn a position in the tournament, represent some of the best in the state and in the country.
Jesuit captured the state championship recently in 2010 and 2012 with the likes of two teams. The teams of Jackson Pyke ’14 – James Ferrara ’14 and Brice Tsao ’14 – Adam Wiechman ’15 have already accumulated enough points to earn a trip this year which gives them an opportunity to reclaim the crown. And while teams travel across the country, from coast-to-coast, throughout the year, this tournament functions as the pinnacle of a debater’s year as he spars for the right to be called the best in the state of Texas.
Teams earn points by competing in qualifying tournaments throughout the year. Generally, for a standard-sized tournament, normally running from around sixteen to fifty teams, a team acquires eight points for a victory, six for second-place, four for third-place, and two for fifth-place. Qualifying for the state tournament represents an especially demanding task in Texas, according to Mr. Lingel, one of the two debate coaches, “because of the size of the state and the number of schools that have debate [programs].” The tournament also includes both public and private schools and is, unlike some other states, “not divided by class,” says Dr. McFarland, the second debate coach.
“Texas is special in that it is probably the hardest ‘debate state’ in the country,” says Wiechman, who qualified with his partner Tsao at the Arlington Invitational this past weekend. “Every year, there are a number of teams that are nationally competitive.” Due to the strength of his competition, he and Brice began the season with only two points and “were really worried about being able to qualify as quickly as [they] had hoped.” However, the duo reached the finals at the Hockaday Invitational, which instantly garnered them six additional qualifying points, underscoring the importance of each tournament. He emphasizes the importance of “approaching every debate one debate at a time,” advice from Dr. McFarland.
Emilio Lopez ’15 parallels this idea of focusing on the present debate by “making it a goal to do well in every debate at every tournament.” Even in the absence of state-qualifying points, each tournament offers the energy and satisfaction from a victory, “which drives [he and his partner] to strive for repeating that feeling.”
“Winning is a great feeling. Victory prompts us to work harder to try to win more debates, which are necessary to entering the elimination rounds,” commented a hopeful Lopez.
But even losing can provide an impetus for the future by prompting the team to modify its strategy as stated by Lopez: “Part of the process of winning is the inevitable loss. However, losses are only inevitable if you let them be. If you lose on the same argument more than once, you need to change your approach to that argument or you need to get answers to their argument. Qualification for state tournament requires that one learns new strategies and modifies their current strategy. This allows you to stay nearly unbeatable if you dedicate yourself to this activity. That is how you get qualified for state, dedicating yourself to improving yourself allows you to win more.”
Early qualification affords a team the opportunity to “travel more,” competing in more inter-state tournaments that would not offer state qualifying points. Wiechman identifies this as “one of [his] major goals.” While he and Tsao have already ensured a position in the state tournament this year, he and his partner last year “didn’t finish the qualifying process until late January,” only a few weeks before the cut-off in mid-February.
However, while important, state qualification does not represent the solitary goal; rather, Dr. McFarland prefers to evaluate the quality of a season holistically, considering local, regional, and national tournaments as well as the grade level of the team.
Freshmen cannot earn state-qualifying points since they compete in a different division. Sophomore qualifications are not common either. Due to the lack of a junior-varsity division, a common stepping stone in other sports, a sophomore moves from debating against other freshmen to possibly “[debating] a senior in the first round of the year” in the varsity division, an onerous task for a student with only one year of high-school under his belt.
So while sophomores still aim to qualify, Dr. McFarland also emphasizes that sophomores focus on “getting better and learning from each debate to be better situated for their junior and senior years. Teams,” including those comprised of sophomores, “may also earn trips to national tournaments, such as the one in Atlanta “that our second year debaters strive for – so there are definitely other goals.”
Yet, nothing can replace the feeling of hoisting that trophy high above one’s head. As Trent McRae ’15 succinctly puts it, “the ultimate goal always has been, and always will be, winning the ultimate prize: first-place at state.”
