Research, smoke and nukes

It's 11:46 on a Saturday morning and the debate team has been at work for two hours. Junior Will Cooney notes the time and calls for a lunch break. He asks debate coach Jeremy Christensen if he would like any goods smuggled from Saga, Inc.
Christensen says no.
Every day for the past two weeks, save Sundays, the debate team has been preparing for their showdown at the National Parliamentary Debate Association's national debate tournament in Lubbock, Texas starting March 18.
After a six-week absence from the debate world due to budget constraints, the preparation has been intense. Practice debate rounds have been added to research time.
Research time entails finding any articles focusing on national or international policy, finding both sides of the issue, the arguments supporting it and - more often than not - discovering how the issue will end in either nuclear Armageddon or the extinction of the human race.
The eight members of the elite traveling team began their final research push Friday evening for three hours.
"The problem is most of the things we end up debating are things that happened within the last two weeks," Christensen says.
Christensen began Friday's session with an outline of what needs to be done: cases on prisoner rights, Iran, net neutrality, immigrants, the Google-China power struggle, smart grids, cap and trade policies, banking regulations, filibusters and information on the impact of Diamond Creek, Idaho on rare metals. He doles out the responsibilities and retreats into his office to build cases. Soon, the room fills with the furious clicking of keyboards as each debater scans articles, magazines, government reports and videos in order to craft their cases. Coach said don't worry about quality; worry about quantity.
"Just get the cases done," Christensen says. Cooney finds an article on the eventual prevalence of nuclear weapons thanks in part to the political instability of Pakistan and the North Korean sale of a nuclear power plant to Syria in his issue of Foreign Affairs - a good impact for a round.
In his office Christensen records a case about China's monopoly on rare metals for an absent team member. He speaks in the fast and furious tone that's unique to the debate world - pausing only for quick gasp of breath.
"No-rare-metals-means-no-wind-and-hybrid-uses-costs-rise-parts-become-unavailable-and-of-those-materials-production-stops-therefore-'D'-are-the-impacts-warming-can-be-reversed...it-must-be-reached-before-2050-'two'-is-with-out-reaching-the-target-warming-effects-will-kill-millions-on-a-path-to-extinction..."
Christensen speaks this way for seven minutes straight.
The group stops only for the occasional smoke break - joking about how they've linked their information to a nuclear catastrophe. China is always good for a case.
Cooney says he had detailed how China has boosted its production of attack submarines putting the United States Navy, Taiwan and Japan at risk and putting the world at the brink of nuclear winter.
As freshman Ian Blodger says, "Nuclear good."
Senior Alexandria Carraher says nuclear conflict is always preferable to a conventional war in debate, thanks to its impact on the global population.
"And it's really easy to trigger," Cooney says. "At least in a debate round."
The group ends Saturday's workload with a game of rummy and details of past trips. They'll start filing on Monday in preparation for their flight to Houston, a luxury for the team. The team cackles over Christensen's stingy spending.
"We go to a conservative college; I'm fiscally conservative," Christensen said.
"I guess you can call it that," says Cooney. "What would you call it?" Christensen asks.
"Cheap," Blodger says.