This was going to be a very special round for me. For the very first time, we ended up getting placed on Opp against Concordia GE, a team featuring my former high school debate partner. So you can imagine my disdain and outright horror when, after prepping four disadvantages about labor unions, my former partner, the person who I learned everything about both debate and politics with, came up and interpreted the resolution to be about Taylor Swift.
Specifically, the plan was for Taylor Swift to “dissolve her union” with bad relationships. Breaking yet another Minnesota Parli taboo, Kevin and I ran topicality along with three disadvantages. We said that you don’t have a union with a trend, in the same way that you would never say I have a union with Mountain Dew just because I drink it frequently. We also claimed, that contrary to GE’s assertions, Taylor Swift would learn nothing about relationships by just being single for a year or two and that not having sad break ups would deny Ms. Swift her muse, thus rendering her a meaningless artist and causing an identity crisis.
Once again defying our preconceptions about Minnesota Parli, Kevin and I won on a 3-0 decision with two of the three judges citing topicality in their RFD. We felt slightly vindicated after struggling through such a strange round.