Congressional Debate

Content/trigger warnings: when using content/trigger warnings, contestants should ask why they need one in the first place. Rather than using graphic imagery to describe traumatizing issues, it is far more meaningful for contestants to explain the scope and scale of the impact of the root causes of the problem and how the legislation will either remediate or exacerbate the problem and its causes; that approach provides a safer space for all participants in the chamber. That said, any participant in a chamber should feel free to excuse themselves at any time if they are feeling unsafe or emotionally traumatized – without any judgment.

The nature of Congressional Debate is an intellectual exercise in analyzing an issue from a multitude of perspectives, which are threaded together through the clash of ideas, and moderated by parliamentary procedure. While its discourse intellectually functions as debate, it operates with sectioning chambers and comparatively evaluating students in the same manner as interscholastic speech rather than the binary nature of head-to-head debate entries. Of all the speech and debate events, it models a real world process as a way for students to engage one another in a truly authentic and dynamic manner. As someone who has been a part of shaping rules and standards in Congressional Debate for over two decades, I understand how comparative ranking allows me to take the full picture of how a student contributes both to the intellectual richness of debate, as well as the circumstances by which debate happens – parliamentary procedure. Hence, the focal point of arguments should be on how people are affected by potential passage or defeat of legislation.

Role playing is a mindset that goes beyond simply "playing a part" as a member of Congress. Debaters should understand how issues impact constituents, citizens, residents, and the global community alike, and who and what should be prioritized at any given time and why. Members of Congress represent demographically and geographically diverse constituents as well as serve our country at-large. Therefore, debaters should consider how they frametheir advocacy and avoid such possessive phrasing as "our low-income Americans" to make blanket statements about entire groups of people, rather than describing circumstances for which they do not have personal experience (see first section, above). I highly recommend the Conscious Style Guide for guidance on appropriate language when discussing marginalized communities, and that debaters consider their own privilege when they address the nuanced issues in constituencies most vulnerable within problems addressed by legislation.

Organization and clarity: contestants should briefly seize attention in a memorable and meaningful way by connecting to the issue at-hand without trivializing it. Previews are inconsequential and waste time in a brief, 3-minute speech; rather, points should be signposted, and connect to a central, unifying thesis beyond just "supporting" or "opposing" the legislation at-hand. Speeches should be easy to follow, articulately crisp, and plainly explained, without needless jargon. Contestants should be concise, dynamic, and nimble with their language, and not repeat the same filler phrases and "debate-speak." Effective clarity also means avoiding unnecessary delving into "debate-speak," where a student uses such filler language as "take you at your highest ground," rather saying, "if your central intention is..." Other examples of concision alternatives filler phrases:
• Say "argued" instead of "came up here and said"
• Say "consider" instead of "we can look to"
• See "understanding" instead of "seeing as how"
• Omit "we can see that"
Finally, be elegant. Say "defeat" a bill instead of "fail.""Move the previous question, don't "motion to the previous question." Correct phrasing goes a long way toward demonstrating command of language in a linguistic activity utilizing the framework of parliamentary procedure.

Evidence: contestants should support arguments with cited, credible sources warranted to their own analysis. They should indicate a firm analytical understanding of the legislative/policymaking process, and the efficacy and jurisdiction of government agencies in addressing issues.

Impacts: speeches should explain how people are affected by policies and positions. Practical application and pragmatic interpretation is much more relevant that theoretical musings on an issue. Rhetoric should show sensitivity to people whose identities may differ from their own; a speech may address issues that impact real people, and shouldn't conjecture lived experiences for which the legislator may not have a personal frame of reference. Contestants should avoid overusing terms like "constituents," and consider as a national-level legislator, how policies impact both their own theoretical constituents, residents throughout the United States for whom their policies will impact, and for international relations – global citizens beyond the U.S.

Advancing debate: each speech should exhibit how it fits within the flow of debate on given legislation:

Authorship/sponsorship speeches should outline the problem, its causes, and why the legislation at-hand solves or mitigates the problem and its causes. The background is more important than the legislation itself, as we can all read the bill. I want to know the why behind the solvency.

First negative speeches should establish ground for the opposition to the legislation: why it exacerbates the problem and its causes, fails to address them effectively, or creates new or worse conditions.

Constructive speeches, often the first 4-6 speeches in a debate, should indicate a sound understanding of how legislation is introduced to solve/address a problem and its causes, deeply investigating important issues with detailed evidence.

Rebuttal speeches should defend a legislator's advocacy, extend complementary arguments by colleagues, and/or refute the opposition – acknowledging how those arguments are being built upon or fall short. As debate on legislation moves forward, there will be more extension and refutation and fewer constructive arguments. This is where a contestant can be nuanced with their advocacy, connecting arguments that respond to others with their own, unique ideas.

Crystallization speeches should come at the end of debate on legislation and summarize and weigh impacts to distill the debate to central voting issues and why one side wins over the others, and subsequent speeches on the same side should either explain why a preceding crystallization was premature/incomplete, or advance it further in a more sophisticated manner. Crystallizing prematurely, at best shows a lack of restraint and understanding of the "big picture" of the issue; at worst, it shows an impatient desire to weigh the debate before all the elements have had time to be explored rhetorically.

Questions should be substantive and carefully selected to help advance debate beyond superficial questions that are mere "gotchas." The dynamism of Congressional Debate requires legislators to respond within the flow of debate, so all speeches after the authorship/sponsorship speech introducing legislation should be more extemporaneous/spontaneous in nature. Exchanges should be a courteous give-and-take.

When to quit: it is entirely unimportant to me whether each contestant in a room speaks on each legislation; I'd rather debate stay fresh and dynamic than to get stale and mired in rehash because there's nothing new to say (and rehashing thoroughly debated arguments will negatively impact your ranking severely). I also place a higher premium on quality over quantity of speeches given -- as long as a contestant still stays active in questioning and other facets of a round.

Delivery: given the dynamic nature of exchange of myriad perspectives in Congressional Debate, debaters – especially those after the author/sponsor and first negative – should be more extemporaneous and spontaneous in their delivery, referring more to bulleted notes and their flow of the debate than reciting from a word-for-word manuscript. I don't care if a student transitionally walks between points (obviously, that doesn't/didn't happen in online debate and it's certainly not real-world); what matters to me is that the student engages their peers and judges through an appropriate projection of their voice, dynamic intonation and pause to convey meaning, meaningful eye contact, vivid facial expression, and natural gestures for emphasis.

Parliamentary procedure: rules of order exist to provide fairness and an opportunity for participation in sharing ideas before majority rules. Through a lens of accessibility and inclusivity, procedure should never be used by legislators to manipulate for personal advantage; rather, those students who advocate for fairness to others demonstrate the spirit of fostering involvement by others. This applies to all students in the room, and how they utilize procedure within a round, and includes decorum of using honorifics, third person references to others, and professional courtesy over snarky demeanor. This is especially important during questioning periods. Also, remember: recesses are a temporary reprieve from active debate, but the round is still happening.

Presiding officers: a PO whose priority is uplifting others in a fair, efficient, and transparent manner exhibits the values expressed in the "parliamentary procedure" section above. They are mindful of different schools and regions and do whatever they can to share and balance recognition, beyond those with whom they are most closely associated. I really appreciate when POs share some type of live document that shows how they are tracking precedence and recency of both speeches and questions. Effective POs should avoid needless phrases, such as "seeing as how..." and instead simply say, "those opposed (or 'in favor'), please raise your placards." Further, such elegant language shows command of procedure, such as "the ayes have it and the motion (or bill) carries," or "the noes have it and the motion (or bill) is defeated."

My first paradigm update since 2019! I'm excited to be judging policy debate once again!

I love traditional, stock-issues policy debate. I love hearing students make persuasive arguments. I love the critical thinking and communication skills you learn through the activity. I also love the research burden placed on policy debaters. Having a thorough understanding of the topic literature is essential to a good debate.

Here are my positions on several elements in the debate community that may be of interest to debaters reading this for the first time. IMPORTANT: My debate preferences are not those of the National Speech & Debate Association, the Ronald Reagan Foundation, or any other organizations I work with. They are mine and mine alone. When I judge I am independent. I'm happy to discuss them with anyone who is interested!

Debate terminology: The debate community has become too reliant on throwing around terms without contextualizing them. You can perm this and turn that and I can be left wondering why I should accept those arguments. I fear that the debate community has become a giant enthymeme in which ALL premises are assumed. It will work best if you can explain why I should be persuaded by your argument.

Theory: There are too many types of debate theory being run to make this short and simple. So what I will say is that if you are going to run theory, please defend the theory's unique application to the opponent's case or to the specific language of the resolution. The link has to be specific. If you give me an absolute, such as you must vote for this side of the resolution under all circumstances, then why are we even having the debate?

Objective judging: Fellow judges, if you write that you will only vote for X kind of argument because you hold Y political position (e.g., "I am a socialist! Don't run pro-capitalism arguments in front of me or you will lose!"), you are pushing out those who express political points of view that differ from yours and, ultimately, harming the activity. None of us are blank slates, I get that, but judges should be reasonably objective. Again, this is my point of view, and mine alone. I just believe any student should be able to win my ballot even if the premise of their case is founded in something I personally disagree with. If it is well argued and evidenced, I should listen to the arguments and evaluate them. That's the job of the judge.

Case Debate: I love on-case debates, especially a detailed plan discussion, but a good off-case argument can contribute to winning a round as long as it is linked properly. Don't assume that it pertains to the topic or case without making a strong argument that it outweighs. Also, you do not have to convince me that a nuclear event is going to happen in order for me to buy the argument! There are different kinds of impacts and all roads do not lead terminal.

Speed: I used to be more nuanced with my position on speed, but I don't feel obligated to have any defense of speed anymore - if you want more students, and more audiences, and more financial support for access to debate - then stop spreading. We push away students and judges with auditory and processing difficulties, English language learners, and those who value communication in balance with argumentation. I am not going to pretend that I can flow auctioneers selling household appliances, much less debaters who are providing sophisticated, in-depth arguments and evidence. I have many friends in the debate community who support speed. But if you think I am a bad judge because I can't handle speed then, to be frank, that is your problem and not mine.

I am ok with about everything you want to run. I dislike T, I prefer proven abuse if possible, but will vote on potential in some cases. I love debate theory, I think it makes for interesting debates. I like clash, good Disads. I have a tendency to not like Nuke war impacts just because the likelihood is so low. However, I have voted for plenty of Nuke war stuff. I am fine with Ks but explain them well. Like I have heard all of the common Ks and weird ones as well, but a well explained and detailed debate with the K will make it clear for my ballot and make it that much more likely to vote for it. I am really open to anything, but I really hate when things become inaccessible to debaters. I rarely intervene in favor of someone unless it is really justified (i.e. rudeness, serious ethical problems, being severely unequitable, etc. basically being a bad person for very bad reasons)

Speed

I am fine with speed. Though, I do believe it is a cancer to the activity. However, I prefer that speed is agreed upon by both competitors. If I have a problem I will yell clear, or speed. Most time my problem with speed is clarity of the words. Not the actual speed. I have heard incredibly fast debaters that are clear and I have no problem. However, when I am not hearing syllables because you can't maintain the speed. It is a problem. Please slow down for the analytics it can be at a brisk pace, but if it ain't in front of me you risk a chance I miss it. I will note do ask me before round if it is ok, sometimes I honestly really just want a slow round because I have a massive headache, or I am just not in the mood to here spreading that day even if it is fine for both debaters.