Paradigm

Guyberson Pierre
AW Dreyfoos School of the Arts

Emory '25, Dreyfoos School of the Arts '21. Former member of Team USA & Congressional Debater, having made final rounds @ NSDA Nats, NCFL Nats, Harvard, Emory, FL States, Sunvite, Blue Key, and more. Here's my general view on Congress & how I evaluate:

Signposting: You should indicate where you are in your speech. It makes it 10x easier to follow. This also means that whether you are using CWDI, Block/SSI, or your own unique speech structure, you should explicitly flag where you are. I'm a big believer in talking to the judge - ask rhetorical questions in your speech, inflate the importance of your argument, etc.

Warranting: Please thoroughly mechanize your arguments. Just because a card says something will/will not occur does not mean your argument has been warranted.

Speech Positioning: for me, it does not matter when you speak in a round, so long as the debate is advancing. A strategic sponsorship can get the 1 & so can an impactful late-round speech. Your speech should maximize the job it was supposed to do at the point it was delivered in the round.

Clash: an argument is not sufficiently refuted simply because you named someone else in the room/what claim they made in their speech—an argument is refuted when you attack the warrant(s) behind someone’s claim. You should also weigh—no judge wants to be left with reasons not to vote for the other side; debates are comparative in nature, and weighing is perhaps the only thing that can break the deadlock in certain rounds.

Late-Round Speeches: Please actually crystallize the round and don’t just give another constructive. You should cover the main voting issues/clashpoints and weigh. I’m of the belief that it is perfectly okay, if not preferable, to drop arguments so long as you’re interacting with the most important issue(s) of the round.

Rhetoric: There’s rarely too much rhetoric. From what I’ve seen, rhetoric is also severely underutilized on the circuit—there should be time devoted to rhetoric/impacting. To me, the best rhetoric is unique to the bill & is connected to the central theme in your speech (i.e., if, in a minimum wage debate, your arguments are about workers, ideally your intro/rhetoric/conclusion would connect to workers in one way or another). Build a central advocacy.

TLDR: clearly spell out your logic & where you are in your speech; thoroughly refute arguments instead of just name-dropping; explicitly weigh; advance the round; speak with passion & with variation; ad-hominem attacks are a no-go.