The speech and debate champion

It was finally time for the national tournament. The competitors knew their material. However, during each debate, the competitors become flustered, and misconstrue pieces of evidence on purpose in a last ditch effort to get the judge to vote for their side. This is a disreputable tactic in Public Forum debate, but unless your opponent calls you on it, it works. This tactic is also endemic to presenting information as a whole, whether it be lobbyists to politicians, politicians to the people, lawyers to the judge, and debaters to a judge. When a debater misconstrues a piece of evidence, it is seen by the other side as obnoxious and they try to ask questions during crossfire that questions the integrity of the other debater. The only way to really reveal the opponent's lie is to ask a series of stark questions. These are potent because they fluster the opponent into saying something their side shouldn't advocate. This becomes a situation that not at all placid, and the debaters begin to sweat. In a conclusive speech, a debater can simply allude to the misconstruing of the evidence secure an exemplary victory. This is only one of the many struggles in the life of a debater.