Shapiro,+James

I have been coaching speech and debate at the Berkeley Carroll School for 16 years. In Congress, after the first few speeches refutation, paraphrase, responsiveness, argumentation grouping and analysis and citation of speakers by name are highly commendable ways to ensure genuine legislative debate. Simply waiting your turn to add arguments that may be only partially relevant is a waste. Speakers should demonstrate intelligent ownership of the issue and bring a fresh point of view. Be sure to have quality sources: Foreign Affairs, NY Times, journals, books. Speaker skills of course help. Strive for a natural conversational tone; eschew bombast and junior senator airs. Try to pronounce esoteric words correctly. Don't be afraid to be simple and direct. Most importantly, bring energetic conviction and evidence of clear thinking to the chamber. It's a fantastic event when approached with a sense of fun, vigor and the requisite advance preparation.

As for LD, I'm not very clever so don't expect me to be able to follow intricate technical arguments. Every round has a different narrative, a different story that emerges and that makes it unique. Therefore, how you weigh the relative merits of clashing arguments will change as will the importance of various logical elements in your presentation. I appreciate that the tight time framework necessitates some jargon and some reliance on blippy lingo but whenever possible, a few sentences of explanation can carry so much more weight than "extend x". Rushing and slurring uninflected, unmodulated speech where you're pitching 30 ideas and hoping four stick is less impressive than fewer ideas more adequately explained. Some of the best debaters I've seen have an uncanny quality of speaking as if they have ample time to explain what they are about without needing a pace that resembles loggorheic spew. More analysis and better arguments matters much more than overly subtle technical argumentation. I appreciate well turned sentences, command of rhetoric and clarity. I'm unqualified at knowing how to appreciate theory, kritiks, and the like; I'm nearest probably to a highly sophisticated lay judge. I flow carefully but if you're going really fast, I won't keep up and I will worry about why I feel so inadequate instead of concentrating on the arguments. LD is a beautiful event when two people manifest clash, analysis and persuasive ardor.