How To Jumpstart Your Congressional Debate & Extemp Season

As fall looms, we, a small group of America's finest young men and women, don our suits, put pens in our mouths, and speak to walls. While those unenlightened folk around us assume it's some sort of cult, we know it to just be another season of Speech & Debate; although admittedly the distinction is often unclear. Regardless of what dark rituals we perform to become better communicators, we often find the process of getting back in the saddle to be somewhat daunting. So even if you are a novice policy debater in southern California, a seasoned congressperson from upstate New York, or anyone in between, let's make the large and broad transition just a bit easier by examining the real framework of Speech & Debate: Research.

It's a banal and broad statement to say that preparation is the key towards excelling as a debater, and it's an even less contentious argument that the fundamental way to good preparation is through good research. Thus, in this article, I will give some tips on finding, preparing, and using research effectively.

Planning: Getting the research process started

Debaters and speakers often find themselves frustrated and exhausted after hours of googling their subject, yet often coming up with little to show for it. And while we will examine some good searching strategies in just a moment, let's begin with the foundation of research; setting out a roadmap of what we need.

After getting a plan/bill/resolution, we need to identify three key variables. The first variable is the action: What does the plan/bill/resolution do? We want to know what effects that an action (Drone Strikes) has had or what it might be projected to do, and how it will be done. The second variable is the subject: To whom or what is the action being applied to? We want to know the realities of our subject (Pakistan) and how the relate to the broader context of debate. The third variable is the actor: Who is carrying out the action? We want to know the efficacy of the actor (US Military) and the merits of utilizing it. Sometimes a piece of legislation, a resolution or a plan has multiple actions, subjects, and actors. Sometimes they aren't always obvious. Sometimes the delineation between them isn't clear. That's okay; identifying these variables early on saves us wasted time and energy. Identifying these variables allows us to have a better breadth material in the sense that we are ready for specific courses of debating on varying topics that comprise a plan/bill/resolution.

Now that we have all the bases covered of WHAT and WHERE we will be debating, we next need to identify the types of arguments on a topic so we can cover HOW we will be debating. There are a few types of arguments on the impact level: Inherency (What is the status quo; what are the present barriers and their harms?), Solvency (Does an action overcome the barriers and harms, and can the action be undertaken?), Impacts (What are the disadvantages or advantages the action will cause?), and Critical (Is an action in principle good or bad?). There are also arguments on the warrant level: Topical (What does a term mean, does an argument meet a definition?), Framing (How should we view the debate, the topic, or an issue?), and Warrant (Is another argument, its link, or its impact correct?). Determining and then finding different arguments that can/should/will be made improves the scope of your work. Having a research system that is framed by the type of arguments after determining extant variables allows for a better depth of material in the sense that we can better argue for and against those variables in different manners.

How exactly you do all of this is up to you; some people make a bulleted list, others a flow chart. The important thing is that you figure out a method that allows you to effectively roadmap your research process. It should be noted that all of these items might not be initially apparent; do your best to plan ahead, and be ready to uncover more as you go.

Searching: How and where we find what we are looking for

Even after making an action plan, we still run into the issue of how to actually make that happen. There is quite literally no greater collection of human knowledge than the Internet, and exploiting libraries and media centers is equally challenging. Maybe the most daunting part of research is that we don't know how to start.

This is where planning comes in to play. While we will momentarily cover where to search, let's cover how. Knowing variables on the plan/bill/resolution as well as their key words and phrases will allow you to narrow and vary your results. Try searching by the topics you found on each variable. It's best to start with general material most salient to the plan/bill/resolution; this allows you to get a feel for what they look like. We get the good, stock arguments for each topic. This were we get the breadth of material. Now, search specific arguments on each topic. This is where we get the depth of material; that way we can approach a topic from multiple perspectives.

Now we can cover were to search. Let's start with the internet. The first thing we need to do is to find a search engine. Ignoring the fact that Google is on a trajectory to take over the world, it is probably the best tool for debaters to use during the research process. Google Scholar will give you a complete list of accessible scholarly and scientific articles on a topic. Google News will give you timely columns and editorials with different viewpoints on a topic. Google Search or Bing will net you an even mix of editorials and publications that are most salient to the topic.

More advanced and focused search engines like LexisNexis, EBSCO, and JSTOR allows us to modify the parameters of what we are looking for, and often cut out extraneous annoyances like blogposts. Be warned; subscriptions to these services cost money. Consult your coaches or your school's media center to see if they have public subscriptions that you can use.

One can also go to publishers directly, and search their sites for topics. Whether it's a University's website or the New York Times, most publishers have a search bar on their homepage that allows you to browse their works.

While it's easy to use the internet, and complete your work with it, one ought not to discount written materials. Have subscriptions to libraries and news sources can be help in avoiding exhausted avenues of internet research and yield otherwise uncommon works that your colleagues might not have. Books tend to be amazing sources, in part in because they have stronger positions and thus their use is rewarded. Again, check with your school and team to see if subscriptions are available.

Once you've found material, try to cascade your work. If an article has links to other good work, open them! If you've found a new term or concept you didn't predict, read into it! Speech & Debate on every level is meant to broaden your horizons; this is an excellent step in doing that, and the results do pay off.

Selecting: Identifying what constitutes as good research

Sometimes, even after make a roadmap and master the use of media resources, we still run into one of two issues: We aren't sure what is appropriate for our event/topic, or we know what is appropriate, but just can't find it.

Knowing what is acceptable to use starts with general guidelines:

The first and most broad rule for appropriate research relies on academic integrity. The author needs to have received an appropriate level of education and training to be considered as cite-able. The publisher that the author is writing for must be accredited in some way. The author and the publisher, especially a specific piece of their work in question, must be free from accusations of dishonesty or illegitimacy. This determines what can be used.

The second and more nuanced rule relies on academic excellence. We want to make sure our author and publisher hold some sort of acclaim from the academic community. Our author should be a respected, and more so on the topic they are writing on; they should have expertise and specialization. We wouldn't ask a surgeon to write an article on geopolitics. The publisher should be recognized as being possessive of consistently good work, and more so in relation to a certain topic. We wouldn't ask Foreign Policy Magazine to write about molecular biology. This determines what should be used.

Each event also holds certain criterion on what can and should be used. In extemp, we would never cite a column older than one or two months. In LD, theoretical works are practically required, while in Public Forum the focus is on current events. Often times, stringency on an event-by-event basis changes from region to region and offer notable exceptions. Consult your coach and team on this, but recognize that standards change from event to event.

The last thing we need to do to identify good research is to be critical of it ourselves. Just because an article has meet the above criterion doesn't make it a good one. Know the degree of bias. We want warrants to be clear. We want to make sure the article flows logically. We want hard numbers and specific examples. We want to make sure that the work is as germane to the topic as possible. We should be able to tell if the work is quantitative or qualitative.

These aren't so much a standards not to violate but rather a tools to your success; focusing your research to specific authors and publishers and evaluating their work will probably yield you better material, more of it. Holding yourself to that standard in principle improves your personal integrity; members of the community will take note. The end result is better debate; there's no argument that we want that.

Condensing: Making our research tournament-ready

Now that we've made a plan, executed it, and have good work available, the real question is how we turn it into a good piece of evidence. It's worth noting that while we will go over general strategies, be sure that your team, coach, community, and most importantly you as a debater/speaker is accepting of how you deliver sources and content.

The first step to making a research tournament ready is to actually read it. Even if you've identified good lines within the work, you still need to get a feel for the work in its entirety. This doesn't necessarily mean you have read every line, but reading overviews, underviews, methods and counterpoints should be your focus. This helps you better condense the work, better explain and defend it, and it may even lead you to further knowledge and works.

The next step is having a hard copy. Always download a work in PDF form. Make sure whether in the work or in the document name you have the author, the publisher, the date, the URL and the full title. This recuses you and any other user of the work from any allegation of misconduct, if such a circumstance was to occur. It also allows you to go back and reference the work, which helps you and your team as work on the topic continues.

The final step is carding: Debaters listen up, extempers put your ear-muffs on. To get an acceptable, nay, a good card, a few things need to happen. You need to use some sort of document maker like Word or Google Docs. First, you need to write a citation. It should go author, publisher, full date, article title, URL and your initials, in that order. You need not read all of that aloud. Only the author, publisher and full date need to be orally recited. Second, we need to cut the work. This means copy-pasting all paragraphs that you will cite, the introduction paragraph, and the conclusion paragraph. From there, the world is your oyster. No matter how you do it, most debaters choose to underline, bold, and or highlight the material they will read in round, and minimizing the size of everything else. Third and finally, tag the card in a descriptive and accurate manner.

It should go without saying that you should never falsify, misrepresent, or omit during the research process. I have more than enough faith that no one reading this, or anyone in general would do that. But sometimes we get frustrated, and sometimes we get tired. This is only one more reason to expand our research abilities; finding articles rather than making them not only avoids ethics issues.

After we've successfully made a single piece of work ready, we should make our combined research ready. This means organization. Some people print, others do not. Some people organize by argument type, others by topic. No matter how you do it, set up your file system in a manner that is easily accessible and suits your needs. Nothing is worse than having a great card/article but not being able to find it.

Strengthening: Making our research count

The research process never stops. Not only because we can always find more work, and find better work, but because we can seek to make our research do more. This seems like a fairly cryptic, in part because it means a few different things.

The first way we can make our research do more is by reading about it. While we would never cut sources like Wikipedia or About.com, we would never cite old sources, and we could never use a TV interview, we can use all of those resources to improve background knowledge. Knowing about key facts on an issue and gaining unique insight into an issue does a few things for us: First, it expands our ability to plan out research. Second, it allows us to better analyze otherwise mundane research and arguments. Third, it defends us from making poor arguments and allows us to better back up the good ones that we do make.

The second way we can make our research do more is by talking about it. Sometimes the answers we are looking for on how to make or address an argument is by consulting others. Whether it be a teammate, a coach, a parent, or a teacher, sharing insight about our work allows it be evaluated, criticized or expanded in ways that we or our sources may not have thought of. It also allows us to better conceptualize arguments and where we can go and what we can do with them.

One could posit that making our research do more is maximizing it's utility; give it more places to be applied while minimizing involved work and risk. While quantity, even with quality in regards to research is great, having a high utility is a force multiplier. There is nowhere you can't go and nothing you can't argue; that's what good debate is.

A few final thoughts

This year, the debater's bible, otherwise known as the Congressional Research Service, has turned 100 years old. Its inception shifted the American Congress away from an era of impassioned oration that did much to placate, but not enough to represent. Its inception shifted the American Congress into an era in which the congress still had to satisfy its populace, but it could now do so with better policy making. In that shift that was the Progressive movement, the quality of the speeches arguably stayed the same, but they became more focused, more accurate, and allowed substantive debate to happen.

Political indemnification aside, what happening in 1914 is a case study in why the Speech & Debate community ought to retain and improve its ability to incorporate research into the event. This means not seeing research as a burden or threshold that ought to be reached for the sake doing so, but seeing research as an area that, when given a high attention, is the sole way in which we become better debaters, betters speakers, and better people.

It's not so much of arduous task as we may think. One need only break the research process into a series of stages, as this article does, to not only get the research done, but to get it done well. The progression of research serves to satisfy itself, but to make the transition in to this season just one bit easier.