I know, but this wasn't the case

my tactic was to get him emotionally flustered on his stance, which he vehemently believed in, and argue logical arguments regardless of their logical context to his stance.

it wasn't a debate class. the debates were merely a vessel to convey the logical process. we took time to dissect each of the arguments, which were written before hand and shared with the class. just as the "debate" took place. the rules were pretty simple

• teams were identified early, so you knew who you were debating
• topics were identified at the same time.
• write as many arguments("ammo") as you can think of on one sheet of paper(front and back)
• use one class period to work through the logical arguments to ensure they are logically sound, can use the aid of the teacher
• you can only use your "ammo" and cannot deviate from it or make new ones up on the spot
• if you run out of "ammo" or cannot use the "ammo" you have you must concede

so before the debate I already knew the topic and person I was going against. I already profiled him and knew if I overwhelmed him there was no way I'd lose. my arguments weren't factually backed, but logically sound. I don't know how many arguments I wrote, but it was probably at least 50. all with varying degrees of potential that could be used against anything he could throw at me. god, Jesus, Satan, whores, sluts, incest, rape. all of it was there.

he brought a knife to a gun fight and I beat the shit out of him with a baseball bat.

the teacher actually approached me after the semester and commented that I seemed to have a deep understanding of logical thought and I should probably pursue a career in software or become a paralegal. it was his last semester teaching there and I'd like to think I made it memorable 😅. it still is one of my favorite classes in college. a close second and third were my classes in psychology and sociology.

98th percentile which should mean 130 but tests differ so who knows really