One of the most common ways to implement a rhetorical narrative, is to try and make a speech more humorous to break up the monotony of a congress round. This can range from harmless puns strewn throughout the bill such as using a doctor metaphor when discussing drug legislation to jokes about current events/what’s going on in the news. The pun example is much simpler and much more common. If you’re discussing prescription drugs, one might say that the “affirmation has misdiagnosed the problem,” and you’re here to “Prescribe the antidote to make the debate better.” Little puns and jokes like this don’t take up much time, but they do differentiate your speech and make you stand out in a round full of other competitors.  Additionally, starting with a relatable joke can make the speech more entertaining right off the bat, but it's important to not go overboard. Any joke that targets another speaker can backfire, however, so be careful especially in outrounds at tournaments to not come across disrespectful. 

Inspiration is another common example, think of it like giving a campaign speech. You’re trying to rally people behind the idea that the legislation you’re trying to enact today will create a genuine difference. Examples of this usually center around trying to bring up a central impact that this legislation will fix. Think of it like an actual speech on the floors of congress where representatives often advocate strongly for their constituencies and the passionate change that this legislation can bring to them. Most speeches fall into this category, but a particularly strong speech with a poignant message will absolutely trump others like it. The key is to center more on the potential change and really expand upon the impacts to show why your position on the legislation improves the status quo the most. It’s very similar to a dramatic speech, but it’s more of a positive note, “we can make a change” vs “here is the damage we’ve done by not making a change.” 

This form of rhetoric is an incredibly impactful one when done effectively. This rhetorical strategy relies more on the emotional appeal often working in stories of those affected by the problem that this legislation seeks to solve. The stories show the more human side of congressional debate and allows the judge to connect with your material through a personal perspective rather than abstract. This approach is very common in congressional debate, and requires passion in delivery to come across well to the judges. These speeches bring a more serious tone that many judges, especially on the national circuit, prefer. 

This rhetorical style is fantastic for complex legislation that dives into dense topics. With this approach you provide context to the broader legislative that this bill falls into and you explain that it continues previous efforts to solve a problem. For example, starting a speech centered around climate change by mentioning the failures of the Kyoto Protocols and Paris Climate Accords to emphasize that the US needs comprehensive action to adequately address the climate crisis. These involved references to famous historical figures, and often play on the idea that this problem has needed a solution for a long time, emphasizing the importance of addressing the issue now is vital 

Throughout the round, as speakers come and refute what others have said, it's a good idea to play off of others’ rhetoric as long, as you stay respectful. This would look like tying your intro into what someone else said, or when refuting someone’s point, counter both their argumentation as well as their rhetoric. If they reference a childhood cartoon, for instance, mention a similar cartoon that disproves the point that your fellow representative was trying to make. This little trick makes your speech seem vastly more nuanced and helps you stand out in the judges’ eyes, helping your rank immensely as you stand out rather than just blending in. I would highly recommend trying to work on rhetorical clash as it is more of an advanced move that helps you immensely. That being said, be careful as rhetorical clash can sometimes come across as irrelevant or even rude in the eyes of judges, potentially penalizing you in the minds of some judges. If you look through any of the previous recordings of TOC, NSDA, or any national circuit tournament you’ll see plenty of instances of rhetorical clash that enhance a speech. This takes some practice, but the best way to get better is to get examples from previous finals rounds, and then try to apply it in rounds so that it becomes far more natural.