WORD ECONOMY

In a speech during a congressional debate, each and every word is as valuable as gold. You will find yourself trying to jam multiple detailed arguments and clash into a single speech, and thus want to make the most of the words that you can afford. 

More evidence does not make your speech automatically more convincing. Evidence should only be used when it is relevant and used in your argument. Otherwise, it should be cut out or shrunken down to save space. When you do use evidence, try to paraphrase it and make it as small as possible. A major offender in this case is overlapping evidence:

While some sources may be synonymous with each other, others may not be needed at all. When you put a source into your argument, always ask yourself these two questions:

How is the evidence relevant to the topic?

Can I use this evidence to make a convincing argument?

If the answer to either of these questions is no, then don’t use that source and take it out of your speech. For example, in a speech about taxing carbon emissions to reduce climate change, if you use a piece of evidence about foreign policy in Nigeria, it acts as dead weight and you will not be able to effectively use it to improve your arguments in your speech.

Being able to paraphrase a piece of evidence or quotation in a Congressional Debate is one of the most important things you can do. At its core, paraphrasing is putting a piece of evidence in your own words, and it can be used to significantly further your word economy. Here’s an example:

(NSDA 2023 Nationals-Resize House of Representatives)

Original:

 A survey by Pew Research in the July of 2022 finds that: “Both Democrat and Republican parties have moved further away from the ideological center since the early 1970s, with both sides becoming more polarized than ever.”

Paraphrased:

A Pew Research survey in the July of 2022 found that over 50 years, Democrats and Republicans have become more polarized than ever.

See how much paraphrasing the quote shortens it? Even though it may not seem like much of a difference, paraphrasing the quote, while still retaining its original meaning, costs much less in terms of word economy, which can be critical in round. In addition, in certain cases by paraphrasing the quote, you can eliminate potential evidence that might prove to the detriment of your side, and only summarize the beneficial parts.

The saying goes: “Too many chefs ruin the broth”. Too much rhetoric ruins a speech as well. Rhetoric will always remain a crucial part of any successful and stirring Congress speech, but too much rhetoric can be bad! A good one-liner will usually be able to beat a long story that takes up most of your introduction and leaves you with less time to construct your arguments. Rhetoric is meant to supplement your speech, not become your speech.

Remember the judges and your parliamentarians are going to spend hours in your chamber. They are going to be BORED. Rhetoric that is eye-catching, funny, and concise is the BEST.

Remember when you compete, you are presenting to judges and they must be able to understand your arguments. Extremely high-level vocab can just leave the room in confusion even though you understand it. The whole purpose of debate is to get your points across, and you want to do that most efficiently.

For example (Extremely Complicated Response):  "In the paradigm of substantive elucidation, the quintessential proclivity of the ontological framework becomes intrinsically imperative for the comprehensive instantiation of perspicacious discourses, thereby engendering an ineluctable hermeneutical conundrum."

Simplify:   "To explain things clearly, it's crucial to understand the fundamentals of the subject. This is necessary for creating insightful discussions and can sometimes lead to unavoidable challenges."