Alabama State 2022
2022 — Birmingham, AL/US
Public Forum Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Current debater for Mountain Brook. I've done PF for 5 years
Add me to the email chain: email@example.com
For email chains: firstname.lastname@example.org
I was a Policy debater at Samford / GTA at Wake Forest, now an assistant coach at Mountain Brook. I’ve increasingly moved into judging PF and LD, which I enjoy the most when they don’t imitate Policy.
I’m open to most arguments in each event - feel free to read your theory, critiques, counterplans, etc., as long as they’re clearly developed and impacted. Debate is up to the debaters; I'm not here to impose my preferences on the round.
• Speed is fine as long as you’re clear. Pay attention to nonverbals; you’ll know if I can’t understand you.
• Bad arguments still need answers, but dropped args are not auto-winners – you still need to extend warrants and explain why they matter.
• If prep time isn’t running, all activity by all debaters should stop.
• Debate should be fun - be nice to each other. Don’t be rude or talk over your partner.
• I’m pretty strongly opposed to paraphrasing evidence - I’d prefer that debaters directly read their cards, which should be readily available for opponents to see. That said, I won’t just go rogue and vote on it - it’s still up to debaters to give convincing reasons why that’s either a voting issue or a reason to reject the paraphrased evidence. Like everything else, it’s up for debate.
• Please exchange your speech docs, either through an email chain or flash drive. Efficiency matters, and I’d rather not sit through endless prep timeouts for viewing cards.
• Extend warrants, not just taglines. It’s better to collapse down to 1-2 well-developed arguments than to breeze through 10 blippy ones.
• Anything in the Final Focus should be in the Summary – stay focused on your key args.
• Too few teams debate about evidence/qualifications – that’s a good way to boost speaks and set your sources apart.
• I think LD is too often a rush to imitate Policy, which results in some messy debates. Don’t change your style because of my background – if you’re not comfortable (or well-practiced) spreading 5 off-case args, then that’s not advisable.
• If your value criterion takes 2+ minutes to read, please link the substance of your case back to it. This seems to be the most under-developed part of most LD rounds.
• Theory is fine when clearly explained and consistently extended, but I’m not a fan of debaters throwing out a ton of quick voters in search of a cheap shot. Things like RVIs are tough enough to win in the first place, so you should be prepared to commit sufficient time if you want theory to be an option.
[Quick note: I've been out of practice in judging Policy for a bit, so don't take for granted my knowledge of topic jargon or ability to catch every arg at top-speed - I've definitely become a curmudgeon about clarity.]
• I generally think limited condo (2 positions) is okay, but I've become a bit wary on multiple contradictory positions.
• Theory means reject the arg most of the time (besides condo).
• I often find “Perm- do the CP” persuasive against consult, process, or certainty-based CPs. I don’t love CPs that result in the entire aff, but I’ll vote on them if I have to.
• Neg- tell me how I should evaluate the CP and disad. Think judge kick is true? Say it. It’s probably much better for you if I’m not left to decide this on my own.
• K affs that are at least somewhat linked to the resolutional controversy will fare the best in front of me. That doesn't mean that you always need a plan text, but it does mean that I most enjoy affirmatives that defend something in the direction of the topic.
• For Ks in general: the more specific, the better - nuanced link debates will go much farther than 100 different ways to say "state bad".
• Framework args on the aff are usually just reasons to let the aff weigh their impacts.
• Caselists, plz.
• No preference toward reasonability or competing interps - just go in depth instead of repeating phrases like "race to the bottom" and moving on.
email@example.com e-mail chain, but know I do not follow along with docs during the debate and do not tend to read a ton of evidence afterwards.
Debated at Samford University.
Currently coaching as a graduate student at Wake Forest.
Top level stuff:
- Do what you do best. Please do not try and change your debating to try and win my ballot-- chances are it won't help you out and you'll have less fun. I will listen to any argument and have experience running the gamut of them.
- My default position is as a policymaker and that debate is a game (a very challenging one, often with legitimate real-world applications, but a game nonetheless). That said--if you want me to evaluate the round in any other way, be clear about what my role as a judge is and present a justification for that interpretation, and I will be happy to do so
- I am often very compelled by a topical version of the aff.
- Fairness is probably not an impact by itself, *update* but I find myself voting on it more often than I expect to.
- Go for it
- I don't think non-traditional aff necessarily need to be "topical," but I do think that the resolution ought to play a central role in your decision to run this affirmative.
- Go for it
- Specificity is always preferable to generics and will probably be rewarded
- I am willing to no-link a disad
- I am often very compelled by a good overview that includes a thorough turns case analysis.
- Condo is fine and probably good. 3 CP's and a K are probably not. Cheater counterplans are probably cheating-- don't be afraid to take on this debate as the affirmative. I will vote on theory, but if there are other args you're winning, you should go for them instead.
- Go for it
- Specificity is preferable to generics and will probably be rewarded
- While I may be familiar with your literature base, I will still hold you to a high threshold for explanation. I've seen a lot of k debates devolve into a battle of buzzwords with warranted analysis getting lost in the midst of it (to be fair, this is also true of a lot of policy debates). I will probably reward your ability to explain your own argument.
Tips for speaks:
- Time efficiency— Have the 1ac ready to send before the start time/the 1nc to send asap. Stands should be set up before the round. Inefficient rounds = lower speaks and less decision time, which may either help or hurt you (if that’s a gamble you’re interested in making).
- Assertiveness is not a license for disrespect or hostility.
- say smart things! Be nice!
- Make bold choices— trust your instincts.
- Be kind. Be conscious of the person you're speaking to and how your tone/language choices/body language could be coming off.
- You are an intelligent and competent human being. Don't be afraid to use your brain and make some common-sense answers to arguments. I think a lot of what we say in debate is silly and could be taken down by a few good attacks, even without cards. Trust yourself to make smart arguments.
- Do not clip cards.
- Have fun! I love this activity and will put in as much effort judging your round as you did preparing for it.
Speed is fine. I'm your standard second year out flow debate judge. Have fun and Roll Tide. Please though, for the love of god, do not run theory shells.
General Info: I am a student at Auburn University studying theatre management. I have competed in PF debate and Congress throughout my high school debate career. Trad>Prog. I flow; however, if you are a clear win on the flow and do not convince me during your speeches, I will not vote for you.
PF: My background is in PF. Novices, I have more grace with; however, please try to stay on the flow. Varsity, you know how Debate works. Space your time well and be persuasive. I will be sad if your cross is dull, but it does not affect if you win or not, aka I do not flow it (because we do not do that).
Speaks: Speed is fine if you are clear; however, if I make faces at you of confusion or your opponents feel like you are spreading, do not be rude. Slow down. Again, I have a background in theatre, so the flow of speech (vocal variety and enunciation) and persuasiveness are vital to me. Speaks will be ranked based on that.
Do not make any drastic comparisons to genocide, slavery, rape, etc., in your case or weighing. Automatic loss, I will stop flowing and will not vote for you. The same goes for homophobic, sexist, racist, etc., comments. I will not vote for you if I hear it, even if you out-debated. There is no room for bigotry in Debate.
INCLUDE ME ON EMAIL CHAIN
*if you have any questions about your debate/my decision, please feel free to email me!
Ramsay graduate c/o 2020
SpeakFirst alumnus 2020
I mostly competed in circuit tournaments and had fairly even records.
When judging I vote on the quality of evidence and consistency throughout the round. If I can't understand what you're saying then I won't be able to vote for you and it also defeats the purpose of a progressive and engaged public forum round. If your opponent makes a claim against your case, it is your responsibility to address it, otherwise, I will flow the point to their side. I expect you to defend any arguments you want me to vote for and extend them throughout every speech. Anything brought up during crossfire will not be flowed unless said in a speech.
If you have any questions my contact information is below.
Hey, I'm a varsity PF debater from Vestavia Hills.
It does not matter whether what somebody says is actually true in reality, I will only judge based on the flow. If somebody somehow provides a link chain saying how killing a monkey will lead to a civil war in Canada and the link chain isn't attacked, I will flow that and give them the win provided it outweighs.
Please signpost. The cleaner the round, the more speaks I will give you. If I can barely follow your speech, not only will you get lower speaks, it will also be harder for me to flow.
Be respectful. Anything homophobic or racist or just plain rude will make me give you lowest speaks possible and I will vote you down.
Weighing is extremely important. If you don't weigh, I will weigh myself, and there's no guarantee that I will go with what you had in mind.
If you don't give me anything to weigh on, this is the order in which I will weigh.
Pre-requisite >= Probability > Magnitude >= Severity > Scope
Meta-weighing is also important if both sides give different weighing mechanisms.
I will not flow cross. If you want anything in cross to count, it has to be round-changing and/or you must mention it in a speech. It will, however, affect speaks.
Steve Jobs died of Ligma.
I prefer clarity to speed. Every. Time. Spreading will lose points with me.
I prefer a well-reasoned argument to number of cards. While evidence is of course a part of any argument, I particularly reward the team that can apply specific evidence to their argument clearly.
I prefer a team that listens to and responds to the other side's argument appropriately.
I do not pay much attention to crossfire; IMO, crossfire is your opportunity to see what you can do with your opponent's case. I want to hear you bring up blocks, refutation and/or counterpoints based on your crossfire in the subsequent parts of the round.
As a coach, I will usually be pretty familiar with both sides of the resolution. If a card sounds suspect, I will call for it.
Hello, allow me to introduce myself. My name is Jadon Couch I attended Northridge High School in Tuscaloosa AL and now I am an undergrad at UAB majoring in political science. I have been involved with speech and debate for 3 years now qualifying in both NSDA and NCFL national tournaments. While my forte is mostly Extemporaneous, Congress, OO, informative, and mostly speech events. I am very well attributed to the debate sector as well; I have competed at a number of events involving debate as well. Now when it comes to being a judge, I look at it as if I am a Supreme Court justice, you are trying to convince me of your argument and from the very beginning I am unbiased and undecided of that opinion that will be heard. It is important to me though of these following things: being respectful, NO SPREADING, understanding your opponent's argument and finally have organized sound arguments. These are really the only requirements that I have for debate.
I did debate in high school, but I have been out of it for a while now so please excuse me if I am not totally up to date on everything. I am open to pretty much any argument and speed as well (but I prefer a conversational speed in Public Forum). I also request that competitors time their own speeches and prep time, and I'm ok if you go a little over time to finish your sentence but anything more than 5 seconds and I stop flowing.
Can't stress this enough: IMPACT WEIGHING, IMPACT WEIGHING, and IMPACT WEIGHING. Start in the summary continue with it in the Final Focus. If you don't present me with impacts to vote on it's a tough path for you to win my ballot. Impact calc is a HUGE plus so please include it in your speeches, especially if you have time left on the clock.
While framework isn't something that is a must for PF, I do love to see it. Framework is something that can give you that little edge and come in clutch in the end, especially if you know how to use it. However, please don't spend a ton of time arguing about framework and then barely mention it at the end of the round.
Keep cross civil and treat your opponents with respect. Other than that try to speak as clearly as possible and please give an offtime road map before you begin speaking.
I am a previous IE competitor of 4 years. I competed in and understand all Interp events (DI, HI, DUO, POI) and have experience judging Exempt, OO, and Info.
I do not have much experience in judging any of the debate events (LD, PF, Congress). If I am judging your debate round, please read the following:
Do not spread or speak too quickly. I cannot flow your speeches if I cannot understand you. If I cannot understand you, I cannot judge you.
Please be understanding with any questions I might ask before the round starts - I will seek clarification if I do not understand.
RESPECT YOUR OPPONENTS - if you speak over/interrupt your opponents during crossfire, I will dock points. Sportsmanship is a critical part of competing, so be respectful when others are speaking.
Hi I am Camp. I graduated at Montgomery Academy. I have done LD, PF, and WSD but mainly LD for 3 years. I prefer tech over truth. More than less, I was a trad debater, but do whatever you want as long as it is 1) topical 2) well explained. I can handle speed but do not spread unless you drop the doc to me and your opponent. I will vote a lot off of the framework debate. In your last speech please collapse on the arguments I should be voting off of. I prefer using speechdrop.net but my email is firstname.lastname@example.org
I prefer topic debate. I am not a fan of theory or meta based debate (time/prep skew or burden-based arguments). Disclosure is the debater's choice, and it is your choice to post your stuff on the wiki. That being said I have run theory and understand it at least a little. If there is something clearly concerning that has happened in round, go ham with a theory arg.
Crossfire and rebuttals can get heated, but it is an instant loss if you are derogatory toward your opponent’s character or identity that doesn’t impact cases.
Keep your own time
I don’t flow cross, bring up anything important in the next speech
I probably won’t disclose unless I have to
I love extinction but in truth it is not an end all - be all argument. I will not vote up a 1% extinction scenario with very few warrants vs a very well fleshed out structure violence case despite what you say about the “greater good”. Rounds are won on evidence and clash
Last Chance Qual:
I have done no topic research and don't even know the resolution. So assume I know nothing, because I truly know nothing.
I debated PF for 4 years
If you want me to vote on it, it needs to be in the summary and the final focus
Please don’t just yell cards at me. Some analysis of what it says is appreciated.
If there’s an evidence misconduct problem, I’d rather you point out the issues with your opponent’s interpretation of evidence during your speeches, but I’ll call for a card if you tell me to.
Any concessions in cross need to be in a speech for me to flow it
- Don't Spread at me
- I'm not flowing anything after the 10-second grace period
I am a lay judge and former speech team coach. My background is in theatre and speech, so presentation matters to me. I would like you to speak at a slow rate, so I can make sure to catch all of your arguments and evidence. I also need your speeches to be well organized. In the end, I will value argument over style, but again, if I can’t understand it, I can’t vote for it. If you call for evidence, please have a legitimate reason for it. I don't like spending a lot of prep time on it. I expect you to time yourselves, but I will be timing too. I like clear, organized flows with clear voters at the end. Please be civil and respectful to your partner and competitors.
I debated in Public Forum debate (2013-2017) at Western Highschool in Florida.
I have a Bachelor's degree in Political Science from the University of Florida and a Master's degree in Liberal Studies from Georgetown University. Attending Northeastern University Law School in the fall.
a couple of things:
-Y'all should be timing the debate. I am the judge, not a babysitter. I like when teams hold each other accountable.
- don't read a new contention in rebuttal. that's not going on my flow
- The first summary should extend defense if the second rebuttal frontlines the argument. I think it is strategic for the second rebuttal to respond to turns and overviews.
- My attention to crossfire will probably depend on the time of day and my current mood. Please use it strategically if not I'll probably switch to watching youtube videos. - do not just read evidence explain the evidence in your own words. Tell me why the evidence matters to me at the end of the day.
- the summary is cool and all but don't go for everything on the flow, condense the round and give me a narrative. Quality of voters> Quantity of voters.
- Weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh.
-any other questions ask me before the round
SPEAKER POINT BREAKDOWNS
"30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.
29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.
28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.
27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.
26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.
25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.
Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior."
***Speaker Points break down borrowed from Mollie Clark.***
if you want to learn more about debate and get better under my guidance.
Click on the link below and sign up now!!!!
I am the debate sponsor at JCIB in Birmingham, AL. My main request is that you do not speak at such a quick speed that it is impossible to understand what you are saying.
Hi! I have been debating at Vestavia Hills High School for four years now.
Evidence - If the evidence is sketch... I will call for it
Rebuttal - Signpost!!! Tell me exactly what you are doing/responding to
Summary/Final Focus - Weigh!! Signpost PLEASE! Say where you are on the flow
Crossfire - I don't flow crossfire, but if you want to tell me something that happened in crossfire, then say it in the next speech. Be respectful! Do not interrupt others when they are speaking. Yelling and screaming at each other will NOT help you win the round
Keep your own time (prep, speeches)
Have fun! :)
Second Year debater, current senior in high school.
I've been in LD for two years, but now I've shifted mostly to Congress.
I have no PF experience, but I understand the things that are core to debate, so don't feel that you need to dumb things down a ton for me in PF.
I love for you to weigh impacts. If you want to win, make sure you do the weighing for me, or discredit your opponents weighing.
I'm fine with things like snarkiness, sass, or sarcasm, but make sure its in a joking manner. If its straight up rude, and not provoked, you will probably be voted down.
If you run tricks you lose! :)
tech>truth: debate is a game
run whatever you want, but the more progressive your debate becomes the more you will have to explain it to me
any speed is good, just be clear
don't give me a soliloquy for your off-time roadmap
for the love of god, give me warrants
i don’t pay attention to cross, if something important happens then bring it up in your following speech
do not extend the entire flow
defense is sticky
i vote neg on presumption
no new evidence in the final focus, please and thank you
if you’re gonna run theory, run it correctly
this should go without saying but i will not tolerate any form of discrimination in the round
if we are on a virtual platform, please do not go fast. some speed is okay, but i really value clarity when online
-Former college and HS policy debater (2004-2012 combined). Experience with all kinds of policy styles, but my endpoint was K/performance. I am in more PF/LD rounds because of the Alabama circuit, but I do actively coach policy.
- Open to most arguments and styles. I'm mostly tech-focused, but still believe winning large-scale theses can shift how I think about nitty-gritty points of contestation. My mental process when judging usually looks like this:
- What framework am I using to evaluate arguments? Does that framework limit out or prioritize anything important? (Frequently this just defaults to cost-benefit analysis of a hypothetical policy proposal and is not a big feature of the debate)
- What impacts are reasonably in the game and with what strength of a link/solvency?
- What outweighs?
-I have a hard time voting for something I cannot confidently verbalize in an RFD and explain why it impacts my ballot, even if it "feels" like that side is winning the issue.
-Speed: 7.5/10. Speed is fine but debate is still a communication-based activity and I'm a poorly aging millennial. Sending speech docs is not a substitute for clarity.
-K: I think all forms of debate are great, but K's and K Affs offer something unique to the activity that enhances its pedagogical value. However, that doesn't mean I know your specific literature or that I am going to immediately buy what you're selling. I like close readings of the 1AC to generate links as quality critical work. I believe if the K has a framework that demands I don't evaluate Aff impacts and the Aff loses framework.... then they don't get to weigh the Aff. Saying "we get to weigh the aff because we get to weigh the aff" is not inherently persuasive given the presence of offense against that stance. The Aff must win framework or in-roads to weigh the Aff. If that's primarily justified by fairness then fairness needs to be impacted out over Neg's justification to exclude.
-K Affs: Like them but think they need to be held to a high standard. I believe the Aff has to advance some contestable methodology beyond "res is bad, reject the res." I usually believe offense on method is the most interesting site for clash. T-USFG/FW isn't off the table as a true guaranteed generic response and can be a really strong option given the way some K teams write their 1AC.
-Theory: Sure. Go a little slower in a T/theory debate if you want me to get follow the intricacies of the line-by-line. I have some hesitation with the direction disclosure and wiki theory arguments are going, but I still vote on it.
-I reward specificity and nuance of arguments/scenarios (ex: specific democracies backsliding vs general democratic backsliding; specific country proliferation vs generic prolif bad)
-I am not part of the cult of numbers, and you can win a round with high magnitude impacts that do not have numbers in front of me. Numbers help contextualize impacts and risk pathways, but it is not game over because a team has expert analysis that doesn't have explicit quantification.
-K's: I'm fine with it but it's just more difficult to do in PF because of time constraints and the way sides/speaker orders go. You should have a coherent link story, alt, and framework that separates it from just a debate on the topic.
-Theory: Sure. I think the only "weird" thing for me on this is that I don't feel the 2nd speaker is obligated to answer theory introduced by the first constructive. They can and it may help, but I do not treat it as a "dropped" argument.
-Please scroll down to "NOTES ON EVIDENCE"
-I come into LD from policy, so you can run traditional case structure or multiple off-case positions that test the Aff. While I'm familiar with K's, CP's, PICs, plan-focus debates, K Affs that don't defend the res/a plan, T, Theory, I'm less familiar with some of the other arguments like a prioris, NIBs, tricks, etc. that are more well known in LD. The burden remains with the debater to make it into a lucid argument I can grasp and understand as offense.
-Good value framework debate presents clear offense as to why yours is the preferable model and helps you win the impact calculation debate, not just descriptions of what a moral systems looks like. No need to get lost in the sauce either. Yes, you have to have it to weigh impacts, but sometimes LDers are guilty of reading value framing that they think is "neat philosophy," but doesn't serve much purpose offensively.
-It is a hard sell to say 1AR doesn't get theory. The 1AC should not have disinvest time to theoretically preempt all potential neg strats, methods, etc.
NOTES ON EVIDENCE - PF/LD
Evidence practices in public forum (and some sections of LD) are atrocious. The fault lies somewhere between debaters and judges refusing to be more aggressive in correction. I default to tournament rules first, and then enforce the NSDA established protocols in the official Unified Manual (specifically pages 29-33) for what’s required in debates in terms of having cards ready for opponents and judges with proper citation. This is not a “personal choice,” even if other judges choose not to enforce it. Here is how I go into the round thinking about evidence norms:
Evidence Theory: I will vote on it. Good theory debating will have a clear interpretation (the NSDA unified manual makes this easy), the violation, and the reason why your interpretation is preferable ("it's in the rules, judge" is sufficient, but higher speaker points for identifying educational standards for why we need your interp's evidence practices). But if you're going to do it you need to be ready to stop the round and stake the ballot on it.
Evidence Sharing/E-mail Chains: The other team is entitled to any and all evidence you claim to read in a speech immediately. Yes, all and immediately. This has nothing to do with if you spread or go slow. Debate is at its best when there is evidence engagement... so why are you so invested in hiding the thing your argument depends on to win legitimacy? I will vote on a well articulated "we called for all ev and they couldn't give it in a reasonable time" theory if they don't provide evidence before a speech AND can't give you ALL evidence when requested after the speech. If you can stake a debate on any piece of evidence you just read it is unreasonable to say that you don't have to send everything cited, especially since they can't predict what you might blow up yet. Don't hold up the round searching. Honestly y'all should be sending it before the speech like policy started doing in 2007 with the dawn of Verbatim - and it's worked great!
Paraphrasing: It is difficult for me to vote on paraphrasing bad theory. The NSDA stance is clear and codified in the Unified Manual and explained in Pilot Rules 2019-20. Paraphrasing is acceptable, but you still have to have evidence paraphrased available in card format for in-round engagement and judge decision making. Do I think paraphrasing is probably bad for debate? Yes - absolutely. But ballot-level debates on whether it's fair or educational seem moot given the NSDA has greenlit it in the same rules that dictate speech times, orders, and other key rules I don't have in-round jurisdiction to contest. Still: hold their feet to the fire on providing the evidence they are paraphrasing!
Experience:I did not compete in Debate in high school or college, but I have been assisting with a debate program and judging for the past three years. I usually judge Public Forum, but I have also judged speech events and Big Questions. I am currently in my ninth year of teaching social studies. I teach United States History and International Baccalaureate History of the Americas.
Preferences: I prefer traditional over technical debate. I can follow relatively fast speaking but please don't spread.
debated PF in high school local and nationally
if LD treat me like a lay judge
I primarily did Public Forum debate in high school, but I also competed in Congress, Policy, and Lincoln–Douglas. I competed on the local, state, and national levels.
1. I'm willing to evaluate just about any argument. I don't want you just spouting nonsense words at me, but if you want to talk about how troops in Okinawa are necessary to combat kaijus or how T.H.A.A.D. is needed to shoot Santa Claus out of the sky, I'm game. If your opponent's/opponents' argument is nonsense or unsourced, point that out, and tell me why that's bad. It's your job, not mine, to do the work to take down opposing arguments. Kritiks, counterplans, disadvantages, theory shells, and topicality arguments are all fine with me, just do the work to explain yourself and your arguments. The more absurd the argument, the more fun we all have.
2. Speed is fine, but if you're going to spread, I think it's courteous to email your case to your opponent(s) and the judge(s).
3. Be kind and courteous. I won't vote you down for raising your voice in CX/Crossfire (unless you get truly hateful, offensive, etc.), but your speaker points will tank. I understand things can get heated, but this is supposed to be a place of rational thinking and discourse. It's not a shouting match.
4. If you're able to be comedic while remaining polite, you'll be getting good speaks. If you make me laugh, you're probably getting a 30.
5. I appreciate signposting as you go and providing a roadmap before a speech. It helps keep things clear and organized.
6. I like voters. Even if you've got weird arguments and argumentative tactics, I would appreciate you shortening them down into brief arguments that highlight the importance and how you're winning on that argument.