Impact Development in Congressional Debate

By Ryan Fedasiuk

About the author

2
What is an impact?
3
Linking vs terminal impacts
4
Humanizing impacts
Weighing mechanisms
9

About the author

Hello and thanks for tuning into my first webinar for the
National Speech and Debate Association. My name is Ryan
Fedasiuk, an alum of Desert Vista High School in Phoenix,
Arizona. I graduated in 2015 and presently attend American
University in Washington, DC where I am pursuing a BA in
International Studies, a BS in Computer Science, and a
certificate in Community-Based Research. I am also an intern at the Council
on Foreign Relations.
While in high school, I competed in Congressional Debate at the national
level for four years. I also competed in Public Forum Debate and Impromptu
Speaking at the state level for four years, and tried my hand at
Extemporaneous Speaking my senior year. I traveled to a number of
national tournaments and achieved varying levels at success at each one;
my senior year I took second place at Nationals and was ranked first in the
United States for 2014-2015 by the Institute for Speech and Debate.
I have coached at the Champion Briefs Institute in Florida and the
Southwest Speech and Debate Institute in Arizona. I presently coach
students online through 3P Speech. If you would like to have a one-on-one
coaching session with me, we offer free 30-minute consultations and varying
coaching plans beyond that. You can sign up for coaching sessions here:
http://www.3pspeech.com/#!ryan-fedasiuk/c17gm
You are welcome to friend me on Facebook or add me on LinkedIn if you
have further questions or would like to contact me individually. You can also
follow me on Twitter: @ryanfedasiuk.

2 | Impact Development with Ryan Fedasiuk

What is an impact?
Hopefully by now you are familiar with the basic structure of an argument
in Congressional Debate: Claim, Warrant, Data, Impact (CWDI). The impact
is the most important part of any point in a congress speech.
At its core, an impact represents why your argument matters. It is a
statement of significance. You should be able to begin any impact with the
phrase, This matters because In an average debate on a single piece of
legislation, you will hear at least twelve speeches featuring (usually) two
arguments in each speech. The purpose of the impact is to differentiate your
two arguments from the other twenty-two the judge will hear in the span of
an hour.
Moreover, something I have noticed since graduating is that, as a judge, I
do not have the time or energy to carefully study and dissect each individual
argument presented in a congress round. Strong, persuasive, humanized
impacts are what set speakers apart in my mind. A well-developed impact
separates the strong from the weak. In close final rounds, it can literally
mean the difference between first and last place.

3 | Impact Development with Ryan Fedasiuk

Linking vs terminal impacts

Overview
Impacts may be categorized into two types: linking and terminal.
A linking impact (LI) represents a step in the impact chain. It is possible to
link something with almost anything else. Have you ever seen Policy
Debate? Everything links to nuclear war. But you can run similarly unique
arguments in Congressional Debate. I once gave a speech talking about why
funding the U.S. Forest Service would result in more car accidents. Another
favorite of mine was about how fast-tracking the Trans-Pacific Partnership
would result in more heart attacks for Americans. At face value, these seem
ludicrous (and I would not recommend making these arguments in an actual
debate round). But the logic is actually fairly sound. It just takes a while to
explain.
A terminal impact (TI) is the final product of your argument: a concrete
statement of significancesome cataclysmic harm or wonderful benefit
passing/failing the legislation will provide. In the two cases described
above, the terminal impacts were, respectively, increased car accidents and
increased heart attacks.
The terminal impact answers the question Why should I care? The linking
impact answers the question And then what?
Examples
The red represents what the bill or resolution does, and the blue
represents the terminal impact. Everything in between represents a linking
impact.
Funding the USFS Unnecessarily fights more naturally-occurring fires
Small, controlled forest fires are the only way to keep deer population at
bay / drive them away from high-population areas Less fires = more deer,
deer population skyrockets in rural communities More deer = more likely
to wander into the road Increases the number of deer-related car
accidents More Americans die or are injured from hitting deer /
have to pay more money to car/health insurance companies
Fast-tracking the TPP Giving the president fast-track authority means
relinquishing our ability to make amendments to the TPP later There is
no comprehensive ban on shark finning in the TPP but there should be
Open trade with SE Asian countries means the U.S. imports more shark
meat and other sea food More imports = more consumption Shark
meat and sea food contain ridiculously high levels of mercury Mercury is
closely linked with heart condition and failure A study links high
4 | Impact Development with Ryan Fedasiuk

consumption levels of shark fins with dramatic increases in heart failure

risk in Australia More Americans die from heart attacks
Execution
Obviously the points above are much too long, intricate, and unbelievable to
be plausible or persuasive in a congress round. When crafting arguments,
you have to strike a balance between uniqueness and length. Remember,
you dont want to appear too expository in your speaking. Spending two
minutes explaining a link chain is not an option. However, one of the most
common questions I get when coaching people is about how to make an
argument more unique. The solution is to turn a stock terminal impact into
a linking impact for your unique argument. For example, a stock impact of
an argument against fast-tracking TPP is that opening trade with SE Asian
nations results in more imports for the United States. There are many
directions you can go with this impact. It can be a terminal impact:
increasing imports is a bad thing and reduces American competitiveness. It
can be a linking impact: increasing imports is a bad thing because it
increases the number of specifically undesirable products entering the
United States. Choose one of those products (shark meat?) and run with it.
Now you have a unique argument.
Generally you want to minimize the number of links in your impact chain
while maximizing the uniqueness of your argument. Those of you familiar
with Public Forum Debate will understand that increasing the length of your
impact chain provides your opponents with more opportunities to attack
your argument, thus preventing you from reaching your terminal impact.

5 | Impact Development with Ryan Fedasiuk

Humanizing impacts
Overview
Look back at the terminal impacts in the previous section. What do both of
them have in common? Yes, they are both dramatic and unbelievable. But on
a more fundamental level, both of these impacts talk about how people are
affected by your argument. In my opinion, this is the most important
element of any impact you could conceive. If there is one thing you should
learn from this webinar, it is how to humanize impacts.
I break humanization down into two distinct elements: people and poetry. A
successfully humanized impact usually incorporates both elements as
appropriate.
People
Every impact you ever give in a congress speech should be about people.
Period. There are no exceptions to this rule. Here is a quick checklist to find
out if your impact violates this tenet:

Your impact ends with a number

Your impact ends with a reference to soft power or international
relations
Your impact is not clearly defined within the argument

Every impact must be an answer to the question, How does this affect
people? More often than not, all it takes is the addition of one sentence to
the end of your impact in order to solidify the human element.
Examples: People
Impacts in red are insufficient because they do not talk about people.
Impacts in blue are improved, humanized versions of the red ones. In other
words, you would add the blue impact to the end of the red impact for the
best outcome in a speech.
This bill generates $5 billion for the economy, improving economic activity.
Thats money our constituents can use to pay off their student loans or
start businesses.
This bill creates 800,000 American jobs.
Fewer Americans will worry about their ability to provide for their
family or pay for their childs college education.
We protect the environment by significantly reducing carbon emissions.
6 | Impact Development with Ryan Fedasiuk

Fewer people will develop breathing complications; theyll spend less

money on hospital stays.
The U.S. has better relations with China and can cooperate on issues like
security in the future.
Americans wont have to worry about what kind of future their
children will live in.
America risks going to war with Syria.
That means more American soldiers die.
Poetry
Sometimes, its not enough to have your impact relate to people. Often you
will want to sound dramatic, to evoke emotion from your audience.
Sounding like a politician can be useful and scores well with most judges, so
long as you dont go overboard. There are two easy ways to achieve
poetry in your impacts.
1. Add qualifiers and physical descriptors which paint an image in the
judges mind.
The tan, dusty plains of Syria run red with the blood of its
people. The blackened corpses of American aid workers sit idly
where they died: in a car bombed while driving through the
streets of Raqqa.
2. Target a specific demographic of people in your impact.
College students, teachers, single parents, homeless veterans,
and children are all vulnerable groups with whom judges
empathize and sometimes sympathize.
Examples: Poetry
Lets take the improved impacts from the last section and make them sound
poetic.
This bill generates $5 billion for the economy, improving economic activity.
Thats money our constituents can use to pay off their student loans or start
businesses.

$5 billion is a lot of moneymoney that wont go into the

coffers of the nations elite, but into the savings accounts of hardworking Americans. Money that will be used to pay off student loans
and start businesses.
This bill creates 800,000 American jobs. Fewer Americans will worry about
their ability to provide for their family or pay for their childs college
education.
7 | Impact Development with Ryan Fedasiuk


By creating 800,000 jobs, fewer Americans will wade through
the murky existence of unemployment. They wont have to worry
about paying for their childs college education by taking out payday
loans, because theyll have an IRA instead.
We protect the environment by significantly reducing carbon emissions.
Fewer people will develop breathing complications; theyll spend less money
on hospital stays.

By reducing carbon emissions, we ensure that fewer Americans

develop breathing complications. Seniors will spend less money on
hospital stays and more time with their grandchildren.
The U.S. has better relations with China and can cooperate on issues like
security in the future. Americans wont have to worry about what kind of
future their children will live in.

By improving relations with China, we open the door for

cooperation on security issues in the future. That means Americans
wont have to worry about their sons and daughters growing up in
fear. I thought the era of nuclear attack drills, the era of teaching kids
how to properly hide under a desk, was over.
America risks going to war with Syria. That means more American soldiers
die.

If we affirm, we risk going to war with Syria. That means more

American soldiers come home not in camouflage, but wrapped in
American flags.
Execution
When humanizing impacts, you ought to balance sounding dramatic and
poetic against sounding believable and convincing. Do not talk about
children dying in every speech. It comes across as gimmicky and insincere.
In fact, you should reserve highly dramatic sound bites for high-pressure
rounds and only for specific pieces of legislation. When in doubt, err on the
side of caution.
The takeaway from this lesson should be: always people, sometimes poetry.
Ask yourself who is affected and whether or not you have conveyed the
importance of your argument by relating it to people. If you tell me that
GDP grows by two percent over five years if we affirm, my eyes will glaze
over because I do not care. Your statistics mean nothing to me. Make me
care by giving me something to empathize with.
Another useful tip is to keep a running list of sound bites that you can use in
your speeches. Use each sound bite only once. If you use one at Glenbrooks,
8 | Impact Development with Ryan Fedasiuk

for example, you cannot use the same one at Harvard. The best way to
procure a list of sound bites is to read a lot of articles and listen to debates
and speeches given by real politicians. Some of my favorite one-liner sound
bites include:

The smallest coffins are the heaviest.

Going to school requires making it there.
A 21-rifle salute and an American flag can never replace a soldiers
smiling face.
Parents face the gut-wrenching decision between putting gas in their
cars and paying for their childs health insurance.

The best strategy when incorporating poetry in impacts is to keep your micdrop sound bite as the last line of your point. You can pre-prepare that one
line and write it down; the rest of your impact should flow naturally from
your analysis and speaking. Once you reach the line and deliver it, pause for
a second and move to your next point or conclusion.
Speak from the heart and make your audience care. Dont force poetization,
else your impacts will not be convincing and they will just seem overblown.

9 | Impact Development with Ryan Fedasiuk

Weighing mechanisms
Instead of attacking your opponents warrants and link chains, sometimes it
is more strategic to assume their argument is correct and instead attack the
importance of their impacts. Comparing the impacts of two arguments is
called weighing, and clearly explaining which argument is more important
is part of impact calculus.
There are four primary weighing mechanisms in Congressional Debate:
1. Magnitude
Refers to how large an impact is: three million versus five
million people affected, $2.6 billion versus $3.2 trillion gained,
800,000 versus 1.6 million jobs lost.
2. Scope / Severity
Refers to the severity of an impact: three million people will
break their foot if we negate, but two thousand people will die if
we affirm. Death is more severe.
3. Timeframe
Refers to the timeframe in which we will see an impact.
Generating $100 million in one year might be better than
generating $5 billion over one hundred years.
4. Probability
Refers to how likely it is an impact will happen. Affirming
increases the chance of human extinction by 0.1 percent, but
negating increases the chance of war with China by three
percent. War is more probable so we should negate.
When weighing, you may be explicit in the wording you use. Directly
compare two impacts and explain that one is larger/smaller, more/less
severe, has a shorter/longer timeframe, or is more/less probable. Do not say
the affirmative outweighs on magnitudethis uses too much debate
jargon.
You may also use these weighing mechanisms to stress the importance of
your own argument without directly comparing it to anyone elses impact
directly. By underscoring how short of a timeframe your impact will occur
in, you convey to the judge the urgency of what you are talking about.

10 | Impact Development with Ryan Fedasiuk

11 | Impact Development with Ryan Fedasiuk