PHSSL Districts 1 2 3 16 Qualifier
2024 — Pittsburgh, PA/US
16 - Congress Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideI am the head coach at Shady Side Academy in Pittsburgh. I was not a debater in HS or college and have crashed on getting up to speed on the ins and outs of debate over the last few years on the job. I have judged LD at most levels (local, state, and NSDA nationals) and Congress at all levels (local, state, NSDA, and TOC). I have coached students who placed 8th in NSDAs in LD and 7th in NSDAs in Congress.
I am a fairly traditional judge. I do not like overly aggressive spreading. I can handle any debate jargon you throw at me, but I don't appreciate it when people speak lightning fast or card dump to try and jam up their opponents.
I am a historian by training, so I expect the contentions to be based in some degree of reality. I probably lean 50%truth/50% tech. I can accept that open borders will cause a nation's sovereignty to erode somewhat, for example, but I cannot accept that open borders will lead to a nuclear conflict between two countries. Make sure your contentions are plausible if dealing with a policy or policy action, and conceivable if dealing with theory or framework.
I have little experience in judging Ks. My PhD is in History so I can understand K-type arguments, it will just depend on how they are deployed if they are to be successful.
Congress
I'm a relatively traditional judge. Remember that you are giving a speech and not reading an expository essay, so state clearly why you support or oppose the legislation on the table. I will judge substance primarily, but style does matter in the US Congress and, by extension, in a simulated one. The evidence you present should be valid and timely in nature as well as sourced appropriately. Most sources contain bias of some sort, but avoid citing McDonalds when you're arguing about the health benefits of cheeseburgers. Argue the substance and merits of the bill rather than technicalities, for instance an imprecise statistic in a bill is not a primary cause for negation. Spreading during a congressional debate is never effective. Both practical and moral/ethical arguments are appropriate.
After the initial speeches lay out arguments for and against the bill, effective speakers should make an effort to reference other speakers and reject or support their arguments in addition to bringing up new or more compelling ones where the opportunity exists. Prepared speeches are appropriate, but the best speakers will be able to aggregate previous conversations and address them with their time on the floor. Speakers should not reintroduce arguments already made unless they can significantly improve on them or debunk them. A speech with some verbal miscues that is relevant to the conversation happening in the session is better than a perfectly delivered canned speech prepared fully in advance. Questioning can be direct and even combative at times, but both questioner and respondent should seek to engage on substantive issues and, of course, with appropriate decorum.
The most effective congressional speakers are able to control the primary arguments being debated on the floor throughout the session and move the argument forward. A representative who controls the message even when they are not speaking will receive additional consideration.