How I Judge

• I don’t mind spreading, Points will not be docked off for spreading

• Anything racist, homophobic, or just bigoted in general will not be tolerated in a round and it is a automatic loss. (If you have a slur or offensive word in your case points won't be docked off as long as it’s apart of your case)

• I judge Tech > Truth

• It’s really helpful for flowing reasons for you to signpost and provide a roadmap

• Argumentation is what heavily weighs the round for me the way

Etiquette

• I have no problems with cameras on or off if you would prefer them on please let me know.

• If you want to start an email chain make sure you include me abbotangel25@cps.k12.ar.us

• If there is lag I will ask you to speak a little slower

• Make sure to ask questions before the round

Hi my name is Nathan Armstrong and I will narrow down specifics for what should be known by yall as the competitors.

Speaking is one of the most important factors that should be considered. Speaking effectively with articulation and volume will make you appear as a superior debater.

Spreading or speaking relatively fast will be considered in your ballot. Speaking at speeds that cannot be understood or are difficult to understand will make you lose the round.

Relevant and impactful evidence is what will make your case speak out to the judge and help you win the argument. ensuring that this is done will be great.

Always remember to be respectful. I can understand clashing or being strong with your points but if your behavior is inappropriate then it will interfere with your ballot.

Joelle Buckner

Put me on email chain: bucknjoell24@cps.k12.ar.us

Cabot High School

LD debater

Tech > Truth

LD

This is my main event, so I prefer to see a lot of clash plenty of warrants, and make sure not to drop your framework. As long as you extend and give me decent analysis on framework it will be weighed in your favor. Watch topicality, I am perfectly fine with progressive arguments I especially like good DAs and solid CPs.. sign post so it's easy for me to flow. Speaks are pretty easy, speak confidently and clear, I personally don't care about speed as long as I can understand you.

Congress

I took congress as an event for about a year, make sure you are aware of the P.O. and what is going on in the room. Be respectful and make sure not to be passing notes or making noise while a delegate is giving a speech. I base a lot of points on speech formatting and if it's easy to follow.

IPDA

I judge this kind of like I do LD, as long as you extend your arguments and speak confidently you are most likely going to win the round. The topics are not typically ones I enjoy so make it engaging.

Hi, my name is Dylan, and here are a few things I look out for in a debate round.

PF: I enjoy good clash and enthusiasm between teams and speakers. deep understanding of the topic is also a benefit (I don't judge cross-ex).

I really enjoy it when you expand on framework and give me a clear understanding of why you or your team should win the round.

I have done a lot of different times of debates I know the basic rules of the different times of debates.

Overall just have a nice clean and respectful round.

Hello my name is Eli Crider a sophmore debater at Cabot High, I've done quite a bit tournaments and know my way around LD and IPDA fairly well. I like LD and as it is more about philosophy and what is right if you have inhumane or just rude arguments or responses you can not win this debate by my rules. It must be based off of morals and what is morally right (backed up by facts of course). Additionally I like to say I specialize in IPDA and it's by far my favorite thing to judge or compete in. All I recommend for IPDA is be a nerd for literally anything from sports to movies to politics, being knowledgeable on a topic is the easiest way to win an IPDA round but just giving it all you've got is a must.

My big pet peeves, are interrupting, getting opinionated, and attacking your opponent personally. Do your best to be respectful and articulate in everything that you say. Obviously don't be rude, be nice, no slurs or insults. It doesn't matter if you send your case to me, but it is prefered. My email is CrideElija25@gmail.com. One last pet peeve, please do not speak like a forensics kid, no offense, but I just can't stand it; please and thank you.

Good things to include:

- well articulated sentences

- good evidence/ unbiased evidence

ex. Stanford, Nation Census Bureau, Statistica, The Washington Post

- Be able to answer questions

- Confidence is key (but don't be cocky)

- Keep on topic, don't veer off

- Speak load and clear

Things not to do:

- Be rude

- Use bias sources (CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, CBS)

- not being honest about your time, I will time you as well

- Using slang terms (It's unprofessional)

Good luck in all of your rounds, I wish you the best!

- hypocritical speaking points

Jackson Crumpler (He/Him)

Cabot High School

PF/Congressional Debater

Hello! I'm currently a junior at Cabot High School, I've been debating competitively for two years now, and I enjoy it so much! I ask for a smooth round, bringing your prior knowledge of debate and your usual debate style. However, if you're looking for specifics and what I prefer please read below for what I encourage, discourage, and things I am looking for in different events.

Encourage and Discourage

I, personally, am an aggressive-style debater. I enjoy clash, love rebuttal, and adore great utilization of the cross-examination and questioning periods. However, with that being said, please do not be overly aggressive to the point that it interferes with the round. Meaning, don't excessively talk over your opponent, ESPECIALLY when you asked them a question; let them answer entirely, and if you have time left, give a follow-up. I want you to show your aggressive style in the form of confidence and composure: responding to the opposition's points thoroughly with great evidence and reasoning. 

Also, please announce your contentions, warrants, and impacts when speaking. Make sure your impacts weigh more heavily in magnitude than the other side, preferably with numerical data. More so, please announce your turns and what contention you are turning when speaking. It helps with my flow, allows me to make a better ruling, and makes your case look better prepared. I'm okay with spreading, but make sure your argument isn't being lost with it, slow down at the important parts, it helps with speaker points.

Contain control of the round: make a good weigher and good voting issues, otherwise, you leave me with a more liberal interpretation of the round, could hurt you could help you, but in doing weighing and voters it shows to me a better-developed case.

Tech>Truth, please be sure to signpost.

Any homophobia, transphobia, racism, or xenophobia will result in an automatic loss. More so, disrespect towards your opponent dramatically hurt speaker points, but I am willing to be more lenient of your reduction if you apologize after the round (depending on how rude you were) because I understand you can sometimes get lost in the heat of the moment.

Congress

Make sure I remember you, don't fall into the background. Continually ask great, RELEVANT questions to ensure I don't lose you and have a good parliamentary procedure. I love rebuttal-type speeches at the end of the bill/resolution, so if you give a good one you're definitely high in my ranks. Show great speaking skills in your speeches and that you're knowledgeable on the subject you're debating, don't give a speech just to get a speech in. Make sure when people are questioning you that you remain confident in your answers, and repeat lines in your speeches if you already covered the question they're asking. When you are questioning other speakers, don't continually speak over them. I don't like rehashing, if you're doing a constructive make sure you either introduce new points or add on to previous points. 

Public Forum

Constructive should have well-established contentions, with great impacts. I prefer a weighing mechanism for the round that is touched on at the beginning, but I don't necessarily need definitions if they are not needed, as they cut into valuable time that could be spent building your case with contentions. Spreading is fine, but I prefer it less in the constructive because this is when you should be developing a good case, and any missed points interfere with the nature of the debate.

Rebuttals should be made with a signpost where you say which contention you are responding with, helps with the flowing of the round. I am okay with spreading in rebuttals. Make sure not to drop any arguments, but please be considerate of well-developed turns, don't start responding to an argument when you have only twenty seconds left because you will most likely not include enough rationale and warrant in your turn. Go over the first cross-examination period if you can.

Summaries should incorporate both a rebuilding of your own case, where you highlight your most valuable contentions and how they have failed to refute said contentions. The rest of the time is where YOU MAKE SURE to weigh the impacts of both sides, and how your side has greater impacts.

The Final Focus should incorporate the voters and the final weighing of the round, why the scale is on your side. Preferably three voters that deal with the structure of the round: dropped points, impacts, etc; this is where speaker points can lean towards your favor if you end with a good analogy or something.

IPDA Debate

Refer to what I prefer in constructive rebuttals for public forum. Affirmative, please be sure to give me a framework/weighing mechanism at the beginning of your speech because it helps not only me with my judging, but also you by giving you more control over the round. Also, be sure to use your questioning period effectively. You should ask questions that you can use for your own rebuttal speeches, but clarification questions are okay. I don't care as much about sources as I do creatively developing and grounding your arguments. Have a fun round, IPDA is meant to be fun. 

Lincoln-Douglas

I evaluate this based on the framework. It is important to have a value and criterion. I need to be able to understand what you are saying. 

~

Anyways, have a good round. Don't be too stressed or nervous, you got this!

Hello, I am Patrick Gunter. I am a current student at Cabot High School. I like PF, LD, and BQ, as this is what I have done.

TL;DR- spreading bad, truth>tech, progressive good, flow CX, be nice and stuff

LD-

don't spread, i like actually being able to flow

Be nice

I personally am tipped towards truth>tech because like idc how many arguments you make, if your opponent still has the better argument, they have the better argument and that's how it rolls

I LOVE progressive arguments. I also love very distinct arguments, like "violence>civil disobedience" provided that you can defend these arguments in a reasonable manner.

NEVER put the value of human life lower than it actually is...

CX- I lowkey flow cross ex but it's really just to keep track of any discrepancies... don't say "My opponent said in CX that.." if you know its not true, I'll already have it written down. ALSO I believe that CX should be somewhat heated... however heated does not mean you should be disrespectful

If you state/are aware that an argument is inherently prejudiced imma have to flow that argument to your opponents side

Not to sound mean but like if you start every speech with something like "Hello my name is Chris Hansen and I am debating for the affirmative side of this resolution..." do NOT expect your speaker points to be very high... it is extremely irritating as a judge to hear this because rarely will I address any debater by their name.. its general "Aff/Neg" and that will be your name to me

When it comes to weighing, theory can definitely come into your favor if you know how to use it. It is the debaters job to tell me how to weigh a debate... i.e. if morality is proven to be the framework, then I am a moral judge. If justice is the framework, I am now a just judge

IPDA- same as LD tbh

PF- I am by no means a lay judge with PF, I get that PF is supposed to be debated in a way that an inexperienced judge could easily comprehend but I have no problem with big words tbh. Don't introduce plans in PF, I automatically cannot flow this to your side. Theory also can be used in PF in my honest opinion but I didn't tell you that LOL. I just like progressive debate because it is way more interesting

Any form of misogyny, racism, and prejudiced behavior is a good way to lose....

Email me at guntepatri24@cps.k12.ar.us if you have questions, want advice, etc

ALSO--- "Bonus points" if you can correctly guess my favorite Hobbit movie

hi! my name is mariska haddock, my pronouns are she/her, and i’m a junior varsity debater at cabot high school.

TLDR: -read if you're short on time!

be kind people! discrimination of any type is not tolerated and will result in an automatic loss.

include me in email chain - haddomaris25@cps.k12.ar.us or mariskahaddock@gmail.com

tech over truth

i choose the winner based on my flow- be clear about kicks, don’t drop anything

focus on impacts!

flex prep is okay! i prefer cross but if you want to use flex prep it won’t affect my decision

don’t steal prep - its unethical

off-time roadmaps are recommended (unless it’s worlds lol)

number your arguments it makes flowing easier

public forum:

i do PF, so i focus heavily on argumentation and how strong the arguments presented are and the weight of their impacts

i love framework debate

weigh impacts!!!

don’t forget to extend your arguments

try to keep your rebuttals in a line-by-line format

2nd rebuttal should frontline responses in rebuttal

in summary speech, extend terminal defense and offense; extend anything you want to mention in final focus

don’t be overbearing in cross

final focus should provide clear weighing ground- lay out my ballot for me.

don't skew evidence

congress:

speak fluently and make eye contact with the judges

have credible evidence and clear impacts

do not attack other reps or senators, only attack their arguments. it’s okay to reference other delegates as long as it’s in a respectful manner

ask questions!

don’t be repetitive with arguments- reply speeches help the flow of the round

be familiar with robert’s rules of order- i don’t expect perfect knowledge but be familiar with it and try to only make correct/germane motions

IPDA:

make sure arguments are clear and concise

extend your arguments!

weigh impacts! make sure that it’s clear to the judge why your impacts are more important than your opponents

lincoln-douglas:

framework is important and should be clearly articulated

make sure arguments are clear and concise

extend your arguments!

weigh impacts!

any argument is fine- i can flow prog

speech:

try to be reasonably within time

don’t freak out if you stutter once or twice- it’s normal

i generally do bnb events but throw in the occasional oo

make blocking effective and not flashy

i love good cutting- the debate kid in me comes out when pieces are cut effectively and efficiently

drive your point home- similar to debate, make sure your message is clear and impactful

please be kind people :)

Don't be offensive, have good sportsmanship. if you spread, make sure to be clear when you do and make it understandable.

be respectful, and the most important thing have fun.

Quick facts about me:

- I specialize in PF

- I have judged Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas

TLDR

- Not a fan of spreading; try to go a moderate speed

- I will keep the time of speeches, but competitors can as well.

Be respectful; I understand debates can get heated, but keep a calm and cordial attitude.

• Camera's on is preferable (virtual only)

- Do not use progressive cases! 

PF

- Keep a clear, logical case

- Use prep wisely, you only have three minutes!

- Use reliable sources; it won't cost you a round, but it is preferable.

- Be careful when you come across a divisive case; things can become very messy very quickly.

- Use framework

LD

- Tech over Truth

- Be passionate when you speak; I don't want monotonous speakers, it is quite dull.

I do not encourage derogatory remarks of any kind. If any comment is made, you will automatically lose the round.

Overall, I enjoy a clean, fair fight. You don't win a debate based on how loud you are, but how well your argument is constructed.

Put me on email chain: arosem577@gmail.com

Arkansas School for Mathematics, Sciences and the Arts

Pronouns- she/they

DISRESPECTFULLY misgendering opponents is a no-go for me, please refrain from doing so at all costs.

I have a zero-tolerance for any sort of communicated homophobia, racism, sexism, transphobia, xenophobia or any other completely disrespectful conduct to both your opponents and me as your judge.

Main Event: Lincoln-Douglas Debate

Generally speaking I vote based on tech OVER truth (some exceptions may apply given argumentation and style of presentation)

TLDR:

I'm an incredibly expressive person, so it's typically relatively easy to see whether or not I am following with a previous statement/ something being said within the round. I am usually unaware of my expressions, but I am told about my bold "faces", so if I make a face that seems rather concerning to you as a debater, know that it is not meant as anything personal, however there is probably a reason, so pay attention and tread lightly going forward in your speech(es).

LD:

Seeing as how this is my main event, I am typically well-informed about the current topics, so don't waste time trying to explain it to me as if I'm a lay judge.

I prefer to see an abundance of clash (especially from the neg, this is their burden, I want to see this upheld), plenty of viable warrants, and consistent framework that's upheld throughout the round.

I enjoy progressive arguments and can flow them just as sufficiently as I can trad, so do not hold back. I am also quite a fan of interesting CPs. And please please PLEASE always present links.

Off-time road maps/sign-posting is a must for me, especially if you spread. If you want a chance for the winning ballot then I need to be as best prepared to adequately flow your arguments. Now, this one is not absolutely mandatory, but i strongly suggest that during the 2AR speech the AFF squeezes in some voters as well. I would prefer for them to be touched on in their 1AC to first introduce them, however it is not a huge make or break for my ballot. I will, however, go a long way in framing my flow and the overall decision itself, so do with that what you will.

On the topic of speaks, I don't mind spreading, as long as you're annunciating, your words are coherent, and I understand you. If you begin to spread too fast I will sit my pencil down or tip my laptop screen down to signal that I am no longer flowing (I've never had to do this, but just wanted to put that out there for the day it might end up happening).

At the end of the day, your judge's comprehension of your case is just as important as your opponent's. Speak confidently and clearly and you should not have any problems with me as your judge.

I don't flow CX unless specifically brought up in later speeches, so make sure to ask some hard hitting questions that you can bring up throughout the rest of the round. CX is one of my favorite parts, so do try and make use of it, and yes I WILL be paying attention. I know some judges kind of check out and such during this time, saying it's "your guy's time", however that is most certainly not me.

I am not a fan of POINTLESS definition debates, however if it is necessary to the round (or more likely to get you the 'W') then so be it.

PF:

Although it is not my favorite nor main event, I am an exceedingly proficient judge in PF.

Once again, I am tech>truth, so please go heavy on the warrants and empirics.

Your goal is to persuade me on why I should favor your argument over your opponents. My biggest expectation is consistent, nearly, if not completely full-proof, in-depth warrants.

Know the cards you are running, have links, and stay credible. You need to prove to me (and your opponents) the credibility of your cards and show why the impacts are more favorable than your opponents.

Final Focus should have impact weighing. Be respectful of your opponents during crossfire. Cross is for asking questions, not personally attacking opponents or making statements.

IPDA:

I basically judge this the same as LD, just heavier on a framework level.

I need to be shown whose framework is more favorable for me to base the rest of my flow off of.

Keep it engaging and entertaining, and always keep consistency throughout the round. Remember to come in fully prepared.

I am a lover of clash, so rebuttals are my favorite speeches. This means that naturally I will focus the most on these. Make them count.

ALWAYS USE YOUR ENTIRE SPEECH TIMES. It's not mandatory per say, but it really is to me and my final decision. I want to see you make an effort to really show me why I should vote for you. If this means you having to reiterate some of your contentions to me then do so (hint: an adequate use of extra time is re-grounding your framework and its impacts. WHY is yours above all else, including your opponents? Convince me).

Congress:

Make sure you are aware of the P.O. and what is going on in the room. Be respectful and make sure not to be passing notes or making noise while a delegate is giving a speech. I will base a lot of points on speech formatting and if it's easy to follow. Overall, decorum is key.

BQ:

I typically enjoy BQ, and for this one I switch up a bit.

Yes, I want empirics, yes I want enticing warrants, however when judging such a philosophical debate as this, I am hands-down truth>tech.

Framework is still incredibly important, however I am looking for powerful impacts. You need to really sell me why, not just your case, but your value is the better one to vote for.

Always uphold your framework throughout the round and you should be fine.

Good Luck!

Cabot High School Senior Captain

TL;DR

I’m good with all arguments

Tech over truth

Make sure to not drop points

Don't give fake evidence, instant loss if you cannot provide the cards if asked.

Attack the case not the person, I will deduct a large amount of speaker points if you're attacking the person.

Have fun with the debate

I have started debating at Cabot since 8th grade. I am okay with all arguments. Use whatever you want as long as it doesn't discriminate against anyone. Make sure that you properly explain all arguments and don't just throw out buzzwords and jargon.

BQ

I generally prefer the standard of morality in BQ but if you can give me a reason not to, then that's great. You don't need to have a lot of statistics for BQ. I personally prefer well spoken arguments and slower speaking in BQ, but I will evaluate anything. Make sure you explain how your arguments and cards connect. I'm fine with all arguments as long as they are relevant.

PF

Make sure to take advantage of any definitions you can. Impact is very important policy wise so make sure to flesh it out throughout the entire debate. Fake evidence equals instant loss. If I cannot trust one piece of evidence I can't trust any of your evidence. Just argue well, If I am not given a weighing mechanism I will default to cost benefit analysis. Just debate and do it well, like I already said up above, I will evaluate any argument as long as it is explained well.

LD

I prefer that you link in your arguments and give me a reason to vote for you. Make sure to expand on your points and impact if you have one. These are important parts of the debate and give me a clear reason to vote. Make sure you expand on your framework and show me why I should consider your value/criterion over your opponents if the framework makes a difference. If the framework doesn't matter, then don't extend it.

Although your argument may hold truth I prefer the technical parts of the debate (i.e. you drop what they say about your point, and it is false if they are right). One thing I don’t like is trying to discredit sources just because they are from the past or not within the past 4 years; yes, it is important to have up to date sources, but at the same time it is not necessary if it is an analytical argument. If you do make an argument on the credibility of sources don't just say it's not credible, you also need to explain why I can't vote on it because of the lack of credibility. I know the connection is obvious, but unless you make it that connection, it won't be on the flow. If an opponent asks for a card provide the card or you lose credibility.

Congress

Just don't discriminate against anyone. Answer questions effectively. I don't do congress very much so I'll be frank and just say you're unlucky to have me.

IPDA

Same stuff for LD basically. Just make sure you explain your points well, I think IPDA is a great opportunity to show off the fundamentals of debate.

A little bit about me :)

- I am a public forum (PF) debater, I have done Lincoln Douglas on occasion but PF is my cup of tea.

- I have judged PF, LD, and IPDA in the past and I absolutely love judging

- I am a public forum captain so if you have any questions or need any help, feel free to email me ~ robbihaley24@cps.k12.ar.us

Now into what I do and don't like in a round. All of these go for IPDA, LD, PF, Congress...you name it

PROGRESSIVE CASES

I absolutely despise progressive cases. Don't try to run them unless you don't have another case prepared. I'm a pf debater, meaning that I like more traditional, slower, and "general audience" arguments

SPREADING

When virtual: If you are anything like me then you love to speak quickly. I feel like with the nature of debate we want to talk as fast as possible to allow us to have as much information as possible. With that being said, when debating virtually I do not like when you spread. When you speak quickly over the chromebook, your words get mushed together because the computer can't keep up. I am not afraid to stop you mid-speech and tell you to slow down. When you spread, that not only affects your opponents but it also makes it harder for me to hear what you're saying.

When in person: Feel free to speak as fast as you like but fair warning, I value content over presentation. I am not impressed if you can speak 400 words per minute. BUT if I can't get all your information written down because you are talking faster than Edward Cullen can run, then that might affect the outcome of the debate because like I said content>presentation

CROSS EXAMINATION

I do not flow CX, the only thing that I will write down is your behavior. Debate is not supposed to be a hostile activity, show your opponent respect and don't talk down to them or treat them like dirt. Standing your ground and a bit of sass is permitted and also encouraged. I love clash but if you start to be mean to each other, it can affect who the winner of the round is.

FLOWING/REBUTTALS

I expect everyone to flow the opponent's case because when you move into your rebuttal speech I strongly encourage doing line-by-line. I will always flow EVERYTHING when judging but I don't want to have to go on a wild goose chase to try and figure out what you are refuting. If something is not addressed in your rebuttal speech I WILL COUNT IT AS A DROPPED ARGUMENT, so do your absolute best to refute all aspects of the opponent's case. If your opponent doesn't respond to one of your arguments BRING IT UP IN THE NEXT SPEECH. If you don't bring it up then I don't know. I will write down what you say and to preserve the fairness of the round, if you don't say it..it didn't happen.

RDF

I don't care who spoke better or who had the better questions in cross, whoever has the most of their case still standing is the winner. If you bring up arguments in your final speech it might change my decision against you because your opponent cannot respond. If you bring up any contradictions or you use faulty evidence you will not be the winner. If your plan is to reform the resolution then the other team automatically wins because you have brought up arguments that the other team is not prepared for. When giving a verbal RDF, I will tell you how it is. If you cannot handle the harsh truth then let me know beforehand and I will only put it on the ballot.

BEHAVIOR

Any offensive, discriminatory, sexist, hateful, harmful words or profanity will lose you the round. If you chose to belittle or as I call it "mansplain" words, events, or actions to your opponent you will lose. I do not tolerate people putting down their opponents based on their sex, race, sexuality, religion, culture, or appearance. Debate is meant to be a safe space so if you disrupt the peace, you will lose the round, and Selah or your coach will be hearing about it directly from me. (Which you do not want because I am very blunt.)

Best of luck to you in your rounds and I can't wait to judge for you!

For PF: I would like there to be a solid understanding of definitions and framework before the summary, it's difficult to judge if I don't know what I'm supposed to be judging on, if a framework is not given or a framework cannot be decided on I will either try to figure out whos framework I think is more appropriate to the debate. Or I will just judge off of a basic cost benefit analysis. Also DO NOT SPREAD!!!!

For LD: I have less understanding of LD, but just make sure weighing mechanisms are clear. And spreading is more acceptable but don't go overboard, if neither me nor your opponent can understand what you are saying because of how fast you are speaking you will not get my ballot.

TLDR

- Don't care if you talk fast just don't spread*

- weigh impacts

- Truth over Tech*

- good clash

- love logic

- signpost

- speak confidently

- use impact calculus *

General:

The key to a debate is to listen, never leave something out. When you listen to your opponent, so much can come to mind. ALWAYS weigh the arguments. I dont believe a debate should be seen as why the problem in the world is bad or good, however a debate should be about how we should either fix or not intervene on something.

Behavior:

We as a society should mantain a large amount of respect for everyone, I hope to not witness any behavior that is racist, transphobic, ableist, or violent-

-Be prepared.

-DO NOT confront agruments and rehash them.

-I value credible evidence. Statistics quotes, sources.

-On one sided debates be prepared to speak on the other side. Be different and provide a different side of things.

IDPA:

-include sources. this helps me understand that you used your thirty minutes to truly understand the your topic.

- Try and have a rebuttal.

-During the second speeches remember to always try and state your oponents points. DONT ARGUE but hash out and make me understand why youre right.

-During questioning period try and make it great

(USE ALL YOUR TIME)

Extemp:

-I truly enjoy good introductions.

-Always try and grab my attention with interesting facts and a backstory.

-Again, I value evidence and sources. Always having credible sources can backup your argument.

- Have a great structure. This is basically impromptu, remember what you are doing.