Keeping Impromtu, Impromptu

I joined a speech and debate in my sophomore year. Fumbling through my first info, which was horrible, I felt completely lacking in my speaking skills as any new recruit would. I was incredibly unmotivated to continue in Forensics for that reason. My good friend told me to try Impromptu, stating “it is a great place for beginners! You do not have to memorize anything, the evidence can be whatever you want as long as its relevant, and you can focus on both your writing and speaking at the same time!” It sounded perfect, and the best part was everyone would be on an even playing field as we would all write our speeches on the spot.

I could not have been further from the truth.

My first tournament, I noticed people using the same evidence word for word in all their speeches. I do not mean just re-using a book or a movie, I mean the same moment from the same movie with the same explanation for why it was relevant. On top of this, I spoke to a few people who openly admitted to looking up and memorizing sources before their rounds. I turned to my friend while we were watching a final round, and I asked him “isn’t it crazy how they re-use everything?” and he said “what do you mean? Everyone does.” People were openly going into a limited prep event with sources and speeches. If everyone is supposed to have the same prep time, how was it fair that some people are doing this?

I struggled in my first few tournaments -- mostly due to a lack of developed skill -- but later in the season after I had grown as a speaker, I was still beaten by people using recycled speeches and prepared sources. I had made it to a semifinal round with a person I had gone against before; he used the same intro as well as 2 body pieces that he did in the previous round, he beat me and then went on to finals where he scored 3rd place. I watched the final round and once again he used the same intro and two bodies with little to no variations. Same intro, same jokes, same points, same pauses, even the same steps when transitioning to points, not the slightest variation in what he did. He made it to finals only having written 1 speech, I barely made it to semis having written 4.

Even later in the season at states, even more people did the same thing. One girl used the same quote from a book with the same explanation in all her rounds; how do I know? She bragged about it. Another person, who made it to finals, had been using sources found before the tournament. I still beat these people, winning the tournament, but a lot of people who bent these rules and abused this loophole still made it far.

But why does this matter? This is not against any rules, but it completely goes against the purpose of impromptu.

Impromptu, to me at least, is not only about creating and presenting a speech in a limited amount of time but also drawing upon your own knowledge to create it; making something new each time. I admit to re-using sources myself, but never do I re-use sections of previous speeches word for word. Creating something new each time allows for you to be able to quickly think on your feet and generate speeches or writing in the blink of an eye. Ever since starting impromptu, my ability to write quickly during timed essays has increased drastically. If I recycled my speeches, then I would not have developed the skills from it and would not be able to use them in other things such as the timed essays.

On top of this, impromptu is also spoken of as the perfect place for beginners. As previously said, there is no memorization, impromptu is very lenient in evidence, and everyone is on an even playing field as everyone is writing and presenting. However, if people are giving themselves unfair advantages by doing prep outside of the 7-minute period, it is not an even playing field and can be a brutal place for beginners. If the veterans of impromptu are performing at the level they are due to cheating (or “rule bending” but it really is just cheating in my opinion), then people new to impromptu will never reach the same level legitimately; reinforcing the re-using of material and searching for sources beforehand.

But no one cares about the skills.

Impromptu has become my main event, but to many others it is just there so they can double enter. They do not care about the skills you gain from doing impromptu legitimately. The point of doing this is to shortcut and get trophies and awards without doing the actual event. The issue is while this does hurt themselves as they do not get the skills, they hurt others who do the event fairly and can unmotivated competitors. Abusing the system is rewarded by better performances and higher placings; but to the people such as myself who do impromptu as a main event it is frustrating to be beaten out by someone who did not compete fairly. Putting in the work to create something different each time is honest and fair to everyone, but we are competing in a limited prep event against people who have done prep!

Solutions are hard to come by unfortunately.

It is almost impossible to stop people from getting sources in advance. The best way to combat it is to not let the themes of rounds be known in advance. This will make research significantly harder as they will not have a specific field to target, thus stopping them from gathering sources for each theme. Stopping preparation in the limited prep event will keep the playing field even, making impromptu about skill and not who can be  sneaky with prep before the round.

Alternatively, it is much easier to stop use of pre-written speeches. By simply providing the competitors with paper and not allowing anything on the desk except a sheet of paper and pencil when writing, the recycling of old material can be circumvented.

Change can come with rule and policy change too. If we stop allowing these competitors to do it, then they will not continue to. Teaching future impromptuers to be original and scolding others when they are not can lead to a change in our common view. If we all view the act as wrong, it will become frowned upon.

Finally, requiring submission of sources and speeches. This is the most radical change, but would entirely stop the issue. If sources are submitted, and every submission is the same, then those who re-use sources are weeded out and can be DQed. The punishment would only happen when the same piece of evidence or the same quote is used again, but not the same subject. That way people can be creative and use the same source in different ways, but no re-use the same points. The same can be done with speeches, and the same punishment can result. This will lead to those who truly do care and do the work to get better placement over those who do not.

So please, let's play fair and keep impromptu, impromptu.