The Future of Congress

Congress is an event like no other, combining the argumentation and clash seen in events like Policy and World Schools with the purposeful speaking style and rhetoric from Interpretation events to convince and educate in a way that is accessible to all. Its competitors are no less different, being some of the most diversely minded individuals from across the nation, ready to share their perspectives with you on everything from national highway policy to whether or not we should adopt the metric system.

However, ask any individual that does not participate in congress as their primary event. They may refer to it as a beginners event: easy to participate in and boring compared to other debate events. It's easy to see why. Sitting at least three hours with 9-16 competitors per room, it can quickly get muddy, uninteresting, or tiring to most. That’s not how it's supposed to be. Congress is intended to be a very accessible event - while easy to learn, it is hard to master. Recently though, congress has become less and less accessible while growing even more boring, and that trend is only expected to continue if we as Congressional Debaters stand aside.  Why is that, and what can we actually do as competitors do to reverse that trend going forward?

One of the largest bad norms occurring in Congressional Debate right now is that of coaches and other students encouraging Congress as an ‘easy’ event. That is not the case at all. In Speech & Debate as a whole, every single event requires the same skills, but applied in different ways. You need to make an argument with a claim, warrant, and impact in Policy debate, yes. However, you also need to make an argument with those same components in any interpretation event, just presented differently. In this way, all events are based on the same principles of speaking and critical thinking, and as such, no event is easier than the other in terms of skill needed or room for growth in the event. The problem is, because Congress has some of the shortest speeches in debate, as well as what some would consider the simplest formatting, coaches and other competitors will recommend or place novice competitors in it because they think that the more simple nature will naturally result in more success. That assumption is the furthest from the actual truth. By placing novices in an event they might not even want to participate in, you 1) decrease the motivation of that student to participate in debate as a whole if they don’t like the event, and 2) reduce the time they can spend researching and finding other events that they would rather participate in. Every single event is hard, none are easy. Pick the one you like, not the one you think you'll find more competitive success in. Competitive success comes with enjoyment and a positive mindset, and that only makes that success even better. To better not only Congressional Debate novices but all novices in Speech & Debate as a whole, don't force them into Congress.

I want to separate myself from other Congressional Debate writers on this blog in one key way. In an article that Nick Ostheimer writes here, he argues for the reversing of trends happening in the Congress community right now, that Congress needs to return to its roots as a simulation event and become more simple. I would agree with most of that, except for the fact that Congress needs to become a more simple event, and move away from the complex argumentation seen in its current form. I believe that Congress can return to its roots as a more pure argumentation event while also becoming more multifaceted and complex in its happenings. Yes speeches need to get simpler, but that doesn't mean the rest of the round has to. Right now there is not much to do in a round when you aren’t prepping, questioning, or speaking that actually allows you to interact with the debate. Amendments, sure; tabling, maybe? But outside of those actions there is almost nothing you can do–that is, within the current norms of Congress. The actual list of available motions and actions to be taken within a round that can aid debate, make the round more lively, and expand clash is quite large, but no one participates in them because it's ‘taboo’ to do so and go against the normal flow of a round. That is absolutely a harmful norm for the event, as it restricts individuality in perspective and action. Congress is supposed to be an event of adaptation and change. In fact, it's the very sentiment that the NSDA themselves present on their own guide to Congressional Debate as an event. Christina Gilbert, an NSDA alumni, says that in Congressional Debate “You are rewarded for taking risks; one cannot simply fade into the background and expect to succeed.” Unfortunately, that sentiment is not being represented in Congress as it stands today. Congress has become a boring, single-faceted event, with only a couple of real strategies to approach speeches throughout the round structurally. Some of the best aspects of debate events like Public Forum and Policy debate are the variances in approach to the event in terms of what you can talk about and say, while keeping some semblance of structure in speech times and orders. Congress is even more loose with its procedure, being subject to change at the chamber’s will, but in order to make Congress an even more engaging event, we have to move away from those norms of unchanging monotony and start participating in all of what Congress has to offer.

The norms don't stop at how the round progresses either, though. Another huge problem within Congress right now is that of a lack of prep amongst competitors. Between people not wanting to prep and people thinking they can do it in round, lack of pre-prepared notes or speeches on legislation is a problem not just for competition but for all of Speech & Debate. Why? 

1. A lack of prep means longer rounds when people have to take recesses to prep instead. Often, Recesses don't go towards total floor debate time (even if they are in-house), so any recess time used for prep only extends the already long round and wastes judges and prepared competitors' time.

2. No preparation means that the debates are worse for those participating in them. It does not matter if you are the best person in the world at in-round prep, limited preparation can only get your points so far. That means worse clash and arguments presented in-round which is not fun for anyone, and only makes Congress more boring.

3. Having no preparation is a reason that judges don't want to judge. When you take recesses and more time than necessary to do preparation you should have done weeks beforehand, you, again, waste judges time heavily. That disincentives them to not only judge congress if it's going to be this boring event where no one preps, but entire tournaments as a whole if that is the precedent you bring to the table for Speech & Debate.

Don't contribute to the perpetuation of those norms, and prepare speeches before rounds.

Finally, as one of the more approachable debate events, we need to prioritize logic as a norm instead of evidence being substituted instead of it. One bad standard being perpetuated through Congress is that of evidence overuse. It is one thing to have supplemental evidence to quantify impacts or provide empirics, but it's another to have every single part of your link chain be evidence. Even worse is to have your warranting be evidence. This decreases credibility massively and removes the soul from Congress. Evidence faking is already a problem in some Congress circuits, but this is a problem around the very basics of argumentation. When you overuse cards as your entire argument, you remove any sense of logic, and make it easier for evidence faking to occur as well. Only use evidence as a supplement, not as your entire speech.

All of these standards need to change as soon as possible in order to guarantee a brighter future for Congressional Debate. But those changes start with the actions of the community. In a battle against bad norms, every change in perspective and purpose counts.