The debate hall at the University of Southern California was full with anticipation.
Students from across the country filled the rows of seats, whispers and conjectures flying like sparks.
Phones were stashed, water bottles clutched like lifelines, and somewhere in the crowd, a kid was deep-breathing into a stress ball.
James Rivera stood near the prep room, arms crossed, eyes relaxed.
To anyone watching, he looked like he belonged.
Not in a try-hard, overdressed, blazer-too-tight kind of way.
Just... calm.
The kind of calm a chess grandmaster has before facing an eager prodigy who hasn't yet learned how brutal a bishop can be.
His opponent entered the room.
Evan Lin, a lean, sharp-eyed Chinese-American student from Cascade Polytechnic.
James had read about him the night before.
Evan was known in the circuit. National Youth Debate Finalist.
SAT verbal section?
Perfect score.
They nodded at each other.
"James Rivera, right?"
"That's me. You're Evan Lin?"
"Let's have a good round."
"Always," James replied, offering a half-grin. "But I plan on walking out of here smiling wider."
Minutes later, they stood on the stage.
A moderator at the center podium held up a card.
"Motion for Round One: 'This house believes that global nationalism does more harm than good to international diplomacy.'"
James was assigned the Pro side.
He smiled.
Fifteen minutes of prep.
For James, it was more like fifteen minutes of strategic nerfing.
He already had tabs in his mind's eye courtesy of the KHCS System opening like slick folders.
History of nationalism
Case studies: India, US, Brazil
UN council voting trends
Trump-era diplomacy shifts
Theoretical basis: Hobbes, Rousseau, Benedict Anderson
Critiques and counter-arguments
He didn't need all of it.
He just needed the right timing.
The moderator stepped back, lifted a hand.
"Round One begins now. Opening statement: Pro side. James Rivera."
James walked to the podium with the casual gait of someone strolling into a bookstore.
"Good afternoon, judges, fellow debaters, and anyone out there still wondering if nationalism is the answer to their country's problems. Spoiler alert It's not."
A soft ripple of laughter.
"Nationalism, in its modern aggressive form, prioritizes sovereignty and identity over cooperation and global dialogue. It is no longer about cultural pride it has morphed into policy justification for diplomatic breakdown."
He paused.
"Let's talk about the Paris Agreement. Nationalist agendas in countries like the U.S. led to withdrawals under the guise of sovereignty. Or the Brexit decision, where British nationalism trumped decades of cooperative EU diplomacy. What do both have in common? Nationalist rhetoric that appealed to internal fear, not global collaboration."
He clicked an imaginary remote in his mind. A memory tab popped open.
"A 2021 Brookings Institute paper found that countries leaning heavily into nationalist platforms were 38% more likely to delay or avoid multilateral agreements. This isn't speculative. This is empirical."
He stepped back. "Thank you."
Evan approached the podium with confidence.
"Nationalism," he began, "is not inherently harmful. In fact, it provides the cultural coherence necessary for strong international representation. A nation that understands its identity is more capable of navigating global politics."
James nodded slightly.
Fair.
"South Korea's nationalist rise in the late 1990s helped drive domestic unity and economic reform. Today, it stands strong diplomatically because it first understood itself."
He outlined additional examples Poland, post-WWII Israel carefully cherry-picked, but compelling.
"It is not nationalism that harms diplomacy," Evan concluded. "It is poor leadership using nationalism as a scapegoat."
Rebuttals began.
James returned to the mic.
"Thank you, Evan. Strong examples. But let's break them down. South Korea's rise? Built on economic policy, yes. But their international diplomacy didn't spike until they embraced soft power K-pop, cultural exports, global outreach. That's not nationalism. That's globalization."
A murmur ran through the judges.
"Poland? Sure. But their recent nationalist government has been censured by the EU for media suppression. Nationalism's short-term unifying appeal often creates long-term diplomatic friction."
Evan pushed back. "But unity is essential. Without internal cohesion, a country can't even approach diplomacy."
James tilted his head.
"Internal cohesion built on exclusion is not cohesion. It's tribalism. And tribalism is diplomacy's kryptonite."
Applause.
Evan, not backing down, brought up Xi Jinping's foreign policy and how China had managed to exert strong global presence while maintaining nationalist core.
James pounced.
"Excellent. But again, nationalism isn't the lever economic dependency and Belt-and-Road soft diplomacy are. Besides, China's aggression in the South China Sea has caused major regional instability. That's nationalist policy leading to diplomatic harm."
He paused.
"Also, quoting from The Diplomat, May 2022: 'Beijing's nationalist tone in state media correlates directly with downturns in ASEAN cooperation.'"
Evan tried to cut in. "Correlation doesn't mean causation."
James smiled. "True. Which is why I also bring you the Pew Research Center's 2020 data: nations with rising nationalist platforms also showed the highest citizen distrust in global institutions. Causation? No. Trendline? Absolutely."
Evan made a bold point.
"Nationalism allows for self-defense in diplomatic settings. Without it, smaller states bend to larger powers."
James didn't flinch. "So does strategic alignment and coalition-building. You want an example? Look at the Nordic countries. They thrive diplomatically through transparency, economic cooperation, and joint policy not rabid nationalism."
More claps.
Evan leaned in. "Then what about Ukraine?"
James turned to him slowly.
"Exactly. Ukraine is fighting for sovereignty not nationalism. They're embracing democratic ideals and EU integration. They're waving the flag of international cooperation while defending national territory. The distinction matters."
Evan faltered.
James, sensing it, pressed in.
"This is an academic debate. We are not here to toss half-defined buzzwords. You said nationalism leads to strength. I say: strength built on division leads to isolation. Diplomacy demands bridges, not walls."
He took a deep breath.
"So let's call it what it is. Nationalism, in its 21st-century expression, has become a tool for populists to insulate rather than collaborate. It does more harm than good."
Thunderous applause.
Evan's closing statement was passionate, but shaky.
He referenced more theorists tried to salvage with a quote from George Kennan, something about containment requiring identity.
James rebutted.
"Kennan also warned about short-sighted patriotism being mistaken for strategy. You can't pick the line that suits your point and skip the context."
The audience erupted.
After it was over, the judges conferred.
James stepped down from the podium.
He caught Evan's eye and nodded respectfully.
"That was a fight," he said.
Evan sighed. "You're dangerous."
"I'm just fluent in academic nonsense."
Professor Franklin waited at the side.
"How do you feel?"
James looked out over the crowd.
"Like I just turned my student loan debt into a weapon."
He grinned.
The scoreboard updated minutes later.
James Rivera: 96/100.
Highest of the day.
Let the massacre continue.