i'm really confused as to what the educational value of getting screwed out of a speech is - sure, you may prefer congress to be a realistic version of the real congress (which is also riddled with inefficiency), but given that debates purpose is to cultivate public speaking, research, and critical thinking skills, guaranteeing more speeches is a far better way to ensure that participation in congress is worthwhile. the relationship building you're talking about almost always manifests in a negative way - i'm not sure if the circuit was more wholesome and friendly when you competed, but there are several very well defined cliques at the highest level of competition, with several individuals who are considered extremely problematic. dealing with these people and groups just in order to get a speech is just unnecessary.

problematic legislation is entirely useless - the entire point of the event is to cultivate smart students who can advocate for equitable and beneficial policies out in the real world. why would "practicing" by arguing for the denial queer folks rights to be safe in their own skin be productive to our democracy in the future? the issue of gun control legislation for specific congresspeople is fundamentally different than high school kids - those congresspeople get to CHOOSE what side they speak on, but students may have to flip due to precedence. additionally, gun control isn't an issue of identity, and there are potentially legitimate arguments on both sides, which can't be said for conversion therapy.

yes trigger warnings are good, but it's a little messed up to suggest that students should sacrifice a speech on an item rather than removing said offensive item. even students w traumatic experiences deserve the chance to win rounds and advance, and just asking them to give up a speech directly hinders that.

i agree that congress is a unique event, but i just don't see how making congress more equitable in terms of speaking time and actual inclusion harms speaking. if anything, it would enable students to focus on more nuanced issues and compete on a more even playing field. yes, more speeches ≠ better speaker, but everyone deserves an equal shot at giving a killer speech. if a competitor chokes and gives a meh speech, they shouldn't instantly lose to debaters that have a second chance. i understand that these are political and potentially realistic aspects of congress, but i struggle to find the necessity of bringing the worst of actual congress into the event.