how to write a speech for congressional debate

• EXPLORE Random Article

How to Do Well in Congressional Debate (NSDA)

Last Updated: September 10, 2016

wikiHow is a “wiki,” similar to Wikipedia, which means that many of our articles are co-written by multiple authors. To create this article, volunteer authors worked to edit and improve it over time. This article has been viewed 18,675 times.

Congressional Debate is one of the several events that make up the NSDA, or National Speech and Debate Association. Congressional Debate is a mock congress with legislation to be debated in a very professional and organized manner. It can be difficult to understand if you've never done the event before, but is easy to get the hang of and can be very enjoyable.

Understanding the Lingo

• P.O, or Presiding Officer , will be the student that runs the chamber. The P.O will be the student that recognizes others for speeches, questions, and motions.
• Representatives and Senators are the students in the chamber, or room, with you. If you are in a house or senate, you will compete with and against representatives or senators, respectively.
• Parliamentarians and Scorers will be the people judging the chamber. The Parliamentarian is in the chamber for the whole competition (typically 4 hours) and will rank, or score, all representatives and senators in the chamber. Scorers are typically in the chamber for one to two hours and typically rank the top eight competitors.

• Previous Question   - to bring the debate to an end, moves to vote on legislation.
• Recess - to take a brief break
• Point of Personal Privilege - to allow you to leave the room, move, etc.
• Suspend the Rules - to do anything not traditionally allowed
• Set an Agenda - this is what will be debated

• Docket and Legislation are the packet of topics you will debate. The packet is called a 'docket' and each individual topic is called 'legislation'.
• The Agenda is the order which you will debate legislation. You won't debate the legislation in the order it is in the docket; rather, you will set an agenda with other students to be debated in that order.
• An Amendment is any change to the agenda or legislation.
• Authorship or Sponsorship is the first speech on legislation. This speech opens debate and discusses the criteria, purpose, and importance of the legislation.
• Precedence and Recency determine who speaks next. Precedence is how many speeches a person has given, recency refers to simply how recent the speech was. This is kept by the P.O and is called speaker order. It is recommended that other members of the chamber keep track of this as well.
• Cross Examination is the short period after a speech during which the chamber, or floor, can question the speaker.

In the Chamber

Writing Speeches

Qualifying for Nationals

Community Q&A

• Don't be afraid to speak in front of the chamber. Everybody had to give their first speech and everybody can recall at least one speech that didn't go nearly as well as they expected. Thanks Helpful 2 Not Helpful 0
• Write speeches on all of the legislation. You might not get to speak over the legislation you actually want to speak over, but you should be prepared to speak over the next legislation so that you don't miss out speaking for a full hour. Thanks Helpful 2 Not Helpful 0
• Be friendly to everybody. If you're unfriendly, then others will remember this and be less likely to help you later. Thanks Helpful 3 Not Helpful 0

You Might Also Like

About this article

Did this article help you.

• About wikiHow
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

Student Congress Debate/Speech Structure

• Attention Ladies and gentlemen, the motion that's for discussion today is '.......'
• Purpose ("I stand in affirmation/negation on the bill/resolution...")
• Preview ("for the following reasons")
• State issues on the floor
• State points in conflict
• Prove your point with evidence including the source and date of publication, add the credentials of the source
• Logic - explain why this evidence reinforces your point and your side
• Tell the assembly the impact of your point and how it should affect their vote
• Present a Challenge to the Opposition.
• Summarize key points of clash.
• Summarize key points.
• Come full circle.
• Open yourself to questions. ("I now yield my time to the chair.")

Sample Speech [ edit | edit source ]

[Attention grabber]

Fellow senators, I [rise to the affirmative/stand in negation] of this [bill/resolution] [because of/for] the following [two/three] contentions:

First shall be that, [contention #1]

Second shall be that, [contention #2]

[First, let me talk about/I will start off by saying that] [contention #1]. [reason, citations] Also, I [rise to the affirmative/stand in negation] of this legislature because [reason, citations]. Finally, this [can/cannot] work because [reason, citations].

[Second, let me talk about/I will continue by saying that] [contention #2]. [reason, citations] Also, I [rise to the affirmative/stand in negation] of this legislature because [reason, citations]. Finally, this [can/cannot] work because [reason, citations]

So, in conclusion I urge your [affirmation/negation] of this [bill/resolution] because [summarize contention #1], [summarize contention #2], and because [summarize contention #3] because, as stated, [restate contentions #1, #2, and #3].

I now yield my time to the chair.

• Book:Student Congress Debate

Navigation menu

University Interscholastic League

This is the main content.

Speech & Debate

• Extemporaneous Speaking
• Oral Interpretation
• Tournaments
• New Coach Information

Speech & Debate Contact Info

Speech & Debate Director: Jana Riggins

Department Phone: 512-471-5883

State Champions

View State Champions

UIL Congress Contest

Congress is an individual contest in a large group setting. It models the legislative process of democracy, specifically, the United States Congress. Within this mock legislative assembly competition, contestants draft legislation (proposed laws and position statements) submitted to the tournament, and they research the docket of bills and resolutions dealing with real-world  social and political policies prior to the contest to prepare their speeches. At the tournament, students caucus in committees, deliver formal discourse on the merits and disadvantages of each piece of legislation, and vote to pass or defeat the measures they have examined. Parliamentary procedure forms structure for the discourse, and students extemporaneously respond to others’ arguments over the course of a session.

Resources & Guidelines

• 2023-24 Congress Handbook
• Overview of the Congress Contest
• Synopsis & Time Structure of Congress
• Skills Gained from Participating in the Congress Contest
• The Case for UIL Congressional Debate
• Writing Effective Congress Legislation
• Showcase Video of Congress
• Request for Accommodation Process

Congress Competition

2024-25 important dates, 2024-25 region clerks  , region legislation  , state competition.

2024 State Congress Program

2025 Tentative Program

2025 State Meet Procedures

2025 - State Tournament Information 

Champions History

Contest Rules

• Congress Contest Rules & Procedures

Congress Contests and Clinics

• PHOTO RELEASE - Certification (coach)
• PHOTO RELEASE - Student

Congress Contest Materials

• Legislation Template- Bill
• Legislation Template- Resolution
• Legislation Template- Resolution Amend Constitution
• Judging Instructions
• Oath of Office
• Debate Rubric: Speaking
• Presiding Officer Rubric
• Speech Evaluation
• Master Ballot
• Presiding Officer Evaluation
• Parliamentarian Ballot
• Amendment Form
• Table of Frequently Used Parliamentary Motions
• Chamber Voting/Election Record
• Precedence/Recency Table & Fractions of Parliamentary Voting
• Agenda Report
• Final Session Evaluation

Suggestions

• Send suggestions for Prose & Poetry Categories

VI. One-minute Speeches

These short speeches (300 words or less) may be made by Members before legislative business each day. If the speech given at the beginning of the day is longer than 300 words or includes extraneous materials, it will appear in the Extension of Remarks section of the Congressional Record . Any Member may seek recognition to give a speech on a subject of his or her choice not exceeding one minute in duration. One-minute speeches are often coordinated by the majority and minority leaderships to focus on particular topics, but the speeches are not limited to such topics. Participants in these coordinated efforts usually receive priority seating and recognition. The one-minute speech period is granted at the discretion of the Speaker, as are the number of such speeches. Some days one-minute speeches may be limited to ten or fifteen speeches per side. On other days, they may be unlimited. On occasion, this period is postponed until the end of the day if the business of the House is heavy and time is short. In this case, a Member may address the House for one minute at the end of legislative business for the day. To give a one-minute speech, a Member should go to the front row of seats on their party’s side of the Floor and sit down. The Speaker will recognize Members in turn, alternating between the majority and minority sides. At the appropriate point, the Member should stand to seek recognition and address the Chair by saying: “Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks.” The Speaker will respond by saying: “Without objection, so ordered.” The Member may then proceed to the podium in the Well to give the speech. The Chair will tell the Member when the one minute has expired at which time the Member may finish the sentence, but no more. NOTE: Members are strongly encouraged to read House Rule XVII, Decorum and Debate (especially clause 1), as well as section XVII of the Jefferson’s Manual, Order and Debate. See also Conduct During Debate under Part XI of this manual, “General Debate in the Committee of the Whole.” It is not proper at any time for a Member to refer to the television audience. Rule XVII states that a Member must always address the Chair and only the Chair. Furthermore, clause 7 of Rule XVII states specifically that Members may not introduce or otherwise make reference to people in the Visitors or Press Gallery. It is acceptable to refer to actions taken by the Senate. House rules allow for references on the House Floor to the Senate or its Members. However, these remarks must be limited to the question under debate and may not include personalities. (See clause 1 of Rule XVII). Not only is it inappropriate to address the President of the United States directly (Members must always address the Chair), but it is also improper to refer to the President in a personally offensive manner. NOTE: A Member does not actually have to deliver a one-minute speech. He or she can simply ask unanimous consent that it be placed in the Congressional Record and yield back his or her time. The speech will be inserted at that point, but it will appear in different type to indicate that it was not delivered in person. Also, if extraneous materials are inserted with a one-minute speech, the entire speech will appear at the end of the Congressional Record just prior to special order speeches.

112th Congress House Floor Procedures Manual

I. House is Called to Order by the Speaker

II. Prayer is Offered by the Chaplain

III. Approval of the Journal

IV. Voting by Electronic Device

V. Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag

VII. Unanimous Consent Requests

VIII. Suspension of the Rules

IX. Special Rules for Major Bills

X. Resolving into the Commitee of the Whole

XI. General Debate in the Committee of the Whole

XIII. Conclusion of a Bill's Consideration

XIV. Final Passage of a Bill

XV. Conference Reports

XVI. Discharge Petitions

XVII. End of Legislative Business for the Day

XVIII. Earmark Rules

XIX. Cut-As-You-Go (CUTGO)

XX. Spending Reduction Amendments in Appropriations Bills

Appendix: Congressional Glossary

XII. Amendments under the Five-Minute Rule

• The Stennis Center
• Board of Trustees
• Stennis Center Staff
• Publications
• About Congressional Programs
• Congressional Internship Opportunities
• Stennis Congressional Staff Fellows Program
• 117th Congress Emerging Leaders Biographies
• Stennis Program for Congressional Interns
• U.S. Navy Leadership Awards Program
• Civil-Military Resources
• About Student Programs
• Congress to Campus
• Scholars Day on Capitol Hill
• Student Service Corps
• Public Service Review

Congressional Debate Boot camp Series

High school extracurricular activities are considered unequivocal and undebatable. Though all such activities offer supplementary utility, one activity uniquely equips students to pursue lives of public service and develop vital personal and professional skills: speech and debate. Speech and debate is an activity wherein high schools students compete in various debate and speech events. As championed by the National Speech and Debate Association, the activity provides young people a forum to collaborate, think critically on political and social issues, and develop analytical and communication skills.

While speech and debate provides innumerable benefits, such benefits do not come easily, and success in competition requires extensive preparation and research. Debaters are expected not only to understand the intricacies of complex political issues deeply; they must also present credible evidence and arguments to support their positions. With proper coaching and team support, debaters can confront these challenges and surpass expectations. However, the debate world can seem impenetrable and overwhelming for those without plethoric resources or an experienced coach. 

We created the Congressional Debate Boot Camp Series to make speech and debate more accessible to all. The Congressional Debate Boot Camp Series , a six-part collection of YouTube videos, walks viewers through the basics and the most advanced techniques used in congressional debate. Viewers will learn how a congressional debate round operates and how the most successful competitors formulate persuasive speeches, ask effective questions, and preside as parliamentarians. The series relays the expertise of one of the country’s most decorated speech and debate coaches and a three-time National Champion in debate.

The Stennis Center created the Congressional Debate Boot Camp Series with the conviction that debate is for everyone. We believe that all students should have access to the best available debate instruction regardless of their disposable resources. This set of videos, thus, provides the highest quality coaching for no cost in hopes of preparing the next generation of public servants to thrive in speech and debate activities. Through these videos, both students and coaches will understand how to show up to tournaments and win and take away invaluable skills that will better their personal and professional futures.

YouTube link :  https://bit.ly/3DvsdGb

Episode 1: Introduction to Student Congress

Episode 2: Research and Preparation

Episode 3: Writing Legislation

Episode 4: Floor Debate and Questions

Episode 5: Parliamentary Procedure and Presiding

Episode 6: Advanced Tips

Congressional Debate Boot Camp Series

One Research Boulevard, Ste. 104, Starkville, MS 39759

201 Massachusetts Ave., NE, Ste. C-7, Washington, D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-1837

Evidence Challenge

Debate evidence challenge procedures (nsda rules), 7.1. responsibilities of contestants reading evidence in congressional debate.

Evidence defined. Debaters are responsible for the validity of all evidence they introduce in the debate. Evidence includes, but is not limited to: facts, statistics, or examples attributable to a specific, identifiable, authoritative source used to support a claim. Unattributed ideas are the opinion of the student competitor and are not evidence.

Oral source citation. In all debate events, contestants are expected to, at a minimum, orally deliver the following when introducing evidence in a debate round: primary author(s)’name (last) and year of publication. Any other information such as source, author’s qualifications, etc., may be given, but is not required. Should two or more quotations be used from the same source, the author and year must be given orally only for the first piece of evidence from that source. Subsequently, only the author’s name is required. Oral citations do not substitute for the written source citation. The full written citation must be provided if requested by an opponent or judge.

Written source citation. To the extent provided by the original source, a written source citation must include:

Full name of primary author and/or editor

Publication date

Title of article

Date accessed for digital evidence

Full URL, if applicable

Author qualifications

Page number(s)

Paraphrasing, authoritative source versus general understanding. If paraphrasing is used in a debate, the debater will be held to the same standard of citation and accuracy as if the entire text of the evidence were read. For example, if a debater references a specific theory by a specific author, the debater must also be able to provide an original source. If a debater were to reference social contract theory in general, that would not be an authoritative source that would require citation. However, if the debater references “John Locke’s Social Contract,” evidence would need to be available.

Ellipses prohibited. In all debate events, the use of internal ellipsis (…) is prohibited unless it is a replication of the original document. Debaters may omit the reading of certain words; however, the text that is verbally omitted must be present in the text of what was read for opposing debaters and/or judges to examine. The portions of the evidence read including where the debater begins and ends must be clearly marked (as outlined in 7.1.G.2.).

Availability of original source.

When challenged, the original source or copy of the relevant (as outlined in 7.1.F.2.) pages of evidence read in round must be available to the student making the challenge within two speeches. In all debate events, for reference, any evidence that is presented during the round must be made available to the opponent during the round if requested.

Original source(s) defined. Understanding that teams/individuals obtain their evidence in multiple ways, the original source for evidence may include, but is not limited solely to, one of the following:

Accessing the live or displaying a copy of a web page (teams/individuals may access the Internet to provide this information if requested).

A copy of the page(s) the evidence is on, the page preceding, and the page following, or the actual printed (book, periodical, pamphlet, etc.) source.

Copies or electronic versions of published handbooks (i.e., Baylor Briefs; Planet Debate, etc.).

Electronic or printed versions or the webpage for a debate institute or the NDCA sponsored Open Evidence Project or similar sites.

Debaters, even if they have acquired the evidence other than by original research, are still responsible for the content and accuracy of the evidence they present and/or read.

Distinguishing between which parts of each piece of evidence are and are not read in a particular round. In all debate events, debaters must mark their evidence in two ways:

Oral delivery of each piece of evidence must be identified by a clear oral pause or by saying phrases such as “quote/unquote” or “mark the card.” The use of a phrase is definitive and may be preferable to debaters. Clear, oral pauses are left solely to the discretion of the judge(s) and parliamentarian.

The written text must be marked to clearly indicate the portions read in the debate. In the written text the standard practices of underlining what is read, or highlighting what is read, and/or minimizing what is unread, is definitive and may be preferable to debaters. The clarity of other means of marking evidence is left to the discretion of the judge.

Private communication prohibited. Private, personal correspondence or communication between an author and the debater is inadmissible as evidence.

7.2. Definitions of Evidence Violations in Congressional Debate

“Distortion” exists when the textual evidence itself contains added and/or deleted word(s), which significantly alters the conclusion of the author (e.g., deleting ‘not’; adding the word ‘not’). Additionally, failure to bracket added words would be considered distortion of evidence.

“Non-existent evidence” means one or more of the following:

The debater citing the evidence is unable to provide the original source or copy of the relevant pages when requested by their opponent, judge, or tournament official.

The original source provided does not contain the evidence cited.

The evidence is paraphrased but lacks an original source to verify the accuracy of the paraphrasing.

The debater is in possession of the original source, but declines to provide it to a student who challenges, the chair, or the parliamentarian upon request.

“Clipping” occurs when the debater claims to have read the complete text of highlighted and/or underlined evidence when, in fact, the contestant skips or omits portions of evidence.

“Straw argument” - A “straw argument” is a position or argumentative claim introduced by an author for the purpose of refuting, discrediting or characterizing it. Reliance on a straw argument occurs in a debate round when a debater asserts incorrectly that the author supports or endorses the straw argument as his or her own position. Note : A debater who acknowledges using a “straw argument” when verbally first read in the round, would not be misrepresenting evidence. However, if the debater fails to acknowledge the use of a “straw argument” and their opponent questions the use of such an argument, then that debater has committed an evidence violation.

7.3 Procedures for Raising Evidence Questions During a Congressional Debate Session

The procedures for making an In-round evidence question are as follows:

A. Congressional Debate entries must rise to a point of information after a speech to formally request a copy of the evidence cited, the citation, or the original source of evidence. When requested during the point of information, the presiding officer will instruct the debater being challenged to produce the copy of the evidence, citation, or original source. The debater being challenged must produce the requested materials in a timely fashion. Should a debater feel they are not receiving the information they requested in a timely fashion, they may rise to another point of information for the presiding officer and parliamentarian to address the situation.

B. Debaters who request the information may receive the evidence from the presiding officer within a period of two speeches. The round would not be put on hold for the request to be completed. For example, if a debater rises to a point of order after speech #4, then by the conclusion of speech #6, the requested evidence should be presented to the presiding officer.

C. If after reviewing the evidence in question, a debater feels that an evidence violation has occurred, they may submit a formal allegation by completing an evidence challenge form (use form below) and, after making a motion to approach the chair, the debater will present the form to the presiding officer and parliamentarian.

7.4 Penalties for Resolving Evidence Violations During Congressional Debate

All evidence challenges must occur during the session of Congressional Debate where an alleged violation took place, and should happen before a vote on the pending legislation. If the concern arises during the last cycle of speeches, the parliamentarian may grant a challenge after the vote, prior to the first speech on a new piece of legislation.

Parliamentarians are responsible for resolving disputes between debaters regarding oral citations; and written source citations. When the parliamentarian has such a dispute in the round, the parliamentarian must submit the protest form to the tabulation committee. All protest forms will be submitted to the tabulation committee.

The parliamentarian will determine the legitimacy of the challenge, and if the parliamentarian considers the request justified, the debater making the allegation will move a point of order to address the allegation to the chamber.

The debater being challenged will be recognized by the presiding officer for a response to the evidence violation.

The parliamentarian will evaluate the legitimacy and severity of the charge and make a recommendation to the presiding officer for action. The recommendation may be charged against either student involved in the dispute. Depending upon the severity of the offense, the parliamentarian may opt to censure the debater(s).

The presiding officer will announce the parliamentarian’s decision and recognize either/both debaters for consequent action.

7.5. Penalties for Evidence Violations in Congressional Debate

If the parliamentarian determines that an entry has violated one of the rules listed in 7.1(A-D, F-H) (oral citation, written citation, indication of parts of card read or not read, use of private communication), the parliamentarian must notify the judge(s) of the violation. The judge(s) and parliamentarian may at their discretion disregard the evidence, diminish the credibility given to the evidence, take the violation into account (solely or partially) in the ranking of chamber participants, or take no action. These offenses are considered minor and a parliamentarian sanction is the only prescribed penalty.

If a debater(s) commits an evidence violation of “distortion” (7.2.A.), uses “nonexistent evidence” (7.2.B.), uses a “straw argument” (7.2.C.) or the use of “ellipses” (7.1.E.) such action will result in the debater(s) committing the evidence violation not being ranked by the judge(s) and parliamentarian. These offenses are considered major and censure by the parliamentarian would be applied.

7.6. Tournament Adjustments in Congressional Debate

Under no circumstance will a tournament or part of a tournament be re-run because of a violation of these rules.

In the case of censure, all ranks and decisions made prior to the start of the round being protested stand and no revision of past session ranks will take place. Penalties listed in 7.4. will be applied.

When a session has been held between the session being appealed and a final decision regarding the protest, the result of that session will be recorded as follows:

If the protest is upheld, all ranks and scores will remain as recorded. The evidence violation would apply only to the session in which it occurred and not affect prior or subsequent sessions.

If the appeal is upheld, the judge and/or parliamentarian will restore any ranks and scores that were earned by that debater.

Evidence Challenge Form (Template)

Cornell Chronicle

• Architecture & Design
• Arts & Humanities
• Business, Economics & Entrepreneurship
• Computing & Information Sciences
• Energy, Environment & Sustainability
• Food & Agriculture
• Global Reach
• Health, Nutrition & Medicine
• Law, Government & Public Policy
• Life Sciences & Veterinary Medicine
• Physical Sciences & Engineering
• Social & Behavioral Sciences
• Coronavirus
• News & Events
• Public Engagement
• New York City
• Photos of the Week
• Big Red Sports
• Freedom of Expression
• Student Life
• University Statements

Around Cornell

• All Stories
• In the News
• Expert Quotes
• Cornellians

Daniel Obaseki, A&S ’24 affirms freedom of speech at the finale of a four-debate sequence led by the ILR School this semester as part of Cornell’s Freedom of Expression Theme Year.

News directly from Cornell's colleges and centers

Freedom of Expression debates reflect civil discourse

By mary catt.

Freedom of speech is the best policy, the audience voted at the finale of a four-debate sequence led by the ILR School this semester as part of Cornell’s Freedom of Expression Theme Year .

“This series showcased once again how vigorous but respectful debate is at the heart of freedom of expression and an essential element of the academic life of the university,” said Alex Colvin, Ph.D. '99, the Kenneth F. Kahn '69 Dean and the Martin F. Scheinman '75, M.S. '76, Professor of Conflict Resolution.

“Is a policy of absolute freedom of speech, without exceptions, the best policy?” on April 10 featured students from the Cornell Speech and Debate Program and the Cornell Political Union . ILR and the Jeb E. Brooks School of Public Policy sponsored the event.

Arguing in ILR’s Ives Hall to affirm freedom of speech were Ben Ash, AEP ’26; Daniel Obaseki, A&S ’24, and Rushika Prasad, ENG ’26.

Arguing to oppose the question were Ram Orfanel, A&S '25, Amalia Schneider ILR ’24 and Margot Treadwell ILR ’24.

Brooks Dean Colleen Barry said the exchange “was exactly the type of event we had hoped our students would engage in when we launched the Freedom of Expression Theme Year. On our campus and beyond, respectful debate and civil discourse across differing viewpoints matters more than ever in advancing solutions to pressing societal challenges.”

Treadwell said, “As Cornellians, we don’t shy away from complex issues or hard conversations. Having the opportunity to debate about freedom of expression in front of a large crowd of students was an opportunity to celebrate and dig into all that Cornell offers.”

ILR Senior Lecturer Sam Nelson, who directs the speech and debate program, said, “Two student groups, squaring off to disagree on a contentious issue and using civil discourse, logic and their intellect to make their points -- I loved everything about it.”

The ILR School, its Office of Engaged & Experiential Programs and the debate program, based at ILR, led the series in collaboration with the SC Johnson College of Business, the Einhorn Center for Community Engagement and the Brooks School. 

The debate series was designed to model constructive disagreement. The first debate asked if union organizers should have free speech rights in the workplace. The second and third debates , one in Spanish, explored free expression and business.  

In opening the final debate, Ariel Avgar, ILR’s David M. Cohen Professor of Labor Relations, senior associate dean for Outreach and sponsored research, and a conflict management expert, said the series demonstrated that as a university community, “We are capable of having robust, vibrant, and substantive discussions and, even, disagreements around sensitive, delicate and nuanced issues.”

“ One of the hallmarks of these debates has been the focus on issues, not on the individuals making arguments around those issues. There is a longstanding principle in the negotiation domain that has played out very clearly in our debates, which is to be hard on the issues and soft on the people.”

“Real change will not be achieved through statements and counter statements. Rather, meaningful progress on the biggest challenges of our day will happen through deep and serious discourse about differing perspectives and worldviews. This is the very type of exchange that we engaged in through the Freedom of Expression debate series. We are a university designed as one of society’s core vehicles for real, meaningful exchange. Our debate series has given us a clear model for how to continue to do so.”

Media Contact

Media relations office.

Get Cornell news delivered right to your inbox.

You might also like

Gallery Heading

We've detected unusual activity from your computer network

To continue, please click the box below to let us know you're not a robot.

Why did this happen?

Please make sure your browser supports JavaScript and cookies and that you are not blocking them from loading. For more information you can review our Terms of Service and Cookie Policy .

For inquiries related to this message please contact our support team and provide the reference ID below.

• White House
• Energy/Environment
• Health Care
• Transportation

Heard on the Hill

• Fintech Beat
• Political Theater
• Donald Trump
• White House Calendar
• White House Releases
• Press Seating Chart
• Donald Trump Twitter
• Correspondents Dinner
• Newsletters
• Capitol Ink
• Roll Call e-Edition
• Classifieds

Advance work can be a scream. Just ask Rep. Wiley Nickel

Lawmakers chafe at nonprofit earmark ban, tight request deadline

Biden takes aim at Trump-era tax cuts — and his own campaign promise

Some Democrats stoked by Biden administration’s marijuana move

Kennedy to fill vacant House seat in western New York

Federal court blocks Louisiana’s latest congressional map

Roy eyes ‘steamroller’ agenda if Republicans sweep in November

Russia is trying to exploit America's divisions over the war in Gaza

Russia is seeking to exploit America’s divisive debate over Israel’s offensive in Gaza through overt and covert propaganda, with the aim of aggravating political tensions in the U.S. and tarnishing Washington’s global image, according to two sources familiar with U.S. intelligence on the matter.

In its ongoing information war against the United States, Russia has shifted its focus in recent months to the Israel-Hamas conflict , seeking to inflame existing divisions in the West and to portray Washington as fueling the violence, the sources said.

The effort includes artificial intelligence, fake social media accounts, a long-standing tactic used by Moscow, as well as a spike in propaganda from Russian state media. The sources declined to share examples of Russian-generated bots on social media to avoid revealing U.S. intelligence-gathering methods.

Russia has repeatedly denied accusations it spreads disinformation abroad. A spokesperson for the Russian Embassy did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The campaign is the   latest example of Russia’s bid to seize on existing political rifts in America and other NATO countries, according to the sources and independent researchers.

“It’s an opportunity, again, to undermine the West,” said Bret Schafer, who tracks Russian and other propaganda at the German Marshall Fund of the United States’ Alliance for Securing Democracy.

The information offensive is also a way for Russia to divert attention from its invasion of Ukraine and portray itself as a champion of the Palestinians, Schafer said. “They have pivoted away from trying to message around their own war to focusing on this one,” he said. 

Writing about pro-Palestinian protests at American college campuses, the Russian-state run Sputnik recently  suggested  “the threat of deadly police violence against demonstrators looms over the current protests” and reminded readers that four students were killed during the Vietnam era in an anti-war protest at Ohio’s Kent State University.  

Another headline from Sputnik’s Facebook account  questioned how politicians were responding to the campus protests: "‘Land of the Free’? How US Lawmakers Restrict Students’ Right to Peaceful Protest: US lawmakers have once again demonstrated where their sympathies lie in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by cracking down on student protests against the bloodbath in the Gaza Strip.”

In the first seven weeks after Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Israel, posts on Facebook from Russian state media, pro-Russian commentators and Russian diplomats increased dramatically — by 400 percent, according to the Alliance for Securing Democracy. 

Some of the posts describe dark conspiracies involving Ukraine. Russia’s RT outlet, in an Arabic language post , alleged that Ukrainian mercenaries were fighting with Israeli forces in Gaza. Pravda  quoted  Dmitry Medvedev, a former Russian president and prime minister, alleging that Hamas militants were using NATO weapons that had been provided to Ukraine.

Moscow is targeting Europe as well in this effort. In November, France accused a Russian-linked network of bots of stoking antisemitism by amplifying images of Stars of David graffiti on buildings in Paris with 2,589 posts on the X social media platform. 

“This new operation of Russian digital interference against France testifies to the persistence of an opportunistic and irresponsible strategy aimed at exploiting international crises," the French foreign ministry  said , "to sow confusion and create tensions in the public debate in France and in Europe."

Discrediting American democracy

A favorite theme of Russian information operations is to paint America as a failing democratic state, according to U.S. officials and researchers.

At an event last week in Washington , Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines said Russia works to denigrate America’s standing in the world, to undermine democratic institutions and processes and to exploit social, political and economic divisions “in our culture and in our society.” 

Haines added that the Russians “are quite sophisticated” and are using artificial intelligence tools in their information operations.

U.S. officials and experts say it’s important not to overstate the effect of the propaganda effort on the intense debate over Israel’s campaign in Gaza, or to imply that demonstrations in the U.S. on either side of the issue are being orchestrated in any way by Moscow.

“I think it would be entirely inaccurate to say that the protests that are happening on college campuses, the divisiveness of the debate in Congress and among the public is a result of anything that Russians have done or could do,” Schafer said. “I think it would all be there regardless of whether there were Russian bots and Russian state media messaging.”

Emerson Brooking, a senior fellow at the Digital Forensic Research Lab of the Atlantic Council, a think tank, said reports on propaganda efforts by foreign actors over protest movements needed to be treated with caution. 

Allegations of foreign influence “can often be used to delegitimize large and authentic democratic movements in the United States,” Brooking said, adding that some critics of the Black Lives Matter protests tried that tactic citing foreign adversaries’ information operations.

Russia’s bid to amplify divisions over Gaza is also designed to attract more readers to other pro-Russian propaganda content on social media, with the aim of shaping attitudes on the war in Ukraine, experts said.

Russia is also spreading disinformation to damage President Joe Biden and his fellow Democrats in advance of the U.S. election, using fake online accounts and bots, NBC News has reported .

The attacks on Biden are part of a continuing effort by Moscow to undercut American military aid to Ukraine and U.S. support for NATO, experts said.

Russia is also waging a similar campaign in Europe to undermine support for Ukraine. France, Germany and Poland have accused Russia of launching a barrage of propaganda to try to shape the outcome of the European parliamentary elections in June.

Dan De Luce is a reporter for the NBC News Investigative Unit. 

2024 National Tournament Congress Docket Voting Packet

Download the 2024 National Tournament voting packet of Congressional Debate legislation.