The bottom line with stock phrases/wording is that you should try

to be unique each time you speak; otherwise, you are too

predictable. I support duckylove's advice for a final appeal, but
it's unnecessary to use the word "stand" and "strongest." Be
even more direct and concise. "I implore you to vote affirmative."
or "Defeating this legislation should be our only course of action."
Change it up, but keep concision front and center. Reviewing
points -- if you have time -- can be useful, but if you're short
on time, that final appeal can really clinch your speech for the
judges and your peers.

And, actually, congressdebateguy, you have a great starting

skeleton to what you're doing, even though you claim to be a
newbie! If you can't think of anything else, sometimes just
opening with an alarming statistic that piques interest can speak
volumes about an issue.

The more you read, congressdebateguy, the more you will be

prepared to incorporate outside ideas. Whether it's a reference to
Thomas L. Friedman's The World is Flat, or a literary allusion to
The Great Gatsby, showing that you can incorporate relevant
nonfiction or fiction shows that you can synthesize and apply
ideas. I always tell my collegiate Imprompters to keep a
"commonplace book," where they jot down quotations and
anecdotes from things they read, encounter and learn, both on
their own and in classes. Then, they review these books before
going into a round to remind them of these experiences they've
had, so they can incorporate those things in a speech. A similar
strategy could be employed in Congress.

cshrecengost raises a great point, because it's important to

follow the format in your state. While I can tell you as someone
with a background in the legislative process and who has read
Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised, 10th Ed. from cover to
cover, there is no need to say anything at the conclusion of your
speech about yielding for questions or standing open for cross-
ex. Here are some observations that explain why:
% First of all, as a teacher, I'm a stickler for using the correct
terms of art. "Cross-examination" is a specific term to other
forms of debate, and Robert's Rules of Order refers to the
period as "Questioning." I'm hoping that as we spread
 awareness of this fact, that Congressional Debate begins to
emerge with a distinct and accurate identity, much as Public
Forum has with its special "Crossfire" period.
% Roberts Rules provides for standing rules, and the NFL (and
state organizations who sponsor Congress as an event)
have specific standing rules that set speaking and
questioning times. Therefore, it's simply up to the presiding
officer to open the questioning period following a speech,
whether it's the balance of unused time, or a set one- or
two-minute period.
In the same spirit as the last question, it's unnecessary to ask,
"Does the speaker yield?" The questioning time is built into the
rules, so it's compulsory. If the speaker on the floor wishes to
not field questions, s/he would simply say "I decline to answer"
or "I prefer not to say," and after a couple times of saying that,
the chamber should get the idea that this person will not answer
questions.

While I may not be quite the scholar of Congress, I've been a

Parliamentarian for a long time. And I have a basic
understanding of the rules for floor debate. The Chairperson/PO
("Chair") controls the time available for debate on the motion.
When a member requests the floor (by whatever mechanism is
used in the meeting/assembly), the Chair "recognizes" the
member as having the floor for a defined period of time. If the
speaker uses less than the prescribed time period, the proper
procedure used in Congress is to end the speech with, "I yield
back the balance of my time" or "I yield my remaining time to
the Chair". The time is not "absorbed" by the Chair (or any other
phrase I've heard mis-used in Congress sessions). It simply
belongs to the Chair who redistributes it to the next member-
speaker OR opens the floor to questions, whichever is
appropriate.

Likewise, a proper form to start the speech is to introduce

yourself and then state that you "Rise" in favor/opposition to the
legislation. Keep an ear out for various phrases the other
speakers are using as openings and please, for the love of all
things sacred, DON'T repeat the one the last speakers used! As a
judge, when I hear, "I stand in firm affirmation (or negation)" for
the umpteenth time in a row, it puts me to sleep straight away
and my level of expectation for your performance drops (along
with the starting point level I'm going to give you). It's like
hearing the words, "In conclusion"... it just grates on me. Come
up with your own phrasing to state your position in the opening.
Then give me a solid introduction. I'll be very impressed.

My advice would be to really think about what people are

stayingn and become passionate about what youre talking about.
The best way is to get into the rebuttal mentality: just think of
what they say and keep refuting and refuting until youre
comfortable introducting youre own points as well. But think
about it: when you are passionate about something and really
thinking about it (and maybe even get mad about it!) you come
out with the best phrases and (dare i say!) speeches against it.
Practice in front of a mirror or in your room alone. Mostly, you
have to know what youre talking about to have any kind of
confidence so read, sleep, and eat the news, the Economist,
Foreign Policy. Learn to argue what you dont believe and make
everyone believe it. Just have passion and conviction and the
rest will follow!

They are all correct.

Personally, I'm partial to the try Extemp solution :wink: .

However, your main problem sounds like an issue with

impromptu speaking. In a congress speech, what you really need
to be able to do is list a few points in your head. Spend the entire
time prior to speaking making sure exactly what those points
are. The skill comes in when you stand up. The only part you'll
have memorized are the points, but that is ok. You HAVE to be
able to fill in the rest off the cuff.

That sounds extremely difficult, and, to be honest, it sounds that

way because it is. Nevertheless, it is what is necessitated.
Thankfully, there are some definite ways to improve. My personal
favorite is talking to yourself. It makes you look crazy, but it is
really helpful. I am constantly talking to myself about politics
(when it isn't directly socially detrimental that is :lol: ). You don't
even have to specify yourself a topic. Get a broad idea in your
head and just go. I'll just tell myself something (ie Israel and
Lebanon), then start talking then and there. Don't give yourself
time to collect or anything. Just go. "The conflict between Israel
and Lebanon is a fierce debacle that the international community
must desperately try to solve. If peace is a possibility in the
Middle East, it must start with Israel. Obviously, with Israel being
the fuse of the powder keg in this region, it is certainly the part
that must be diffused first. Therefore, we can conclude that it IS
in the international community's best interest to attempt to
mitigate the conlfict going on there." The diatribe is unfocused,
wordy, and pointless. However, it serves its purpose. You now
have experience talking about these things. You can be
comfortable with the terms you're going to have to use.

This also helps in another critical arena: platitude phrases.

Platitude phrases (a term I invented, so don't feel bad) are
simply relevant filler. Phrases like, "If this Congress wishes to
maintain is credibility with its constituents, then it MUST be
willing to address controversial issues such as the one at hand
head on! We can't continue to skirt this problem any longer, and
as such, the proposed action here must not be taken lightly." If
you constantly work to build a repertoire of broad phrases like
this that you are comfortable in saying, you will be able to build
your fluidity. They are not necessary and they do little to actually
build an argument. However, they make you sound very
impressive. They also allow you to integrate vocabulary that you
might be afraid to use on the fly. By having some handy words
and "platitude phrases" constantly at your command, you will
have more time to think about the more complicated sentences
you are just now formulating in your head. Your mouth will spew
an impressive array of jargon, while your head prepares the next
onslaught of logic.

If you ask me, the best step you can take here is to GET RID OF
THE NOTE CARD. In my mind, it is an instant detriment. The
second that notecard becomes visible, it becomes clear that the
person speaking is not entirely confident in what they are saying.
Since it appears as if the speaker is trying to force the words on
paper out of their own mouth, it becomes infinitely harder for
said speaker to force those words into my head. After all, if the
argument isn't in your head, why should it be in mine?

I do understand why note cards are getting more and more

prevalent. I certainly believe that they are excusable for novices,
and I suppose they can be handy tools for a statistic in a tricky
congress speech. However, they most definitely should not be
dictating your speech. If you use some of the drills and skills I
mentioned here, you should be one step closer to being a
confident congressional representative.

I'll add more drills as I get less lazy. If you have questions, just
ask.

Good luck in your endeavor! Remember, the key to success is no

more complicated than hard work. It will take you anywhere you
let it.

The way I got over the whole "can't look up" thing was by 1)
practicing the speech, 2) learning to speak from an outline, and
3) pretending the people looking at me were dolls.

1) If you've gone through your speech at the wall enough times

(there is no such thing as enough. Do it as often as possible.)
then you'll start to get a rhythm for it. You'll start to know what
you mean to say next, and you can use certain phrases as
landmarks. I've usually got my speech half memorized by the
time I'm comfortable enough to speak from a 5 line outline . . .

2) which leads me to my next point. I write a basic outline, with

a few phrases that I WANT to use, for sure, and my
statistics/quotes. Then I practice giving the speech from the
notes a billion and 12 times (exaggeration), and it changes every
time. But by then you know what you're talking about, and it
doesn't matter what the exact wording is. You look like you know
what you're talking about. Because you do. I will forever support
speaking from an outline, minus the manuscript.

3) I used to have this huge issue with looking people in the eyes.
I was able to look a total of 1 person directly in the eyes for
years. I finally got over this by just forcing myself to do it. I
pretended the people were dolls. Dolls' eyes are lifeless, and it
doesn't feel like they're judging you as much that way.
Eventually, you'll stop concentrating on your own discomfort, but
on the fact that every so often, the audience is just as awkward
turtle as you.

EDIT: If you only have a few minutes to prepare, don't try to

write a manuscript. Just a nice outline. Works charms.

I do agree that trying extemp (or even impromptu) either at a

tournament or as a drill can greatly help, but I think the biggest
hurdle you need to overcome is simply how much you write. I
started congress in much the same way as you, so I know where
you're coming from.

First, severely limit the number of words you're able to write for
a particular speech. You might say ten words or less for the intro
(I usually use one or two--I'm a pop-culture freak, so if I know
what I'm referencing, I can usually tell the 'story' off the cuff
without much prompting. What helps there is pretending that I'm
reiterating the concept (such as a particularly witty episode of
Seinfeld) to a good friend. This also gives you a teeny bit of time
to compose yourself in front of a crowd. Important: don't waste
time on an intro in congress! A sentence or two before
introducing your stance usually works.)
For the rest of your speech, leave maybe a handful of words per
point. This should be enough to establish what you're speaking
about and note any sources. For example, in a bill seeking to
promote college prep education over voc ed (we actually had a
bill like this once; it was bizarre), I might blueprint this:

Negate bill
2 key-necessity for voc ed, constitutionality
1-voc ed has stigma, perpetuates
stat: NY plumbers (NY Times 2005)
need balance to further society.

2-bill can be considered U.C.

not 'necessary and proper'
left to states

Doesn't seem like a lot, does it? What I've done is left me
reminders of what's important to the speech--emphasizing the
need for vocational education in our country becuase we're
becoming flooded with college degrees. The stat that backs that
up is one decribing the number of newly trained plumbers in
NYC--something around 100 graduated from a training program
in a single year. For a city of 8 million people, that's a little small
(even when you consider just how many plumbers there already
are, it's small). There are plenty of lucrative vocational jobs, and
that's not being turly explored in education. This bill will set that
back. Additionally, one could argue that it's not constitutional
because education is supposed to be a states' right, and here we
are as the Federal government stepping in and trying to mandate
something. What about the necessary and proper clause, you
ask? Well, how can this be n & p if there's a greater need for
vocational jobs in America than for professional jobs.
Because you have the docket a couple of days beforehand, I
suggest you spend some time researching some general pro and
con points before the start of the tournament. These are both
arguments that I discussed in my speech (I cannnot remember
the third one for the life of me, otehrwise I'd share) and because
I was familiar with them, they came easily in response to what
other people had said. Most importantly, take notes as people
speak and try to exploit weaknesses in their speeches.
Sometimes people will say things that directly contradict the
information you have--use that to your advantage. If you have a
couple of things to say before you walk into the tournament (and
these are things that you can practice), you'll soon find yourself
making excellent speeches.

The biggest thing is to simply limit the words you write on a card.
That will force you to speak more off the cuff. Oh, and practice
couldn't hurt, either. :wink:
Good luck!