RHETORIC
Introduction
Congress can be very boring.
Rhetoric is your opportunity to win over the chamber - after all, congressional debate is about more than budget estimates, policy proposals, and impact weighing. Incorporating rhetoric into your speech is about establishing the *human connection* with your audience, based on empathy and storytelling.
Rhetoric, a literary technique, is the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing. In Congressional Debate, along with content and delivery, rhetoric is a critical part of an effective speech. In its most basic form, it can be used to give a clever, inspiring, insightful, or emotional introduction to the content of your speeches. In the most advanced rounds, however, rhetoric can set the tone for an entire debate and influence the structure of all speeches.
Purpose of Rhetoric
If you’ve ever taken an English or public speaking class, you’ve probably heard about the three typical rhetorical appeals:
1. Logos: the appeal to logic.
2. Ethos: the appeal to credibility.
3. Pathos: the appeal to emotion.
When we talk about rhetoric in congress, it’s all about pathos. Don’t get it confused with the other two. It’s not difficult to write a congress speech… but it is very difficult to make your speech stand out. When you read this guide, think critically - what happens when everyone tries to stand out in the same way?
Did you know some researchers think Aristotle actually came up with five pillars of rhetoric instead of three?
Aside from introductions and conclusions, rhetoric is most often used to transition into different parts of your speech, like your contentions. For example, on a speech about public option healthcare or medical research, you could label your description of the status quo the “diagnosis,” and the solvency of the bill as the “cure.” This analogy not only gives your transitions a rhetorical flair, it can also improve the clarity of your speech.
Rhetoric is also very commonly used to emphasize impacts and weighing. This part of your speech tends to deal most directly with the actual human impact of the legislation - simply because of the subject matter, debaters often capitalize on the rhetorical opportunity by driving their point home with a hard-hitting line right after describing their impact, or by weighing the comparative worlds in the debate.
For example, look at this weighing for a speech about recognizing Taiwan as an independent nation.
Example
But let's say we don't buy that and take the negation at their highest ground. Rep. Amarre, Natarajan, and Cheng, the sovereignty of a state and the lives of its people are infinitely more valuable than the plastic in your pens and the semiconductors in your TV
Common Mistakes
Insensitivity
Never deliver rhetoric at the expense of a marginalized group or other people in the chamber. When coming up with rhetoric, be careful. Never commodify trauma. Think about the stakeholders involved in the bill and educate yourself about any institutional or systemic barriers they face.
Always demonstrate courtesy to other debaters. You may very possibly end up in a round of congressional debate with friends or people you personally know. Nonetheless, always maintain professionalism and respect - judges are sensitive to displays of irreverence and misplaced casual exchanges.
This line of rhetoric embraces the role play aspect of congressional debate, and fictionalizes a Senator’s hypocrisy to make a point. The question is: is this okay?
The answer is: sometimes. Obviously, you should avoid pulling these stunts with debaters who you do not personally know. Do everything in your power to ask them for permission before doing so. Aside from that, some judges appreciate these lines because they can be funny and engage speakers personally in the round. Other judges resent it because it’s clearly not factual. Should you do this? Probably not. You can come up with rhetoric that’s just as good without taking all these risks.
To dive further into its importance, read this blog article on the implications of insensitivity with rhetoric and overall speaking by anonymous.
Example
As a wide-eyed, newly elected Senator, I found the glitz and glamor of DC fascinating. But on my drive to and from Capitol Hill every day, I see a billboard with Sen. Ammu flashing his pearly whites next to a glistening can of Coca-Cola. Quickly, my fascination turned to consternation.
Stealing/Rehashing
Don’t steal other people’s rhetoric. Don’t rip content from other people’s speeches, generally. It is much harder to deliver rhetoric with conviction and authenticity if you’re not actually the person who came up with it. It certain won’t make you any friends and some experienced judges might even catch on.
Rehashing rhetoric, or even having similar sounding rhetoric to someone else, can make judges feel iffy.
Generic/Stock Rhetoric
The easier it is to use a line of rhetoric for any one speech, the worse it is. The most effective and responsible approach is to come up with original, unique rhetoric for each bill you prep.
If you’ve competed in more than one round of congressional debate, there are probably some particular lines you’ve heard repeatedly. This is bad rhetoric! Doing the same thing as everyone else does not make you stand out.
Let’s take a look at some examples of stock, overused, or clichéd rhetoric.
It’s the smallest coffins that weigh the heaviest in our hearts.
Principally… (the new filler word for rhetorical transitions.)
[insert chess analogy here]
Coming up with Rhetoric
We’ve all suffered writer’s block, especially when it comes to rhetoric. Writing original, clever, and unique rhetoric can be especially challenging because it requires you to think outside of the box - but there are ways to stoke your imagination. Here are some sources of inspiration.
Popular Culture
Your rhetoric should ultimately be a reflection of your audience. It helps to be conscious of trends in culture & society - being generally aware of contemporary music, media, film, literature, education, fashion and more can help you come up with rhetoric. Drawing inspiration from pop culture is all about relatability.
TV Shows and Movies
TV shows have professional, award-winning writers whose entire job is to write witty quips and insightful monologues. As tempting as it may be, don’t copy them word for word! But don’t hesitate to use them as inspiration.
Listen to a lecture by Nicholas Ostheimer , the Executive Director of Equality in Forensics, on the different types of rhetoric.
This line of rhetoric from the TV show Boston Legal eloquently describes congress’s authority to comment on constitutional law:
The constitution says whatever the Supreme Court says it does. // As for whatever the Supreme Court says, that all depends on who's President. That leaves us, Rep. ____, perhaps the least qualified branch of the American federal government to comment on constitutional law.
Types of Rhetoric
Your introduction is your first chance to make a point, break the ice, and impress your judges with clever rhetoric. Speeches without an introduction are boring. Think about it from the perspective of your judges - when you’re judging the 20th congress speech of the day, wouldn’t you at least want to hear a witty, clever, or insightful observation at the start of the performance?
Of course you would. Your introduction has three objectives:
Introduce your speech’s thesis. Above all else, the introduction of your speech is an introduction to the arguments you want to make. Try your best to sum up your speech’s entire argument(s) in one or two sentences at the beginning of your speech. This can work wonders in terms of structure and clarity.
Introduce your speech’s values. You should be able to describe your speech based on a central, universal theme that echoes throughout your content and your rhetoric. Depending on what you want to achieve with your rhetoric, this could be something like “justice”, “compassion”, “hope”, or even “frustration.”
Introduce your unique personality. Many congress debaters kind of just blend together. Without something unique, authentic, or original to make your introduction stand out, you’ll start the most memorable part of your speech off with nothing to remember!
Let’s move on to the conclusion.
Call back to your introduction. Whatever the subject is, think about your rhetoric like a story - it has a beginning and an end. People forget loose ends. They remember complete narratives. That’s why your conclusion should somehow “complete” your introduction, or at least reference it.
Offer a new perspective. Your conclusion shouldn’t just be a repetition of what you said in the introduction. This is your opportunity to end the speech with a powerful one-liner or the conclusion to a relevant anecdotal story. This keeps your speech fresh, engaging, and interesting.
Judges expect you to deliver rhetoric without looking at your pad. When delivering the content of your speech, especially evidence, judges won’t really care that you glance at your pad. Meanwhile, the delivery of your rhetoric can be deeply impacted by your presentation - how can you establish an emotional connection with your audience if you’re not actually looking at them?
It’s also important that you focus on gesticulation, pacing, intonation, emphasis, and movement. Judges are paying special attention to your delivery while delivering lines of rhetoric. Every aspect of your presentation is part of creating that emotional connection between you and the audience.
Introduction & Conclusion
Dramatic and Serious
Often, you’ll see congressional debaters use dramatic and serious rhetoric throughout their speeches. This is perhaps the most common type of rhetoric, because congress often deals with heavy, serious subjects and debaters are expected to demonstrate a degree of professional, respect, and reverence for these subjects.
That being said, it can be hard to stand out when using this kind of rhetoric. You need to focus on what makes this subject so worthy of attention - are lives at stake? Or just money? Does this bill acknowledge a state’s national sovereignty?
As a speaker, you need to commit to a certain degree of gravitas to pull off dramatic and serious rhetoric. Master a stern expression, straight back, and confident, slow, and deliberate delivery.
Check out this example
70 years ago, a sickness took hold of our country. The Red Scare devastated American society. Driven mad by the suspicion of communist infiltration, this very congress interrogated Americans about their alleged communist connections, held them in contempt if they refused to answer, and harassed thousands upon thousands of good, innocent people. Friend turned upon friend, neighbor turned upon neighbor, as countless Americans lost their livelihoods because and only because they were suspected of communist ideology. We’ve spent decades repairing the rift we tore in America.
But as soon as our dedication to these newfound principles is tested, the affirmation breaks. You fail, because this bill scapegoats China and TikTok, stoking xenophobia, leading to political violence and hate crimes against Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders.
Congressional debate can deal with some heavy subjects. For example, this introduction compares the consequences of a bill that would crack down on TikTok to stoking the same xenophobia and paranoia that the Red Scare did.
Funny and Lighthearted
Don’t try to be funny unless you’re actually funny. Remember - you are a high schooler pretending to be a congressperson for a speech & debate competition. That carries a lot of contextual baggage. You’re expected to be professional because you’re dressed up nicely for a tournament, but will almost always feel a bit awkward because of the public speaking component. Attempts at humor can be cringey. Or they can be fantastic at breaking the ice!
Try using this litmus test to see if your humor works: Try your jokes out on an audience which has nothing to do with speech & debate, like your friends or parents. If they don’t find it funny in a vacuum, maybe try a different approach. Remember that your judges in congress will have a multitude of personalities, attitudes, and worldviews - congressional debate is all about being able to appeal to a broad audience.
Beware - don’t cross the line into insensitivity.
Sometimes, all it takes is a single throw-away line (like a reference to “being caught in 4K”) to make an otherwise boring introduction more funny and relatable.
Historical and Metaphorical
The last type of rhetoric we’ll cover uses historical examples and metaphors to frame the debate in a unique way. This often allows you to make a smooth, topical transition into the content of your speech.
In the example to the right, 2023 NSDA House finalist Iris Cheng references historical piracy in the geographic region of the Northern Triangle, and then compares modern corrupt politicians to those pirates.
This kind of rhetoric can be optically strategic because it allows you to project intelligence and insightfulness. You display your ability to make abstract connections across history and policymaking to the judges.
Beware - sometimes these intros can make you seem stuffy or pretentious. Always make sure you keep the rhetoric simple, approachable, and emphasize the connection between the historical example and the bill itself.
Check out this out example:
The Golden Fleece Award is a unique honor awarded every year to the “biggest, most ridiculous or most ironic example of government spending or waste.” In 1975, that honor went to psychologist Ronald Hutchinson’s federally funded research, which investigated why rats, monkeys, and humans clench their jaws. Hutchinson’s project might seem ridiculous. But its quantitative study of behavioral aggression ultimately enabled NASA and the U.S. Navy to address problems caused by confining humans to small spaces, such as spacecraft and submarines.
This introduction was used for a bill that would put medical research in the public domain. The example helps to illustrate the far-reaching impacts of medical research.
Relevant Anecdotes
Sometimes the most effective way to establish a personal connection with the audience is to tell someone’s story. In congressional debate, you often debate bills that will have a profound impact on people’s lives - potentially saving them from famine, poverty, or death. Or perhaps condemning them to an undesirable fate. Either way, anecdotes are a powerful way to illustrate what’s at stake through individual, humanized stories.
Example
16 inmates sit silently in their cells. They refuse to step out for a morning roll call. They haven’t eaten in 3 days. In 2019, 16 inmates staged a hunger strike against California’s systematic use of solitary confinement to punish prisoners for minor offenses. They were then placed into solitary confinement. Today, my advocacy is guided by human dignity, my words moved by righteous indignation, because you pass this bill to stop solitary confinement.
This introduction for a speech about solitary confinement brings up an outrageous anecdote to condemn the practice.