sundance95 wrote:Yes, all this possible, but incredibly unlikely, as you state. Your argument works equally well for any college activity. (You did mock trial? Many lawyers did mock trial! Perhaps you should network with attorneys who also did mock trial! You played football in college? Very few people compete on the level at which you excelled at football! This sort of intense competition often builds a strong connection to the activity! etc. etc.)
Sometimes, it's better just to admit that you spoke too quickly rather than try to cover up the scent of bullshit with more bullshit. There's no reason to believe that having debate will allow OP to outperform his numbers. In fact, your point that many law applicants and lawyers have debate experience would suggest just the opposite-if it's not unique then why is it a good soft?
Edited for quote shrinking.
You've offered no evidence to support your position and your analytical arguments are quite weak. Yes, it works well for many college activities (or networks, generally), but there is some reason to believe that debate is special, like the two fellowships I pointed out or this. Given the OP's success as a debater, and his continuing involvement in the activity as a coach, he might have a good network. A debate network could be useful, on the margin, and I'm encouraging the OP to use it.
Debate isn't like football in that the people who competed in the upper echelons (where the community is quite small) of those activities aren't disproportionately represented at law schools. You're right that many lawyers have (high school) debate experience, but very few were as successful (in college debate) as the OP. It's the difference between being on the inter-mural basketball team and playing for the varsity squad in the NCAA tournament.