Congressional Debate

I think successful congressional debate really requires attention to the roleplaying purpose of the activity: what is the purpose of the debate, who is the intended audience, and what register of language should be used? Although congressional debate is a debate activity, the intended audience is other legislators as well as the American public. Using debate-oriented terminology without context excludes individuals without that background knowledge and shifts the focus from roleplaying to something akin to PF or policy debate. Likewise, speaking skills matter: the best speeches will feature high quality content delivered in a clear, engaging voice with physical presence. Remember, too, that the goal is to solve problems and not necessarily to decimate your opponent.

So what makes high quality content? Clear structure, clear support, citations. Sometimes it's helpful to nitpick details of a bill and use a heavy research-based approach, whereas other bills or portions of the debate will benefit from a more 10,000 foot view of the issue.

TO BE CONTINUED...

Hello, my name is Griffin Schauer. I have been involved with debate since I was in high school here in Wisconsin, where I competed all four years in Public Forum (2008-2012). Currently, I am the debate coach for Menomonee Falls High School, and I have judged PF about 3-4 times a year since starting in that role last season. I am also a high school social studies teacher, teaching US History and Economics at the 10th and 12th grade levels, respectively.

In regards to speaking pace, I would label my preference as a “moderate” speed. The biggest concern I have is that speaking too quickly will result in missed information/evidence, which is crucial in determining rounds. You need to get through your speeches at an appropriate pace (which as a PFer myself, I greatly understand the need/desire to cram as much information in as possible), however if I can’t understand what was said, I can’t flow it through the round. I will not give any cues about pace/speed, however I always give a 5 second grace period after the time for a speech has expired. (Additionally, if crossfire ends time on a question, I will allow the asked person to either answer within a reasonable length, or defer to their team’s next speech).

The predominant factor in my evaluation of a round is the quality of arguments presented, as well as the quality of evidence used to support them. I don’t watch a debate to have a show put on as entertainment, but rather to see true engagement in the topic and its argumentation, as well as the learning that comes along with that.

The final focus of a round should be a summative crystallization of the round itself and why your team has won it. Talk about your flows, review your arguments, and show me why I will be balloting your team as the winner. This is not the time to start anything new, add in new insight, or change up ideas from before.

Any argument that is designed to win the round should be flowed all the way through to summary speeches (it is also great to rehash them in final focus, but not expand upon/change them during that time). If your opponents truly drop an argument/contention, you may reference that in later speeches, but opponents still have a chance to bring that up again in their response/rebuttal. In other words, unless your opponent completely drops a point and never references it again, do not make arguments out of “my opponents didn’t bring this up…” if they still respond in a later speech with the necessary argument/contention. Just like in sports, sometimes pointing at a penalty and screaming that it is one over and over doesn’t always make it so.

I would weigh analytics and evidence equally. You need good evidence, but you also need to explain/analyze/connect that evidence to your arguments as a whole. Evidence quotes without sufficient analysis/explanation are just soundbites.

Overall, my perfect round shows respect, sportsmanship, and engagement above all else. Respectful conduct and sportsmanship means controlling tone of voice (I know the difference between being passionate and being aggressive), allowing for ALL voices to be heard, and ending every round with a handshake. Even though you may disagree with this, your learning and engagement in this activity is far more important than who wins and loses, and that all starts with your preparation and composure. The round should go back and forth and focus on the substance of arguments and evidence, not playing games of meta-debate. The winner of that round will, ideally, be the team that convinced me more by the way they connect arguments and evidence to the resolution as a whole. Framework plays a key part in all of this, so make sure to establish one early and connect your arguments and evidence to it. The framework should be your case’s skeleton, not just a cherry on top.

I am the head debate coach at James Madison Memorial HS (2002 - present)
I am the head debate coach at Madison West HS (2014 - present)
I was formerly an assistant at Appleton East (1999-2002)
I competed for 3 years (2 in LD) at Appleton East (1993-1996)

I am a plaintiff's employment/civil rights lawyer in real life. I coach (or coached, depending on the year) every event in both debate and IE, with most of my recent focus on PF, Congress, and Extemp. Politically I'm pretty close to what you'd presume about someone from Madison, WI.

Congress at the bottom.

PF

(For online touraments) Send me case/speech docs at the start please (timscheff@aol.com) email or sharing a google doc is fine, I don't much care if I don't have access to it after the round if you delink me or if you ask me to delete it from my inbox. I have a little trouble picking up finer details in rounds where connections are fuzzy and would rather not have to ask mid round to finish my flow.
(WDCA if a team is uncomfortable sharing up front that's fine, but any called evidence should then be shared).

If your ev is misleading as cut/paraphrased or is cited contrary to the body of the evidence, I get unhappy. If I notice a problem independently there is a chance I will intervene and ignore the ev, even without an argument by your opponent. My first role has to be an educator maintaining academic honesty standards. You could still pick up if there is a path to a ballot elsewhere. If your opponents call it out and it's meaningful I will entertain voting for a theory type argument that justifies a ballot.

I prefer a team that continues to tell a consistent story/advocacy through the round. I do not believe a first speaking team's rebuttal needs to do more than refute the opposition's case and deal with framework issues. The second speaking team ideally should start to rebuild in the rebuttal; I don't hold it to be mandatory but I find it much harder to vote for a team that doesn't absent an incredible summary. What is near mandatory is that if you are going to go for it in the Final Focus, it should probably be extended in the Summary. I will give cross-x enough weight that if your opponents open the door to bringing the argument back in the grand cross, I'll still consider it.

Rate wise going quick is fine but there should be discernible variations in rate and/or tone to still emphasize the important things. If you plan on referring to arguments by author be very sure the citations are clear and articulated well enough for me to get it on my flow.

I'm a fairly staunch proponent of paraphrasing. It's an academically more realistic exercise. It also means you need to have put in the work to understand the source (hopefully) and have to be organized enough to pull it up on demand and show what you've analyzed (or else). A really good quotation used in full (or close to it) is still a great device to use. In my experience as a coach I've run into more evidence ethics, by far, with carded evidence, especially when teams only have a card, or they've done horrible Frankenstein chop-jobs on the evidence, forcing it into the quotation a team wants rather than what the author said. Carded evidence also seems to encourage increases in speed of delivery to get around the fact that an author with no page limit's argument is trying to be crammed into 4 min of speech time. Unless its an accommodation for a debater, if you need to share speech docs before a speech, something's probably gone a bit wrong with the world.
On this vein, I've developed a fairly keen annoyance with judges who outright say "no paraphrasing." It's simply not something any team can reasonably adapt to in the context of a tournament. I'm not sure how much the teams of the judges or coaches taking this position would be pleased with me saying I don't listen to cards or I won't listen to a card unless it's read 100% in full (If you line down anything, I call it invalid). It's the #1 thing where I'm getting tempted to pull the trigger on a reciprocity paradigm.

Exchange of evidence is not optional if it is asked for. I will follow the direction of a tournament on the exchange timing, however, absent knowledge of a specific rule, I will not run prep for either side when a reasonable number of sources are requested. Debaters can prep during this time as you should be able to produce sources in a reasonable amount of time and "not prepping" is a bit of a fiction and/or breaks up the flow of the round.

Citations should include a date when presented if that date will be important to the framing of the issue/solution, though it's not a bad practice to include them anyhow. More important, sources should be by author name if they are academic, or publication if journalistic (with the exception of columnists hired for their expertise). This means "Harvard says" is probably incorrect because it's doubtful the institution has an official position on the policy, similarly an academic journal/law review publishes the work of academics who own their advocacy, not the journal. I will usually ask for sources if during the course of the round the claims appear to be presented inconsistently to me or something doesn't sound right, regardless of a challenge, and if the evidence is not presented accurately, act on it.

Speaker points. Factors lending to increased points: Speaking with inflection to emphasize important things, clear organization, c-x used to create ground and/or focus the clash in the round, and telling a very clear story (or under/over view) that adapts to the actual arguments made. Factors leading to decreased points: unclear speaking, prep time theft (if you say end prep, that doesn't mean end prep and do another 10 seconds), making statements/answering answers in c-x, straw-man-ing opponents arguments, claiming opponent drops when answers were made, and, the fastest way for points to plummet, incivility during c-x. Because speaker points are meaningless in out rounds, the only way I can think of addressing incivility is to simply stop flowing the offending team(s) for the rest of the round.

Finally, I flow as completely as I can, generally in enough detail that I could debate with it. However, I'm continually temped to follow a "judge a team as they are judging yours" versus a "judge a team as you would want yours judged" rule. Particularly at high-stakes tournaments, including the TOC, I've had my teams judged by a judge who makes little or no effort to flow. I can't imagine any team at one of those tournaments happy with that type of experience yet those judges still represent them. I think lay-sourced judges and the adaptation required is a good skill and check on the event, but a minimum training and expectation of norms should be communicated to them with an attempt to comply with them. To a certain degree this problem creates a competitive inequity - other teams face the extreme randomness imposed by a judge who does not track arguments as they are made and answered - yet that judge's team avoids it. I've yet to hit the right confluence of events where I'd actually adopt "untrained lay" as a paradigm, but it may happen sometime. [UPDATE: I've gotten to do a few no-real-flow lay judging rounds this year thanks to the increase in lay judges at online tournaments]. Bottom line, if you are bringing judges that are lay, you should probably be debating as if they are your audience.

CONGRESS
The later in the cycle you speak, the more rebuttal your speech should include. Repeating the same points as a prior speaker is probably not your best use of time.

If you speak on a side, vote on that side if there wasn't an amendment. If you abstain, I should understand why you are abstaining (like a subsequent amendment contrary to your position).

I'm not opposed to hearing friendly questions in c-x as a way to advance your side's position if they are done smartly. If your compatriot handles it well, points to you both. If they fumble it, no harm to you and negative for them. C-x doesn't usually factor heavily into my rankings, often just being a tie breaker for people I see as roughly equal in their performance.

For the love of God, if it's not a scenario/morning hour/etc. where full participation on a single issue is expected, call to question already. With expanded questioning now standard, you don't need to speak on everything to stay on my mind. Late cycle speeches rarely offer something new and it's far more likely you will harm yourself with a late speech than help. If you are speaking on the same side in succession it's almost certain you will harm yourself, and opposing a motion to call to question to allow successive speeches on only one side will also reflect as a non-positive.

A good sponsorship speech, particularly one that clarifies vagueness and lays out solvency vs. vaguely talking about the general issue (because, yeah, we know climate change is bad, what about this bill helps fix it), is the easiest speech for me to score well. You have the power to frame the debate because you are establishing the legislative intent of the bill, sometimes in ways that actually move the debate away from people's initially prepped positions.

In a chamber where no one has wanted to sponsor or first negate a bill, especially given you all were able to set a docket, few things make me want to give a total round loss, than getting no speakers and someone moving for a prep-time recess. This happened in the TOC finals two years ago, on every bill. My top ranks went to the people who accepted the responsibility to the debate and their side to give those early speeches.