LC Anderson22

UT26

email for email chains:

eliza.avramova@gmail.com

pf: speed is fine, cards should be well cut, bring up everything you want me to know in your speech, framing should happen in constructive or top of the rebuttal, disclosure also needs to happen in constructive, no new offensive arguments past rebuttal - offense needs to be extended in summary, your links should be coherent, if something important happens in cross, make sure to also mention it in subsequent speeches, summary and final focus should mirror each other, tech > truth but remember that one to an extent determines the other, for progressive arguments i will try my best to evaluate them but probs not to the extent of an ld/cx judge so keep that in mind when running them; postround me till you understand my decision

congress: clash! warrant your arguments and weigh your impacts - comparative framework works best since there are so many arguments made in the round / internal links need to be coherent / i am open to diff types of arguments and structures / too much rehash = lower rank, but a good constructive with clash will be ranked high. make sure to be engaging (don't rely too much on reading off the pad), but remember that this is a debate event in the first place - no canned agds pls - try to find a uniqueness that works for you; sources (reputable and academic in nature) need to be cited and used always, with that being said your research is just one part, but your analysis is what matters most / good crystals will be ranked high - but it needs to go above weighing in the comparative framework --> in addition to that extend your side with new impact or evidence, win the side and debate overall. pls don't use a questioning block just to agree with a speaker, this time should be used for rebuttal. be convincing, but respectful; be active - congress is all about strategy / win the game; being aggressive (yelling and getting mean) doesn’t make you win the round

• for po's: i will rank you, but you need to know rules/structure of debate and be able to move the debate along smoothly, i shouldn't need to interfere, but i will always keep a chart to keep track - if there are consistent errors i will rank you lower

ie: do what you need to do, all topics can be super interesting, but make sure to always be aware of your surroundings and give proper trigger warnings

feel free to ask me questions before the round starts!

have fun!!

Speech

In high school and college I've done almost exclusively speech, so that is what I am most knowledgable on. In all speech event, including interps, I care deeply about having a clear thesis.

Extemp and Congress

This is what I did the most of in my career. I care deeply about the technique of how extemps are done, so I want to see all the parts of the intro, clear substructure, etc.

Planned Speeches

Since these speeches are rehearsed, I do care a lot more about delivery here. However, in terms of content, the best OOs give me some sort of tangible policy or soultion. The more I feel like you actually solve, the better. For infos, I want to hear something novel, and I want it to be forward looking and have impact. I don't think a speech about something everything knows about is really informing.

Interps

These speeches are the ones I am least informed about. I still really value the argument that you're making, please give me a performance with a purpose!

Debate

In general, I am definitely a tabula rasa/game theory judge. I am willing to buy whatever argument you give, I just need you to prove it. Also, I am not taking your case in the email chain. If you need me to read the case for you to make your point, you're not debating at that point

In terms of specific events, my big takes are that Public Forum is supposed toPublic.That is to say, it needs to be accessible. So I don't really want to hear you spread. That goes for every debate event, but I think it's the most heinous for PF. For LD, I care a lot about framework. If you tell me that the team with most X should win... I will vote for the team with the most X.

Bowie HS '23; UT-Austin '27

PUT ME ON THE EMAIL CHAIN!!!: fionella.caputo@gmail.com

In short, I agree with Cristian Abarca

Hey y'all! I was a 4-year debater for James Bowie High School in Austin, Texas. My primary event was PF, however I also had experience in World Schools, Extemporaneous Speaking, and filled in events like Duo occasionally. I served as Co-Captain of my school's team with my partner Cristian, and we share a lot of the same judging philosophies! Here are some more specifics to PF, however they could be applied to other events as well:

-I am a flow judge

-Tech>truth

-I can handle speed, however I would prefer a doc and at least some clarity

-Best way to the ballot is strong comparative weighing and strategical collapsing.

Framework: I LOVE a good framework and used them heavily during my debate career. Please don't simply use words like "human rights" or "women" to justify the weighing analysis on your framework, rather explain why your arguments specifically tie into the framework and disprove how your opponents link in so I have a clean place to vote. If both teams link in, I need to see other weighing mechanisms that explain why your argument should be prioritized. Please contest a framework ASAP (like the next speech) so things don't get confusing!

Cases: Feel free to run wacky arguments in front of me, I'll probably boost speaks for creativity in cases/arguments that stray away from stock args. If the link chain is super out there, be sure to paint the narrative and explain so I'm not completely lost.

Evidence: Please practice good evidence ethics and be able to retrieve your evidence in a timely manner. I will only check evidence for abuses if the other team calls it out or if it's clearly miscut.

Paraphrasing: I'm fine with paraphrasing but don't love it, just make sure you have cut cards and be prepared to potentially be hit by a shell.

Trigger Warnings: Please please please use trigger warnings if you run graphic arguments/arguments about sensitive topics. If you're deciding whether or not you should use a TW, you probably should. The best way to go about this is creating an anonymous google form and sending it out to everyone before the round starts, if you have any questions about this process feel free to email me or ask before the round! WIPEOUT AND SPARK ARGS NEED TW'S!!!!

Theory: If I'm being 100% I am not the best judge to evaluate theory and I'm not the biggest fan if it, but if the violation is there I'm not stopping you from running it. Please don't use theory for a cheap win against a clearly less experienced team, I will tank your speaks.

K's: Big fan love these please use them in PF, however PLEASE understand your literature and what you are advocating for.

Tricks: Same as theory, fine with evaluating them but don't love them.

If you bring me a Red Bull I won't boost your speaks or give you the W but will probably develop a subconscious bias towards you.

Across every event, I value clarity above all else, and genuine, compelling presence right after that. An ideal speaker sound natural, communicates intelligently while using level-appropriate language for the subject at hand, and displays confidence.

In congress, I absolutely despise spreading. Congress is as much a speaking event as a debate event, and as I was never a CX person, I will not understand you if you speak 1000 miles a minute. Please seek to actually communicate with the others in the room, treat them politely and look them in the eye. You only have 3 minutes, so STAY ON TOPIC. Non-topical AGDs do nothing but take up valuable time. Clash is everything to me, also. This doesn't mean giving 1 af speech is a disadvantaged (Please always, always come prepared to give a first speech. There is nothing more embarrassing than having to pause and prep in round, wifi access or no.) but ideally you should present interesting ideas that the other speakers must address. it is QUESTIONING period, not a bickering period. I do not have your ballot open, so making interesting points by prefacing will not help you, but I will note down if you are rude or speaking over the other person in CX. I also take notice of engaged, frequent questioners, and if you reference your other reps answers in your speech that is the holy grail. Also, ask helping questions to help other reps support their point! Not every questioning period involves clash.

For interp and speeches, I want to see the illusion of the first time. Natural, polished, and fluid. Regardless of the nature of your event, I want to see that you are knowledgeable about your central argument, and that you are performing something that you are passionate about.

Background

Competed in PF at Wylie High School in Wylie, Tx for 2 years.

Currently I'm a Sophomore at UT Austin.

Add me to email chain: rsinghdhesi0@gmail.com

PF

Short Version: I'm your average PF flow judge. Debate is a game. This paradigm is a set of rules that I generally believe to be good. However nothing is concrete. If you tell me to evaluate something a different way and I think you win that argument then that’s what I will do.

Long Version:

1) I'm fine with speed but not full spreading. I'll say clear if you're going too fast.

2)tech > truth

3) please weigh

4) I think second rebuttal should respond to EVERYTHING in first rebuttal that you want to go for. This can be hard with time so at the very least respond to turns or I will consider them conceded. I think this is very important for the overall fairness of the round, because the 2nd speaking advantage in PF is crazy.

5) summaries are 3 minutes now – defense isn't sticky.

6) Offense you want me to vote on should be in both summary and final focus.

7) I will ALWAYS prefer logical analysis and warranting over unwarranted evidence.

8) no independent offense in second rebuttal.

9) Framing is cool but please warrant it.

10) I expect you to go line by line in every speech.

Some other things:

Evidence

- tell me to call it if you think it's been miscut

- If I call a piece of evidence please give me the cut card not a pdf or website.

Theory, Ks, etc.

- I am not super confident in my ability to correctly evaluate these, so run at your own risk.

brixztheflip@gmail.com

I don't have a pair of dime, but i got four nickels

T is not a voter

Fairness is not an impact

although i believe in my heart of hearts that disclosure is good, I don't care about your disclosure theory...

I vote against my personal beliefs all the time it often makes me sad

Make Art Not War

Good Luck out there, show me something I ain't seen before.

I'm not one of of these smug intellectuals, I use a lot of fancy words sometimes but I thrifted them.... so the better you can tell it like it is and give historical examples the easier it is for me to make a decision.

Judge instruction is nice... dont just say it to me, tell me what to do with it.

EMAIL CHAIN: mavsdebate@gmail.com

Name

Please do not call me judge - Henderson - no Mr/Ms just Henderson. This is what I am most comfortable with. I will do my best to offer you the same consideration.

Doc Sharing

Please share speech docs with me, your opponent in a timely manner. If it get long, your speaks drop.

Speed

I am old - likely 10 years older than you think if not more - this impacts debaters in two ways 1. I get the more triggered when someone spreads unnecessarily. If you are using speed to increase clash - awesome! If you are using it to outspread your opponent then I am not your judge. I can understand for the AC but I think a pre-round conversation with your opponent is both helpful and something as a community we should attempt to do at all time. If you do not adjust or adapt accordingly I will give you the lowest speech possible. If this is a local, I am likely to vote against you - TOC/State - you will likely get the ballot but again lowest speaks possible. 2. I just cannot keep up as well anymore and I refuse to flow off a doc. I only have four functional fingers on one hand and both hands likely 65% what they used to be. This is especially true as the season moves along and at any tournament where I judge lot of rounds.

General Principle

I am an educator first. This means that I am concerned about the what happens in the debate more than I do about what the debate claims to achieve. This does not lessen my focus on argumentation, rather it is to say that I am sensitive to the issues that concern the debaters as individuals before I am my concern about various claimed link stories. Be honest, fair and considerate to each other. This manifests itself in my judging when I pay particular attention to the division of prep time. Debater who try to steal prep or are not considerate of their opponents prep will irritate me quickly (read: very bad speaks).

Speaker Points

This is a common question given I tend to be critical on points. Basically, If you deserve to break then you should be getting no less than a 28.5. Speaker points are about speaking up to the point that I can understand your spread/read. Do not docbot. If you do not intonate you are not debating you are reading and that is just frustrating to me. Beyond that there are mostly about argumentation. Argumentation includes strategy, crystallization, and structuring of speeches. If you have a creative strat you will do well. If you are reading generics you will do less well. If you tell a full story on the implication of your strat you will do well. If I have to read cards to figure out what you are advocating you will not. If you collapse well and convene the method and meaning of your approach you will do well. If you go for everything (neg) or a small trick you will not. Finally, if you ask specific questions about how I might feel about your strat you will do well. If you ask, "What's your paradigm?" because you did not take the time to look you will not. Previously, I had a no speaker point disclosure rule. I have changed. So ask, if you care to talk about why; not if you do not want to discuss the reasoning, but only want the number.

Policy

Theory

I truly like a good theory debate. I went for T often as a debater and typically ran quasi topical cases so that I could engage in theory debates. This being said, what you read should be related to the topic. If the words of the topic do not occur in what you read you are in an uphill battle, unless you have a true justification as to why. I am very persuaded that we should learn about certain topics outside of the debate topic, but that just means you should create a forum or propose a topic to the NSDA, or create a book club. Typical theory questions: Reasonability is defense, competing interps are offense. Some spec is generally encouraged to increase clash and more nuance, too much should be debated. Disclosure theory is not very persuasive too me, unless debated very well and should only be used after you sought to have an actual conversation with your opponent prior to the debate. I am very persuaded by contact info at national tournaments - put up contact info and any accomodations you need - it makes for a safer space.

Kritiks

A kritik is a disad with a counterplan, typically to me. This means I should understand the link, the impact and the alternative as much as I would if you read a disad and counterplan. I vote against kritik most often because I have no idea what the alt does. This happens when the aff fails to engage and you think that you now just need to extend tags on the alt and assume that is enough. I need a clear picture of the link and the alt most importantly regardless of how much the aff has engaged or not. Gut check is a real thing. If your kritik is death good you are working uphill. If you are reading "high theory" know that I have not read the literature, but I will do my best. In the 1890s, when I debated, I was really into Cap and Gender based positions. My debaters like Deleuze and Cap (probably my influence, if I possession such).

Performance/Pre-Fiat

If you are trying to convince me that what you are doing matters and can change people in some way I really need to know how. If your claim is simply that this method is more approachable, well that is generally not true to me and given there is only audiences beyond me in elim.s you are really working up hill. Access trumps all! If you do not make the method clear you are not doing well. If your method somehow interrogates something, what does it interrogate? how does that change things for us and why is that meaningful? And most important you should be initiating this interrogation in round. Tell me that people outside the debate space should do this is not an interrogation. That is just a plan with a specific mechanism. Pre-fiat claims are fine, but again I need to understand the implication. Telling me that I read gender discrimination arguments and thus that is a pre-fiat voter is not only not persuasive it is not an argument at all. Please know that I truly love a good method debate, I do not enjoy people who present methods that are not explicit and full of nothing but buzzwords.

Competition

Arguments should be competitive otherwise they are just FYI. This means kritikal argument should likely be doing more than simply reading a topic link and moving on. All forms are perms are testable - I do not default to a view on severance/intrinsic - it's all debatable. I do default on perms do a test of competition. If you want to advocate the perm this should be clear from the get. A perm should have a text, and a net benefit in the opening delivery otherwise it is a warrantless argument.

Condo

In policy, (LD its all debatable) a few layers are fine - 4+ you are testing the limits and a persuasive condo bad argument is something I would listen to for sure. What I am absolute about is the default. All advocacy are unconditional unless you state in your speech otherwise. No this is not a CX question. You should be saying, I present the following conditional CP or the like, explicitly. Not doing this and then attempting to kick it means an advocacy shift and is thus debatable on theory.

Lincoln Douglas

See above

Theory - FOR LD

I note above that I cannot keep up as much anymore. If your approach is to spam theory (which is increasing a norm in LD) I am not capable of making coherent decisions. I will likely be behind on the flow. I am trying to conceptualize your last blip in a manner to flow and you are making the 3rd or 4th. Then I try to play catch up, but argument is in the wrong place on the flow and it is written as a partial argument. I am not against theory - I loved theory as a debater, but your best approach is to go for a couple shell at most in the NC and likely no more than 1 in the 1AR if you want me to be in the game at all. This is not to say I would not vote on potential abuse/norm setting rather keep your theory to something you want to debate and not using it just a strategic gamesmanship is best approach if you want a coherent RFD.

Disads/CPs/NCs

I was a policy debater, so disads and counterplans are perfectly acceptable and generally denote good strat (read: better speaks). This does not means a solid NC is not just as acceptable, but an NC that you read every debate for every case that does not offer real clash or nuance will make me want to take a nap. PIC are debatable, but I default to say they are acceptable. Utopian fiat is generally not without a clear method story. Politics disad seem mostly silly in LD without an explicit agent announcement by the AC. If you do not read a perm against a counterplan I will be very confused (read: bad speaks). If you do not read uniqueness then your link turns are just defense.

Philosophy/Framework Debate

I really enjoy good framework debate, but I really despise bad framework debate. If you know what a normative ethic is and how to explain it and how to explain your philosophical basis, awesome. If that is uncomfortable language default to larp. Please, avoid cliche descriptors. I like good framework debate but I am not as versed on every philosophy that you might be and there is inevitable coded language within those scholarship fields that might be unfamiliar to me. Most importantly, if you are into phil debating do it well. Bad phil debates are painful to me (read: bad speaks). Finally, a traditional framework should have a value (something awesome) and a value criteria/standard (something to weigh or test the achievement of the value). Values do not have much function, whereas standards/criterion have a significant function and place. These should be far more than a single word or phrase that come with justification.

Public Forum

I have very frustrated feeling about PF as a form of debate. Thus, I see my judging position as one of two things.

1. Debate

If this is a debate event then I will evaluate the requirements of clash and the burden of rejoinder. Arguments must have a claim and warrant as a minimum, otherwise it is just an assertion and equal to any other assertion. If it is an argument then evidence based proof where evidence is read from a qualified sources is ideal. Unqualified but published evidence would follow and a summary of someone's words without reading from them would be equal to you saying it. When any of these presentation of arguments fails to have a warrant in the final focus it would again be an assertion and equal to all other assertions.

2. Speech

If neither debate team adheres to any discernible standard of argumentation then I will evaluate the round as a speaking event similar to extemp. The content of what you say is important in the sense that it should be on face logical and follow basic rules of logic, but equally your poise, vocal variation and rhetorical skills will be considered. To be clear, sharing doc.s would allow me to obviously discern your approach. Beyond this clear discernible moment I will do my best to continue to consider the round in my manners until I reach the point where I realize that both teams are assume that their claims, summaries etc... are equally important as any substantiated evidence read. The team that distinguishes that they are taking one approach and the opponent is not is always best. I will always to default to evaluate the round as debate in these situation as that is were I have the capacity to be a better critic and could provide the best educational feedback.

If you adhering to a debate model as described above these are other notes of clarity.

Theory

I’m very resistant to theory debates in Public Forum. However, if you can prove in round abuse and you feel that going for a procedural position is your best path to the ballot I will flow it. Contrary to my paradigm for LD, I default to reasonability in PF.

Framework

I think the function of framework is to determine what sort of arguments take precedence when deciding the round. To be clear, a team won’t win the debate exclusively by winning framework, but they can pick up by winning framework and winning a piece of offense that has the best link to the established framework. Absent framework from either side, I default utilitarianism.

Finally Word for All

I am sure this is filled with error, as I am. I am sure this leaves more questions than answers, life has. I will do my best, as like you I care.

Everyone’s paradigm is too long and this one is also too long sorry abt that y'all

-

-Vista Ridge ‘23 + TXST ‘27

-Congress 4 years, PF 3 years, oratory 3 years, extemp 2 years and LD a handful of times.

-Ask me about joining the TXST speech and debate team

PF / LD

See Jonathan Daugherty‘s paradigm it sums up how I vote in a round perfectly.

Only difference is I’ll vote off theory or a K (topical or not) if it’s well-warranted.

Keep your impacts realistic and educational.

-

WSD:

Please weigh. If you don’t weigh I have to intervene. I do not want to intervene. Simplify the round and I will be happy to vote for whatever the path of least resistance to the ballot is.

-

Congress:

Will rank someone who gave a mediocre speech but heavily participated in chamber higher than someone who gave one amazing speech but then didn’t participate in chamber. Congress is not just about speeches, it's about how you present yourself.

"I can't think of anything I hate more than everybody giving a speech on a bill. My points for speeches tend down the more an argument goes on. Forget equity, move the round forward and you'll be my favorite"

If you need time to call a recess to prep a speech that is not good. You should come prepared or develop your impromptu skills. Volunteers that can speak on the spot rather than need in-round time to prep will rank higher, regardless of the quality of the speech.

-

Speech :

I don’t think this needs a paradigm but this is what I mainly judge so if you’re curious just do your event as you would normally.

-

email - smcstabs@gmail.com

reach out if you have questions

-

sometimes tabroom doesn’t save ballots, I always leave ballots no matter what. if you are not seeing a ballot tell your coach to email me and I will forward it to them. I pre-write and save all of my ballots in word.

I think that public forum is, at its core, the melding of sound argumentation and solid speaking. You should present not only well-structured, rational, strongly warranted arguments, but you should also do so in a way that can be relatable to whomever is in the back of the round.

That being said, I don't mind some speed - but be sure you are articulate and clear, especially with tags and authors. Sacrificing quality for quantity is a poor choice if you cannot handle (or your judge cannot handle) the speed. Make wise choices.

In terms of 'atypical' arguments. I think that it is very hard to run a K argument well in PF. I don't believe that it cannot be done, just that it is very rare. If you are running theory, then you better have extremely solid warrants and you should have it explained to the level of access of understanding fitting to this style of debate. DO NOT just read cards that you got from your Policy friends/teammates and call it a day. ALSO...YOUR ADVOCACY SHOULD MATCH YOUR ACTIONS. Do NOT use theory arguments as a cheap tool to surprise unwitting opponents and get the ballot when you have engaged in no actions that match the advocacy of your theory arguments. If you are running disclosure theory, there better be a history of you disclosing at EVERY round and you engaged in multiple forums, workshops, discussion boards where you are ACTIVELY engaged in increasing disclosure in a way that promotes education and fairness. If you get up and read disclosure in front of me and do not have this, it will be an automatic loss. I am not joking.

I think that framework is a solid strategy - if there is a purpose. Frequently teams have f/w just to have it and then don't touch it for the rest of the round. If it is there, then you should extend.

On the issue of extensions, be sure that your arguments are carried through the debate. Do not read at the beginning and then bring back up in the final focus and expect me to grant them to you.

Finally, there should be a clear advocacy in the round - and a clash between teams. I hate debates that are like ships passing in the night - no clash.

I have qualified for TOC, NSDA Nationals and competed at NIETOC, and TFA State in Extemporaneous Speech (DX, IX) and Congressional Debate. I've dabbled in PF and read a lot, so I feel comfortable judging :) I'm currently studying Political Communication at UT Austin where I'm also a part of Moody Honors College. I'm a current competitor on the Texas Speech Team!

First, EXTEMP:

I have some specific guidelines that I like to see in Extemporaneous Speech, however, as opinion on Extemp is highly subjective, I try and keep an even baseline when judging speech structure with a high emphasis on personal artistry when judging speaking style.

Speech Structure:

1. Please start out with an effective AGD (Aim to be creative, I enjoy risk taking) and immediately link into your source and significance. - Please attempt to provide a significant statement that established the premise of WHY YOU CARE in your speech, show me that you understand the impact that your SPECIFIC argumentation and reasoning has. Please provide 1 Source in your introduction to qualify the context!
2. Provide your Question VERBATIM (Scoring decision has high emphasis on whether or not this is done)
3. When previewing your point, please establish a clear roadmap, clarity will help you and I understand where the speech is headed
4. Points should be well laid out with effective taglines (I personally prefer quick, snappy taglines that are easy to remember)
5. Confidently speak on facts, however, please do not present faulty information (I will be checking for sourcing if a statistic is presented)
6. ENJOY THE POSITION OF PERSUASION! (You are here to convince me to believe in what you believe, please explain analysis thoroughly!)

Speaking Style:

(As I place a high emphasis on individual speaking style and artistry, my critics on public speaking abilities focus mainly on mechanics)

1. Avoid fillers as best as you can. (While this is a tough one, please attempt to cut out your use of nonsense words - AH, UHM, OH, etc.)
2. Body language should demonstrate a sense of confidence, focus on assertive posture with clear and purposeful hand-gestures.
3. PLEASE UTILIZE SPEAKER TRIANGLE (For those that aren't taught this, with every transition in your points, attempt to move in a triangle motion, side, up, back to opposite side to convey transitioning in your speech)
4. Use academic terminology BUT DO NOT use phrases or terms that you do not know the meaning of. (I am big on this, please speak to me as you are an educator on the topic - educators cannot teach me something if they do not understand it themselves)

Second, Congress:

Nuance to argumentation becomes more important to me as the round moves on, aim to be distinguishable from the crowd in your initial

1. DO NOT USE bottled AGDs, I can tell. Make sure to maximize the endless opportunities of the AGD to apply topicality to your argumentation and stance.
2. An active debater will always rank higher, and aim to be present in every aspect of the round (especially within clash, try to affirm your side too to maximize activity in round)
3. Be kind. Congress can bring the worst out in really lovely people, and treat everyone with respect, scoring will be greatly impacted if you fail to do so.

Third PF:

Clash is where I determine who wins the round when two quality cases are presented. Attempt to extend arguments whenever concessions are given.

Presentation is huge for me, here are some notes if spreading:

1. If you are NOT FLUENT, don't spread
2. Try to incorporate healthy pausing, let me digest your sentences
3. Try to slow the pace down during final focus, I will be paying attention to presentation style during this time more than during the round as this is when your rationale is on display and I need to catch every word.

Respect is key. Do not speak over one another, and minimize negative non-verbal communication (i.e. laughing, rolling eyes, etc.)

Have Fun and stay engaged (if you're bored then I'm bored)

katarina.f.raich@utexas.edu

Johnathen.standifer@leanderisd.org

But, set up a speech drop. It's 2024, there is no need to fight school emails for email chains. share your cases, move things forward, don't be petty for your prep.

Experience in PF, CX and LD. I was an LD/CX debater in high school, and run a PF team now as a coach.

I try to run as close to a tab judge as I can, I'm willing to judge anything you run I just ask for justification in the round for why I should care about debating for it.

I'm fine with speed, I'm fine with theory and I'm fine with progressive arguments.

Don't just throw a trick in the first speech ignore it 'til the end and tell me to vote for you, that's boring.

Congress: I can't think of anything I hate more than everybody giving a speech on a bill in a congress speech. Rehashing only goes so far, I don't need 5 crystallization speeches.

MOVE THE PREVIOUS QUESTION. My points for speeches tend to go down the more an argument goes on and the more rehash we get. Forget equity, move the round forward and you'll be my favorite.