It was to be at 6. When we arrived, they told us they would debate legalising prostitution. What followed was 2 hours of a fucking awesome debate, with mudslinging, personal attacks and basically all the elements a proper parliamentary debate should avoid at all costs. Who wouldn't have been attracted?!
One of the thematic clashes was "Masturbation and Toys versus Real Sex." There was also a lot of talk of the fugliest people easily being able to get some without too much effort. There were all sorts of perverted hand motions and expressions like "churning the butter" followed by "you know what I mean, right?" Like I said, a mindblowing-ly awesome debate. Hackneyed expression, yes. But there really is no other way to describe it.
So far we've debated things like "This House believes that incest is a fun game for the family" and "This House believes bestiality should be legalised." Unfortunately the Proposition lost for both of these. There was even "This House believes that Barbie should be a porn star." But the other two were too good to give up for this one.
The first time I went, I adjudicated. I wasn't too bad. The next day I spoke. It was addictive. I found myself wondering how the fuck I had sat there the previous day and listened to all the shit that the speakers came out with without entering the debate myself and telling them they were completely fucking it up and what they should have been saying instead. We won that day.
In case you were wondering, we were Opposition on "This House believes that extremist parties should be banned from contesting elections."
Unfortunately the next three I lost. I opped on "soldiers should be able to sue the government for negligence," propped on incest and debated one other motion I've now forgotten. Losing three consecutive debated has discouraged me a little. I have a major problem with matter and coming up with proper constructives and elaborating on them on the spot.
I've also decided never to be the prime minister. The one time I tried my speech lasted for a measly three minutes, instead of the required six minutes at least. Seven is even better. The problem is again the lack of sufficient matter. At least if you go later, you have stuff to rebut and that can take up half your time. But as the first speaker on the floor, I failed miserably.
I'd prolly be best as Deputy. Do a little bit of both, you see, rebuttals and constructives. I've always found I fit best somewhere in the middle. And not just in debates.
I can't be Whip either because the whip is supposed to completely demolish the other side's case and I can't be that rude or aggressive to people in a debate. In real life, yes. Face to face, totally. But in front of a lot of other people including a panel of adjudicators judging me, nope. Not really my forte.
Even though I've lost three consecutively and have problems with my content, PD'ing is a lot of fun. I don't see myself quitting anytime soon. I can only hope I get better with time. Until then, every weekday at 6 in the evening, I shall come up to the podium, try not to be intimidated by the seniors adjudicating me and debating with me, and do my best to convince them of whatever motion I happen to be proposing or opposing. More often than not, I have no fucking idea about the motion and my mouth becomes an independently functioning unit spewing out words that somehow manage to form coherent sentences when strung together. So the best I can do is bullshit my way into the adjudicator's pants. After all, that's what everything in life boils down to, right? Trying to bullshit your way into everyone else's pants.
Figuratively, of course.