LEGISLATION

Legislation is essential to any tournament being successful, and knowing how to write it well gives you a strong advantage over other debaters if utilized correctly.

In those cases, the last 2 sections are merged into 1, with the contents of those sections explained below in this resource page.  However, the format of the sections is ultimately marginal and unimportant, as the last 2 sections  — which may or may not be merged into 1 — don’t significantly affect the legislation or how it’s debated.

Instead, it’s the first 3 Sections of a bill that are important when both writing one and understanding it.

Section 1:

• The first section is the meat of  a bill. It’s where the majority of a debate will center around, and the most important thing when writing a bill. Section 1 is the actual policy. If you’re implementing  a tax, it goes in Section 1. If money from that tax is going towards a program, it goes in Section 1. If you’re changing federal law (i.e. the minimum wage), that goes in Section 1. Basically, anything important in your legislation goes in Section 1, and most strong arguments are based solely on this section.

Section 2:

• The second section is all about definitions. If there were any confusing terms in Section 1, this area is where you can provide a sort of legal definition. Terms can also be defined even if they aren’t confusing. For example, “understaffed hospitals” isn’t confusing, but it may require a definition under Section 2 to determine a specific staff-patient ratio. Arguments are rarely based solely on Section 2, and if they are, they are purely defensive rather than offensive. Instead, Section 2 serves to provide additional context that can further an argument based upon one of the other sections.

Section 3:

• The third section is the bill’s implementation. Every bill requires an agency within the Executive Bureaucracy to implement and enforce it, commonly known as the ‘enforcement agency.’ If the bill is a tax law, the IRS is typically that enforcement agency. If it’s environmental, the EPA is a good call. While most of your bill  might just be an idea you have in your head and that you can write down in the template format, Section 3 requires research to determine the best agency based on the legislation in question.

• Typically, the arguments based on Section 3 are pretty small, but they can be good if circumstances allow. Most simplistically,  Google “[agency] good,”  “[agency] bad,” and “[agency] corruption” to figure out if such arguments are possible. Typically, they hinge around the idea of corrupt spending or abuses committed by the agency that might then expand to harm more people should their funding be increased. In other situations, Section 3 might include where funding comes from, such as diverting it away from the Department of Defense. If this is the case, you can make arguments as to why that agency needs that money.

Resolutions are split into two parts, the whereas and resolved clauses.

Whereas clauses can be thought of as justifications for the legislation. They are reasons why you should pass the resolution, like shortened, surface-level arguments. They often require research to come up with, just as any other argument in-round would.

Each resolution should have multiple  whereas clauses, typically 3-5 depending on how in-depth you make each one. They all end in “; and” marking the end of the clause and transition to the next whereas clause.

That is, except for the final whereas clause. Since it instead transitions to a resolved clause, the conclusion at the end of the final whereas clause is “; now, therefore, be it” marking a transition after the whereas clauses.

Upon the completion of that transitory phrase, there is the resolved clause. There can be one or two resolved clauses, but avoid anything more than that. For the second resolved clause (and resolved clauses beyond that, although you should avoid these), they are titled as further resolved. The transition to these further resolved clauses is similar to that between whereas clauses: “; and, be it”

Furthermore, the choice between 1 or 2 resolved clauses isn’t random, but rather based upon your resolution. The first resolved clause should be your policy action, what you want to achieve. However, since US laws don’t have jurisdiction in foreign nations, there is no direct punishment for a foreign government not to follow a US resolution. That’s where the optional further resolved clause comes in, which serves as that punishment. Most commonly, this is in the form of tariffs, removal of aid, or sanctions, but feel free to modify if you have a unique enforcement mechanism.

All arguments for or against a resolution should come from the resolved clause(s), no exceptions. Affirmative arguments can be based off of the whereas clauses, but solvency should always be rooted in the resolved clauses.

Because of resolutions’ often-foreign nature, researching them is unique. You need to look just as much into the country at play as you do to the proposed policy. Many common countries in resolutions are enemies of the US, and our actions would likely trigger retaliation in one form or another. Alternatively, many countries across the world are corrupt, and it’s important to understand how money can impact a corrupt regime (both positive and negative, depending on the type of aid).

The purpose of a Constitutional Amendment is also different from bills or resolutions. Instead of creating a simple policy, Amendments have drastic and widespread changes to American society at a fundamental level. These Amendments largely serve one of two purposes: either create a new constitutional liberty, or overturn an unpopular Supreme Court case (sometimes both).

Crafting a Constitutional Amendment is also unique. It’s a sort of mix between a resolution and a bill, with much of the wording required for formatting.

Constitutional Amendments begin with a resolved clause. However, this clause doesn’t adapt based on the contents of your Amendment, but rather remains the same between any and all Constitutional Amendments as a sort of required formatting.

"By two-thirds of the Congress here assembled, that the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission by the Congress:"

Below this resolved clause is the article, or the actual amendment. Instead of a bill’s five sections, the article only has two. The first is the entire content of your amendment. Unlike bills, there are no subsections here. The entire goal is to be as short and direct as possible, impossible for there to be any misinterpretations.

First, why might authorship rights not be given? Ultimately, many tournaments opt not to give authorship rights in outrounds for the sake of fairness. Since they provide an advantage, that may not be fair in the competitive environment of a Semifinal or Final round. In these cases, the “Introduced for Congressional Debate by John Smith of Standard High School” won’t be present. Instead, it might simply say “Introduced for Congressional Debate” or “Introduced for Congressional Debate by the Yale Debate Association,” although the latter is typically used when the tournament writes it’s own legislation, as is also sometimes the case for outrounds as a way to prevent authorships. More often than not, that section of the legislation will just be left blank entirely.

However, if the legislation you’ve submitted does in fact say “Introduced for Congressional Debate by [your name],” it’s time to claim your authorship rights. These ‘rights’ are relatively simple. The chamber is almost guaranteed to vote for your legislation to be on the docket, even if they don’t like it. Sometimes, tournaments may even require legislation with authors in the chamber to have priority at the beginning of the docket. And once you’ve gotten past that relatively easy step, you can give your actual authorship speech.

At the beginning of debate on any legislative item, the PO will first ask if there are any authorship speeches. Typically, nobody stands and they move directly onwards to asking for sponsorship speeches. However, this is different; now, you are that author and can stand when authorships are called. Nobody else has that ability (unless you co-wrote the legislation with someone else, in which case you will almost never be in the same chamber as them). You are the sole person with that right, and you are guaranteed the first speech on your legislation.

Analyzing legislation is an in-depth process, moreso than this resource will go over, but it’ll give a brief understanding of how to understand legislation from the surface-level and then use that understanding to win.

Really, the first step is some background research. If you follow the steps outlined in what to look for in each area of the legislative item, this should be covered for the most part.

Look at Section 2 for terms, whereas clauses for common affirmative arguments, and do some quick research on related concepts to further your understanding.

Once you’ve done some basic background research, it’s time for something a little more in-depth. Research the pros and cons of the enforcement agency or related foreign nations. Find out who are the biggest stakeholders in the debate (people that are impacted the most). Look at what the bill does, and why it chooses to do it; what problem exists that it’s trying to solve? Have there been similar legislative proposals in real life, and if any have been implemented, what has been the result? These basic questions, while numerous, greatly expand one’s understanding of a piece of legislation and drastically improve your ability to win logically based on your knowledge bank of resources.

But more importantly, find the common arguments and decide how to attack them. This, in it’s best and most common form, means making a T-Chart of the ‘stock’ or common arguments you expect to see on either side of a debate. The AFF, in a debate about nuclear energy, might talk about the environment, jobs created, affordable energy, and investment into research. Meanwhile, the NEG might talk about safety concerns, alternative energy options, nuclear waste, and the harms of construction.