Talk:Congressional Debate

This article was nominated for deletion on 4 October 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus/keep.

Example

This article ought to be modeled after the Extemporaneous speaking article, which is quite well done.

Word choice

Because there are so many different venues for Congressional Debate, there are a lot of options for terms synonymous with "debaters" in this article:

debaters
senators
representatives
participants
students

Also, where I'm from, we don't call speeches Proponency and Opponency, but just old "pro" and "con" or "in affirmation"/"in negation."

Wouldn't it be more encyclopedic to pick one of these terms and use it throughout most of the article? If so, which one?

--Alex S 01:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Word Choice Well first we have to work out not only which local terminology were going to use, but also the difference in terminology between collegiate and high school debates. I suggest the following vocabulary:

senators, representatives, students, debaters = PARTICIPANTS

    * this because it does not specify between house and senate     chambers.

on sidings of speeches, pro/proponetcy = in (the) affirmation, con/opponetcy = in (the) negation.

The Man 01:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The National Forensics League Student Congress Manual refers to the right of a person to call them Congresspeople. I say that we use this, as it does not necessarily differentiate between Senators and Representatives (though it is more commonly attributed to the House of Representatives).

Where I am from, the Presiding Officer terms the speeches affirmation and negation, but in less formal and more colloquial venues, we simply say pro, con, aff, and neg. :)

Yrolg (talk) 17:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried using Congresspeople while editing, but it's kind of a mouthful, and a lot to type. I vote we use "debaters" instead, simply because it's shorter, but still has the same clarity as Congresspeople Catgirl the Crazy (talk) 22:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that "debaters" is too general and may cause confusion with those who actually participate in the forums of debate. Congresspeople is a perfectly utilizable tool: if it is too much, a copy and paste could suffice. I personally find it comparable in typing time to debaters, because congresspeople uses separate and more easily utilized digits. I'm planning a rewrite of this article within two months, though, so a consensus should be made. Poxywallow (talk) 04:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no mention of the constitutions?

each state has it's own parliamentary procedure as laid out by their forensics association constitution, and then theirs the national forensics league constitution. shouldnt there be a mention of them? Rockinbuddy 20:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Student Congress should be operated solely under the jurisdiction of the National Forensics League (or the Catholic Forensics League). The manual thereof states that Roberts Rules of Order are the basis for parliamentary procedure, as these apply to both the Congress of the United States of America as well as Student Congress.

Yrolg (talk) 17:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

more input from different states

Since each state seems to have its own system of Student Congress [such as in MN most of it is just debating the bills, vs in ND most of it is knowing Robert's Rules of Order in Parliamentary Procedure] I think one thing the article could do would be to add in a state-by-state area for student congress being as it varies so much —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.207.203.184 (talk) 21:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would be best simply to create a new article for each state. Though this might not work as states like Ohio have two districts which operate in strictly different manners.

Yrolg (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be an example of content forking. It makes more sense to just add in separate sections for states with significantly different rules. Catgirl the Crazy (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions in Intro

In the article's intro, it's got a bullet point list with reasons why kids enjoy Student Congress, followed by what "Critics" say about it. Given that that statement will be nearly impossible to source, I vote that we cut it. Thoughts? Catgirl the Crazy (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Poxywallow (talk) 15:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too Much How-To

Current Section 2 (Procedure) should be significantly pared down, and current Section 3 (Frequently Used Parliamentary Motions) should be eliminated to better conform to WP:NOTHOWTO (Wikipedia is not a how-to, guide, or manual). This page should be about Congressional Debate, not about how to do Congressional Debate. Even after I made recent edits to Section 3 for the sake of accuracy, it still doesn't do the how-to part very well. Liffer (talk) 23:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Congressional Debate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:34, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Congressional Debate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]