The James Rivera Effect a quiet tension that follows when someone walks into a room carrying not arrogance, but precision.
After his demolition of Evan Lin in Round One, James had become something of a local celebrity.
Professors whispered.
Students stared.
Even the moderator from yesterday greeted him with a half-salute.
"Broke the leaderboard," Professor Franklin muttered beside him as they strode into the venue the next morning, coffees in hand.
"Just keeping the curve honest," James replied with a smirk, adjusting the straps on his backpack.
ROUND TWO
His opponent was Jacob Weller, a lean, fidgety guy from Monroe Regional University.
His tie was crooked, and he looked like he'd been up all night either cramming or Googling "how to sound smart in a debate."
"Hey," Jacob said, extending a clammy hand. "You're the Midbridge guy?"
James shook it. "James Rivera. You must be Jacob."
"Right. Cool. Uh, good luck."
"To both of us," James said. Though only one of them would need it.
The motion was revealed on the screen.
"This house believes that economic sanctions are an effective tool of foreign policy."
James drew Pro.
Jacob paled.
James strolled to the podium like a man stepping into his kitchen.
"Economic sanctions," he began, "are like diet plans. When used correctly, they're measured, effective, and can lead to long-term change. When misused, you just end up hungry and angry."
A few chuckles rolled through the room.
"Let's be clear economic sanctions are not about instant gratification. They're about leverage. Strategic, deliberate, non-violent leverage. Iran's nuclear negotiations post-2015? Sanctions were the door-knockers. Russia's ruble crash post-Crimea? Economic pressure at work."
He clicked open an imaginary file in his system.
"The IMF, World Bank, and Brookings all agree: multilateral sanctions have measurable economic impact. 2018 data from Brookings shows sanctioned regimes see an average GDP contraction of 3.2% in the first year. That's not theoretical. That's applied pressure."
He grinned. "And last I checked, diplomacy without tools is just wishful thinking."
Jacob approached the podium, blinking too often.
"Sanctions... uh... they hurt people. Civilians more than governments. It's like trying to stop a CEO with a fire that only burns the interns."
James scribbled something and leaned back, smiling.
Jacob continued, "In countries like Venezuela, sanctions led to inflation, food shortages... humanitarian crises. And did they change leadership? No."
Respectable angle.
James returned to the mic.
"Jacob's right. Sanctions can cause pain. But here's where the nuance matters: not all sanctions are equal. Comprehensive sanctions like the ones on Venezuela? Blunt instruments. But targeted sanctions freezing assets, limiting financial transfers, trade embargoes on elites? Those strike where it matters."
He paced slowly.
"You mentioned Venezuela. Let's expand. What led to the food shortages? Mismanagement, corruption, price controls. Sanctions accelerated it, but didn't initiate it. That's like blaming the doctor for the symptoms while ignoring the disease."
He grinned.
"Also, you can't cherry-pick failure cases and ignore success stories. Iran's nuclear rollback? Sanctions. Myanmar's political shift in 2011? Sanctions plus diplomacy."
Jacob tried a bold card.
"Sanctions don't change behavior. They harden resolve. North Korea's been sanctioned for decades. Still firing missiles."
James tilted his head.
"North Korea is the outlier, not the norm. It's a regime built on isolation. Sanctions there are containment tools, not conversion tools. Different goal, different outcome."
He pulled up a new reference.
"Also, Pew's 2020 analysis showed 67% of international relations scholars believe sanctions are more ethical than preemptive military action. So your alternative is...?"
Jacob blinked. "Diplomacy."
James snapped his fingers. "And sanctions are diplomacy. With teeth."
The judges scribbled rapidly.
The audience murmured.
Jacob had no rebuttal.
Final score: James 93, Jacob 74.
ROUND THREE
Opponent.
Tanya Brooks.
Delmar College.
Glasses.
Timid.
Passionate but visibly nervous.
"Hi," she said, clutching her folder. "I... saw your last round. You were, um, scary."
James smiled. "Only in the service of truth."
Motion: "This house believes that social media platforms should be legally responsible for content moderation."
Tanya drew Pro.
James drew Con.
Tanya opened strong.
"Misinformation has real consequences. From anti-vax movements to election interference. If platforms aren't held accountable, who will be?"
She cited Facebook's 2018 breach, Twitter's disinformation crisis, and algorithms designed to maximize outrage.
"Companies profit off division. That can't go unchecked."
James stood.
He looked calm.
Dangerously so.
"Ladies and gentlemen, deputizing Silicon Valley to police speech is like asking a vending machine to decide your diet. Sure, it might get a few things right, but eventually, you're eating Skittles for breakfast."
Laughter.
"Legal responsibility means legal liability. And that means overcorrection. Platforms will shut down anything remotely controversial. AI can't tell the difference between sarcasm and sedition."
He leaned forward.
"You think you're solving disinformation. But you're building a system where memes get flagged, dissent gets filtered, and satire becomes contraband."
He flashed a meme on the overhead.
"This got someone banned. Know why? AI thought it was promoting violence. It was a SpongeBob joke."
Judges laughed.
Tanya shot back. "We have to do something! Letting platforms run wild has led to chaos."
James nodded. "And what you're proposing is swapping chaos for censorship."
He pulled up Section 230.
"This is the backbone of online expression. Without it, Reddit can't host AMAs, YouTube collapses under liability, and every tweet becomes a lawsuit."
Tanya stammered. "But don't companies want regulation?"
James grinned. "No. They want monopoly. Regulation is their tool to choke out competitors who can't afford compliance. Big Tech will survive. Startups won't."
He leaned in.
"This isn't about safety. It's about power."
Thunderous applause.
Closing remarks were brief.
Tanya recited policy suggestions.
James closed with a line that dropped jaws.
"In trying to silence lies, be careful you don't kill the truth with it."
Final score: James 95, Tanya 68.
Backstage, Franklin handed him a protein bar.
"Three for three."
James ripped it open.
"Still hungry."
"James..."
He finished chewing.
"I want five out of five."
She smiled. "Then go get them."
He nodded, eyes gleaming.
Two more to go.
And he was just getting warmed up.