For the past few months I've been preparing an Original Oratory to take to a debate tournament. A Original Oratory is an up to ten minute persuasive speech that is memorized by the author. This isn't really so big a deal, however I managed to be funny in it, actually, more than just funny, hilarious... but apparently only to those who understand it.

So yesterday I was signed up to perform, seventh in a room of seven, I was thinking, "Awesome, I can see everyone else's so I'll know if I need to step up my game."
Let's review this room:
First we have a girl preaching about how worrying will kill us all and we just need to pray.
Second a kid in the foster care system preaching about how everyone looks down on the foster kid.
Third, a very funny one about awkward moments, how to cause them, how to avoid causing them, etc.
Fourth, a kid who got so excited he couldn't keep his sentence words in order talking about conspiracy theories and what really happened on 9-11... yeah...
Fifth, a performance about how the English language is diminishing and the PC people of the world (called bunnies) need to be fed!
Sixth, a girl with no designated topic or speaking method, however she did mention self-esteem twice... and then said, "Okay, I think I'm done I'll go sit down now."
And lastly, me. My OO was over confusion: how one can benefit from using it and avoid being trapped by it.

Three people from that room got to advance to the finals, and in perfect honesty, the three that deserved it were Awkward Moments, Depleted Words, and my own. This is not simply because they were the only funny ones, though they were, but in speaking the only three that weren't filled with long memory pauses, stammering, stuttering, "uh's", and repeated sentences that got out of order. They were also the only three that really covered the entire spectrum of their topic and delved into more than just the superficial thoughts on the matter.

Now, who did advance? Well, the English language one did, awesome. Who else? Ms. Topic-less. (At that point I'm very confused), and the preachy worry-wart girl.

Well I'm okay with not advancing, that's not really a problem to me, I just want to know how to improve it because there's another tourney in a couple of weeks. Well that's what the ballot is for, so I get mine and read it over. He ranked me LAST... and this was the reason: You wrote it too good and so it sucked cause you made it confusing.

That's right, my OO on CONFUSION was essentially dismissed for being CONFUSING and written "too good".

I don't mind not winning, but WHAT THE HELL KIND OF ASSESSMENT IS THAT!? I don't think I want to compete in a world where one is chastised for being able to write. Turns out, I'm not alone.

The guy giving the speech over the English language is a guy I love to debate, and I had actually seen him perform it before... although the first time his writing was pretty clean, and the second time he'd dumbed it down. Well he saw my ballot, too, and he told me that's the exact same thing he'd gotten on his at the last tournament, so he'd made it more 'room friendly'. Then he told me not to. Turns out he couldn't win it because he couldn't perform it in the new one more than once, it made him sick. Frankly, I can see why.

Our judges have to be high school graduates with at least 150 points in the NFL (National Forensics League), that is the requirement. It's not ridiculous to think that said judges would have a basic grasp on the English language... but apparently, we, him and I, I mean, ask too much.

What is wrong with the world when the quality of your work doesn't matter--or quantity, seeing as all but two of the speeches given were only six minutes, and the other two were nine and a half--as much your ability to show that you don't like yourself?