Tech judge. Please do not do off time road maps unless if you say where you are going to start and end on the flow. Please keep it below 5-10 seconds.

Hi! My name is Raif, I debated PF from 2016-2020 at local, state, and nat circ tourneys in the northeast. I coached TOC qualifying and judged extensively from 2020-2022. Once we are in the round, I will provide my email for a email evidence chain or a google doc whichever u prefer. On any other event than PF you can treat me like a well meaning lay judge.

PF:

General Stuff:

-I live for the line by line debate, a rebuttal that clearly signposts what part of a contention that the second speaker will be responding to and then applying responses that are actually responsive and not just topshelf is awesome, and same thing goes for summaries/final foci. "Big picture/voters style debate" is tolerable, but nothing beats a good line by line round.

-All Offense(Contentions, Turns, or Disads) has to be properly FRONTLINED(Improperly frontlining is when you just straight up extend through ink pretending that explaining your link story actually responds to your opponent's response when it clearly doesn't or drop any response on any argument you collapse on), EXTENDED(An extension that isn't sufficient is one that extends a link, but then drops the impact, or just only extends an impact without a link, please do both), and probably WEIGHED in BOTH SUMMARY AND FINAL FOCUS IN ORDER TO BE EVALUATED. In non-debate jargon: Explain the arguments you want me to vote for you off of, answer your opponent's responses, and explain why your arguments are more important than your opponents in both summary and final focus.

-WEIGH YOUR ARGUMENTS. "Weighing" by saying "we outweigh on probability and magnitude" with no further explanation is not weighing. You genuinely have to compare your impacts or links and explicitly explain why I prefer one link or impact over the other. Weighing will boost your speaks, but weighing by just using buzzwords with no additional analysis will make me physically cringe. Don't take advantage of Probability/Strength of Link Weighing to read new link or impact defense that wasn't in the round already. If you start weighing in rebuttal, +.5 speaks for you and an imaginary cookie! The only time I will accept new weighing in either final foci is if there has literally been no weighing in the past speeches by either side(if u reach this scenario, your speaks won't be as high compared to if yall started weighing earlier).

-Turns read in the first rebuttal have to be responded to in the second rebuttal, or I consider it as a clean line of offense for the first speaking team(hey first speaking team you should probably blow that up!). The second rebuttal probably should also frontline defensive responses for strategic purposes, but that is not mandatory.

-UPDATE: 3-minute summaries require defense to be extended in first summary.Because of 1st Summary not being able to definitively know what the second speaking team is collapsing on in summary and final focus, 1st Final Focus CAN extend defensive responses from rebuttal to Final Focus ONLY IF the response was dropped(uncontested). That being said, I would much rather prefer if you could also extend the responses you want to collapse on in FF be in summary too. Please don't say a certain response was dropped when it wasn't. If a link turn is read by a team in rebuttal, and then is not read in summary, but is dropped by the opposing team in their summary, I am willing to evaluate the turn as terminal defense in final focus if the team who read it in rebuttal decides to extend the response in their final focus.

-If there is no offense at the end of the round I will presume the status quo(default con), but before that I will try to find some trivial piece of offense on on the flow that may seem insignificant to the debate if it comes to that(please do not let it come to that).

-Signpost: If I can't tell where you are on the flow, then I cant flow what you say, and that sucks for everyone!

-Warranted analytic>Carded response with no warrant most of the time

-Tech>Truth

Lay-------------Flay---------X---Tech

-Defesne is sticky, even if a response isnt extended in summary and final, if said response was read onto one of the arguments that would be collapsed on in the latter half of the round, I would be more hesitant to vote off of that argument compared to other arguments collapsed in the latter half of the round that have less ink on them or no ink that hasnt been frontlined.

-For concessions in crossfire to be evaluated, CONCESSIONS HAVE TO BE BROUGHT UP IN THE NEXT SPEECH.

Speed:(<275 Words Per Minute)

-Please don't spread, you can honestly just work on your word economy!

-I’ve been less involved recently, and if it’s online please speak at a normal pace.

-Def pref 180-200wpm the most but above that is bearable untill 275wpm.

-If you can speak CLEARLY AND QUICKLY, you should be fine!

-If you go fast, and I yell clear more than twice, your speaks are getting docked(there is literally no educational or tangible real-world benefits made from spreading so quickly that neither I nor your opponents can comprehend your arguments).

-Quality of responses>Quantity of response

I trust you to count your own prep time, please do not abuse that.

Theory/Ks/Other Progressive Args:

-As someone who debated mainly in the Northeast, I don't know how to evaluate progressive arguments because I have never really debated them nor have I been exposed to them much. I am open to hearing them and don't plan on hacking against them, but I would much rather not have to judge fast progressive rounds if I do not have to.

-2 exceptions tho:

A) Impacting to structural violence if it is warranted, frontlined, and continuously extended in a logical and intuitive manner.

B) If your opponents are genuinely being abusive in the round, at that point you don't need to read a shell, just straight up say they are being abusive and warrant it quickly(i.e. "they read a new and unrelated contention in second rebuttal that does not interact with our case, that's abusive bc of timeskew.")

Evidence:

-I try to avoid calling for evidence as much as possible.

-Paraphrasing is okay so long as it is within the context of the actual evidence

-After two minutes(Im sympathetic to those w slow laptops bc I had one when I used to debate), if you can't get your evidence, I'm just not evaluating it, and we are moving on with the round. If want to use your team's prep time to still get the evidence after the two minutes, you can do that too if it is so important.

-Your speaks are getting DOCKED if you're misrepresenting evidence and I will drop the evidence/or even the argument entirely from the round based on how severe the misconstrual is.

-Unless the opposing team tells me miscut evidence means I should drop the debater and why, the team that miscut the evidence WILL NOT have an auto-drop.

These are the scenarios I call for evidence:

A) A debater tells me to in the round

B) It sounds hella sketch/too good to be true

C) It is important for my decision

-Evidence weighing or whatever is generally really cringe, but there are exceptions like in this vid(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siA9SmHyO7M&t=2610s) at 42:15.

Good luck, don't be mean, and have fun!

PF Coach @ The Potomac School,

W&M '24,GMU '22 (debated (policy) 4 yrs in HS & 4 yrs at GMU)

Put me on your email chain marybeth.armstrong18@gmail.com

PF

Flow judge, tell me how to evaluate the round

Here are a few thoughts:

1. I absolutely despise the way evidence is traded in PF. It is so unbelievably inefficient. You will probably be rewarded if you just send cases/rebuttal docs before each speech because I will less annoyed. If you are asking for opponents to write out/send analytics, you are self reporting, I know you aren't flowing.

2. Links and impacts need to be in the summary if you want me to evaluate them in the final focus. Please do not tagline extend your argument, do some comparative analysis in regard to your opponents arguments. Please go beyond just extending author names as well - most of the time I don’t really flow authors unless it matters.

3. Tech > Truth

4. I don’t flow cross, but I am listening. If something important happens in cross it NEEDS to be in your speech.

5. Theory: I am comfortable evaluating theory, although it super aggravates me when debaters read theory on teams that clearly wont know how to answer it just because they think it is an easy ballot, I will tank speaks for this. Either way, theory is just another argument I will evaluate on the flow, so make sure you are doing line-by-line, just like you would on any other argument. However, generally I think disclosure is beneficial and CWs are good when they are actually needed.

6. Ks: I will evaluate them, but probably have a pretty high threshold for explanation. I think there are ways to run them and be effective, but I think it is extremely hard given the time constraints of PF. I hate link of omissions though. pls stop

Policy

*UPDATE for Wake 2022*

I have not researched/coached at all on the personhood topic so pls do not assume that I knowthings.

Online things - pls slow down a lil - I already flow on paper and if you are flying through analytics online there is a good chance I wont catch some stuff

TLDR: I’m receptive to all kinds of arguments. Read what you are good at.

Policy v Policy

Cards: I will read them to answer questions about my flow or to compare the quality of evidence of well debated arguments (this is not an excuse for poor explanation) .

T: The standards I prefer and find most persuasive are limits/ground and real world context. I default to competing interpretations if no other metric is given. However, I err aff if I think your interp is reasonable (given reasonability is explained properly, it is often not) and the negative did not prove you made debate impossible even if neg interp is slightly better. Otherwise, just defend your interp is a good vision of the topic.

Theory

I am generally fine with unlimited condo. However, will be much more inclined to vote on condo if your vision of unlimited condo is 7 counterplans in the 1NC with no solvency advocates. Fail to see how that is a) strategic or b) educational. I will certainly vote on condo if it is dropped or won tho.

I'm fine with PICs out of specific portions the aff defends.

99 out of 100 times, if it's not condo, it's a reason to reject the arg. You need a clear reason why they skewed the round to get me to drop them even if it is dropped. Having said that, if you win that a CP is illegitimate you're probably in a good spot anyways.

K v Policy Affs

Specificity of links go a long way. This doesn't mean your evidence has to be exactly about the plan but applying your theory to the aff in a way that takes out solvency will do a world of good for you. Please remember I haven't done research on this topic, so good explanations will be to your benefit.

Make sure the alt does something to resolve your links/impacts + aff offense OR you have FW that eliminates aff offense. (Having an alt in the 2NR is definitely to your benefit in these debates, I am less likely to err neg even if you win a link to the aff without some resolution).

However, I probably tend to err aff on the f/w portion of the debate. Weigh the aff, key to fairness, etc are all arguments I tend to find persuasive. I also think a well developed argument about legal/pragmatic engagement will go a long way.

Good impact framing is essential in the majority of these debates. For the aff - be careful here, even if you win case outweighs, the neg can still win a link turns case arg and you will lose.

Contextual line-by-line debates are better than super long overviews. I will not make cross-applications for you.

K Affs v Policy

K Affs should probably have some relation to the resolution. They should also probablydo somethingto resolve whatever the aff is criticizing. If it isn't doing something, I need an extremely good explanation for why. TLDR: if I don’t know what the aff does after the CX of the 1AC, you are going to have a v hard time the rest of the round.

Negative teams should prove why the aff destroys fairness and why that is bad. Fairness is an impact. However, go for whatever version of FW you are best at. In the same vain as some of the stuff above, being contextual to the aff is critical. If you make no reference to the aff especially in the latter half of the debate, it will be hard to win my ballot.

Both teams need a vision of what debate looks like & why that vision is better. Or if the negative team does not have a superb counterinterp - impact turn the affs model of debate.

K v K

If you find me in these debates, make the debate simple for me. Clear contextual explanations are going to go a long way. Impact framing/explanation is going to be key in these rounds.

Hey Guys! My name is Siddharth Ayyagari and I did PF in high school PF: First things first I will down you for offensive, racist, or homophobic arguments. No spreading but speed is okay as long as I can understand it. I evaluate tech over truth and will be flowing the round. If I suspect that evidence or a card has been misconstrued I will ask to see it. Speaker points will not be a big issue unless you are rude, aggressive, not clear etc. Please roadmap before each speech and weighing is heavily appreciative. No new arguments after second summary. Final focus should only be about weighing please don't make it something else.

I'm a senior at Brooklyn Tech and I have been doing PF for six-ish years.

Extend EVERYTHING please, especially defense. I don't flow cross so bring up anything in the next speech. Please weigh, preferably starting in summary. I prefer a very clear linkchain over a bunch of cards. You need to defend your framework or I'll default to voting on util. Theory is fine, and I can probably evaluate a k, though I'm not very comfortable with it.

I'm comfortable with speed, but if you plan on spreading please send me a speech doc. I don't mind heated debate, especially in cross, but if you are blatantly disrespectful it will be reflected in your speaks. Don't waste your time in speech introducing yourself and telling me your side and the resolution. I already know.

I will not tolerate sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, or any other form of bigotry in round.

Please add me to any email chains, my email is cconnor3138@bths.edu

Hello everybody,

I am a parent judge. I like listening to debates and seeing how the flow of arguments evolve.

I admire when debaters are polite and ask questions with a spirit of inquiry.

Also, it is more important to speak in a manner that communicates your point of view rather than trying to cram facts at supersonic speed.

Look forward to some fantastic debating!

- Saurav Dey

My name is Lisa Grzywacz and I have been judging for six years. I prefer that you speak clearly and not too quickly. I am looking for organized arguments with statistics to back up your claims. Make sure that you reiterate your contentions while also refuting claims that the opposing team provides. It is beneficial to give a framework for which me to judge from.

As a judge, I assure you that I will not vote based on my personal beliefs. I look forward to hearing your arguments.

I am a parent judge with some judging experience. Here are my expectations:

• I know the debaters like to speak fast but please speak clearly and use pauses and emphasis so it's easy to catch your argument.
• Please keep your camera on, and always be respectful
• Please be mindful of time.
  
  

I have coached LD and PF for about 15 years now, but I am not a professional debater. I am a flow judge, and I prefer classic debate with clear clash, not jargon-laden spreaders with theory and K shells. I value clash and technical debate, but I will not vote for a blatantly false argument even if it is dropped.

Clear your impacts. I am OK with some speed, but you must be clear. At least slow down through authors and taglines. In the end, if I can't understand you, you will lose.

Extend, don't drop. I will consider dropped arguments to be conceded. Even if the other turn drops a turn, you should extend your warrant. Tell me what was conceded and why it matters.

Weigh your argument. The last two speeches should be about weighing and crystallization, not new arguments or a rehash of old ones. Tell me how to weigh your round, because if I choose the weighing mechanism, you might not win.

Don't make me work. If you tell me, I'll flow it, unless it goes by too fast. The more you link, the less I have to think. I will make reasonable assumptions and discount abusive arguments even if you don't call them out explicitly, but the more work I have to do, the less predictable the outcome will be for you.

Evidence clash is mostly neutral. I don't judge Policy. Trying to outweigh on evidence is not going to go very far for me. In most cases, if you toss just cards at each other, I will call that a wash.

I am a new judge and I expect debaters to be concise about their points. I like candidate to be comfortable when speaking out and when in doubt avoid making any arguments. Confidence and clear articulation is what I am looking for. The message should be clear and each argument should support your side. Don't talk too fast. Truth > tech.

I've judged public forum debates for a while now, so I'm familiar with common positions and arguments. Please speak at a moderate pace and slow down for taglines and author names.

I'm an open-minded judge. Sticking to the resolution is crucial, and creative thinking is valued. However, the ability to handle strong arguments and deep thinking is just as important.

Remember, let's keep the focus on the topic and have a constructive exchange of ideas. Good luck to both teams!

please treat me like ive never done debate before

• slow, explain your arguments, give me a clear reason to vote for you

I am a litigator who focuses on antitrust, securities, and data privacy matters. I've judged Public Forum debates for about two years.

There are four things that, in my opinion, make a debate go well.

First, at least for Public Forum debates, talk at a moderate pace. We all have a tendency to speak quicker than usual when debating, but slowing down will often help you get your points across more clearly. I speak in court quite a bit, and I also have to fight the reflex to talk quickly.

Second, for the first two speakers, start by giving a couple of introductory sentences, rather than going straight into your contentions. Taking 10-20 seconds to do that will provide an overview of where you are going, and make the rest of the argument much easier to follow.

Third, feel free to use all the time allotted to you. You might raise a point in the last few seconds of the debate that resonates with a judge.

Fourth, be kind. Judges, both in debate and in court, appreciate when opposing parties are civil to each other.

I am a lay judge. Speak clearly and slowly.

I judge based on my ability to follow an argument, its logic, and the strength of evidence used to support it. I am generally skeptical of statistical evidence and often find it vulnerable to challenge. I will not flow crossfire but I will listen. Summary and final focus are the most important speeches; I depend on these summaries to clarify and refine arguments. I do keep my own time as a way of ensuring that each team uses time equitably. I will try to follow speedy arguments, but I am, myself, on the slower side.

GENERAL: I debated for Bettendorf HS '14-'18. Any questions feel free too ask.

SPEECHES: Summary can be line by line and FF should generally go over the same issues in the same order.

CROSSFIRE:I don't flow crossfire, questions must require some nuance or explanation so don't force opponents to quickly answer yes or no to make them look bad. At the same time answer the questions and move on. If you opponent wants more of an explanation don't just try and push past it for your turn. Feel free to capitalize on concessions but everything that happens in CF must be used in the speeches for me to flow it.

I am a novice judge. I don’t want any spreading because I would like to hear everyone’s arguments and facts clearly. I understand that time is precious in the debate world. I want to be a fair judge, so in order to do that I need to hear, process, and understand each side’s arguments but I can’t do that if I only catch some of their main points.

As a fair novice judge I will be documenting only what I hear and using the documents they send me as references. If it wasn’t spoken, I don’t write it down. I will not tolerate talking from the opposing team during one’s debate round, that’s what prep time is for so anything you want to talk about can be written down and spoken during the appropriate time(prep and cross-ex)

As a judge I will NOT be documenting cross-ex and the only reason I will be is if I overheard a fact that could’ve been used in the arguments of either Aff or Neg, and I will be writing that down as a note for the coaches to read on and talk with their team. So all arguments made in cross ex must originally be made in a formal speech in-order for me to document it on the flow.

flow judge

weigh

signpost

keep track of your own speech times and prep

TLDR bc this paradigm is hella long: Tech, weigh, warrant everything, spreading is an L

Email: itswebster2@gmail.com

I'm a Junior at Woodside Priory, 4th year doing PF, this paradigm is set up for PF judging.

Fake Flow / Flay / Fake Flay / Fake Fake Flow. I'm basically a flow (trust). I don't like theory much but I'll evaluate it, but I can't evaluate k's. Frameworks are fine.

Spreading is goofy, I'll flow but I'll also tank your speaks, it doesn't matter if you send me a speech doc

General Stuff❗:

Tech over truth if it's got an actual link and it's not a blatant lie.

Please don't assume that I understand the ins and outs of any given topic, and don't just drop a stock tagline and expect me to know the argument, I want actual warranting on everything.

Squirrelly args: great if they're warranted, I like sand mafia or trucking impacts.

Warrants: I need a thought out and explained warrant for everything. I will vote for the team that has strong, warranted responses / extensions in round over the team that sends me a speech doc and then spams at 950 wpm.

Weighing: Do it. Probability weighing is not weighing, I want to see actual evaluation of the impacts, not how likely they are to happen. You can evaluate probability but there should be actual weighing as well. Also, you can say the weighing mechanism, but try to go further. If you just say "timeframe" and move on, I probably wont evaluate it, because it doesn't have a warrant. If you want to win on a turn, implicate and weigh it the same way you would with a contention.

In general + specifically the debt topic: Recent economics cards: inflation cards and whatnot should be cited with month and day, don't just give me the year of publication: as recent as possible.

Interaction: If there is no interaction whatsoever, at least on my flow, I'll always default to NEG, and both teams will get relatively low speaks.

Progressive Debate: Again, theory fine, k's are not. I do not enjoy theory but I'll still flow it. K's bamboozle me and I have no clue how to evaluate them (my bad). I'll give extra speaks if you successfully run something like shoe theory. However, don't run progressive args against obvious novices. DISCLOSURE THEORY SUCKS, I don't like it because I really don't care if you did or did not disclose your case some arbitrary number of minutes before the round on some random wiki website but if you win it, I'll reluctantly vote on it. Also if the team proves they're breaking a new case I drop the shell. Also, running an incredibly long shell in rebuttal DOES NOT give you permission to spread, it was your choice to run the shell, don't act like your only option is to spread.

New Arguments: DO NOT bring up new points in 2nd Summary or Final Focus unless they were brought up in cross. Bringing up new evidence to back up a previous response is no good either. If you do it blatantly, I won't evaluate it. If you try to be sneaky about it, I'll either raise or drop your speaks depending on my mood.

Calling for Evidence: Go for it, don't steal prep while your opponents find their evidence. If you want to call out the evidence, have at it, I just hope not to see a round where the only voter relies on the legitimacy of one card. I will never do my own research in round, and unless your opponent calls out evidence I'll evaluate it as true. If you send speech docs, I'll look through them to make sure there isn't any like blatant propaganda or sources from the 1800's, but that's about it. I'm not going to go to the wiki for your cases, if you want me to see them, do an email chain pls.

RFD: Generally I'll try to disclose at the end of the round, but the quality of the oral RFD may vary based on time constraints on ballot submission times / round schedule. If you want more in depth feedback, it will be in the RFD on tabroom. I will try to never just put "oral rfd" into the tabroom, because that is insanely bummy.

Debating non topical stuff: If both teams agree to debate another topic, I'll still judge it.

Crosses: I will not flow any cross speeches. I'll listen, but unless you bring it up during a subsequent speech, I won't evaluate anything said in the decision. If you do get a concession, just bring it up in the speech after and I will evaluate it in the round. Concessions are not them misspeaking or something minor like that, make sure the concession is an actual point of a link chain conceded by your opponents. If both teams ask to skip grand cross, we can just skip it.

Post-Round: My decision will be final, and I will disclose. If you don't agree with it, I understand, but please don't try to argue about it after I disclose. It's not productive, and it's usually just a drag for me, your opponents, and maybe even your partner. That being said, if you have questions about the decision, or you want some advice, feel free to ask away, and I'll do my best to answer it all.

Speaker Points:

Basically you start the round with 28 speaks, this will probably increase if you simply debate well in the round. Here are a few ways you can raise or lower your speaker points:

Pre speech: "Hello judge, my name is x and I am the x speaker for x school" is bum activity, I will drop your speaks (maybe, its not that deep tbh). Just tell me where you're starting on the flow and we're good to go.

Music: If you play something hype before your speech I'll raise speaks based on how good it is, prob don't let it go into your speech unless I can still hear you clearly. It better not be drake tho.

Food: Give me food and I'll raise speaks, eat food and I'll lower them. Don't try to give me food in a virtual tournament.

Funny theory/framing: If it's funny it'll probably up your speaks.

Timing: Don't go too far over on speeches, don't try to steal any prep, and generally make the most of your time during speeches and cross. I'll be keeping track of time, but I won't hold up my phone or anything if you go over time because it's obnoxious. That being said, you should be keeping track of your opponents time usage and vice versa.

Speed: Going fast is ok, if you annunciate I will understand it. What is more important is making sure your opponents can understand it. If your opponents are obviously new to debate, I don't want to see very much spreading. If you are both at a similar level, talk as fast or as slow as you would like. Just make sure that you are speaking clearly. If I can't hear you, it's harder to make a fair decision, even if I don't necessarily tank your speaker points for it. Spreading sucks, only absolute goobers spread, don't do it if you value your speaks. If you spread and I can't hear you, I don't care if you send a speech doc, your speaks are getting tanked.

Cross: You can be aggressive to a certain degree, but remember that it's just a debate, it's really not that deep, and there's no point in being rude. be chill. Its fine if cross gets heated, that's normal, but don't let it escalate into a shouting match. Also don't just have the final focus speaker go on mute during grand.

Lying and stuff: If you come into final focus and say "they completely dropped our turn on x" and then argue that you should win on it, when your opps gave like 3 extended responses to it, I'm not going to evaluate it as dropped, however I will "drop" your speaks (that's a pun). Also don't assume that I zone out during cross, I'll still pay attention, so if you say "they conceded x" when they obviously didn't during cross, I'll probably drop that point and tank speaks.

Ethics: Don't bring up a new carded response in second summary or either of the FFs. Don't just obviously google a statistic during cross. If you bring up a whole new point in FF that wasn't introduced during Grand Cross I'm not going to flow or vote off of it. If you're going to run Theory at least run it well, try to mask the fact that you probably just want an easy win and your actual cases are mid. Disclosure theory sucks, if a team proves they didn't disclose because they're breaking a new case, I'll probably drop your shell. I'm more forgiving with funny shells tho. I do not care about powertagging, if the content of the card is not blatantly miscut, I don't really care if the tagline is an exaggeration. However, cutting evidence improperly is a lot worse, don't miscut cards or try to. I also don't care much for paraphrasing theory, but if you run it well i'll still vote on it. I personally don't have a problem with paraphrased cases as long as the card links are somewhere in there.

Inclusivity: If you are blatantly rude or offensive in round, you'll probably dip speaker points to below 27, or get dropped. Keep the round accessible, don't be a bum.

Non-PF Judging: I'll do my best to evaluate it off the flow. LD speech times and ethics debates scare me. Somebody please introduce progressive args into MUN.

Hi there! My name is Andre. I've judged a few debate tournaments, but I would still characterize myself as a lay judge. With this in mind, I'd greatly appreciate measured and clear delivery.

Outside of this plea, I would characterize my paradigm as such:

1. Please speak slowly and avoid abstract generalizations that would otherwise expedite the argument you're advancing. I am still on my flow-notetaking training wheels, so please advance your arguments with a velocity that has this in mind.

2. I'd like to reiterate point one. A debater who has the ability to advance, defend, and respond to a few particular points in clear and succinct terms is much more impressive to me than the bullet-train approach of throwing every conceivable worldly-evil into the pot. Stir thoughtfully instead of spilling all over the place

3. The use of real-world examples will greatly raise your argumentative-esteem. A clash of unsubstantiated hypotheticals is one way to debate, but basic examples put some real punch behind principles. Making assertions as if they're self-evident neither convinces me nor demonstrates your ability to think.

4. Though it won't theoretically influence my vote, stylish uses of language and sturdy syntax always catch my attention.