Samford University Bishop Guild Invitational
2023 — Homewood, AL/US
Public Forum Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Hey there, my name is Luke Adams. I was in debate for 2 years for PF. I will not tolerate any racist, homophobic, sexist, or any other discriminatory/hate speech in or out of the debate.
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.
Listen, idc how fast you read, idc if you run a joke case, as long as you know what you’re talking about, i was a debater in high school and now in college i am completely fine with anything you run.
You did not ask but I will tell you anyways, for starters I debated in high school for Auburn and was the president, and I now debate for my colleges team and I am also the president, so don't try any tricks or funny moves I have literally seen it all and done it all.
How to win a round for me
-I like when you know your evidence, do not just read me a card in your rebuttal, explain to me what it means like I am a 3 year old.
-Tell me where you are going on the flo and STICK WITH IT. I can not stand when someone stands up and goes "I am going to start here..." then does not start there.
-Keep you and your partners speeches on the same page. If your partner said it you need to say it. If they did not say it, do not try and bring it up.
How to lose a round for me
-Any new information after summary is an automatic loss. I do not care if you just told me who runs the illuminati if it was not in summary I do not want to hear it.
-If you drop your opponents points, I always say it is better to SAY SOMETHING than nothing.
Questions you ask your other judges that you might ask me:
1) Do you care about speed? (No, i talk fast and i can listen if you're speeding, if you start to slur your words to a point where i cant understand i will not flo)
2)Will you disclose? (No and please do not beg me too, bc my answer will not change, however, if you want me to give you pointers and help you for future rounds i will do that)
My name is Sarah Chew, and I'm a novice college debater at Samford. I have a semester of policy debating experience behind me.
I value clarity, demonstrated understanding of the topic/arguments, and well-thought-out analytics > otherwise unsupported evidence. Extension of evidence is also important to me. Also, be kind both to your own team and to the competition! I will give you my full attention and respect while speaking, so be sure to do the same.
If you have questions, please let me know! My email is firstname.lastname@example.org
Hello!! I'm looking forward to judging this round with you.
My background: I debated for four years at Vestavia doing Public Forum and Congress debate and am now a sophomore Law, Politics, and Society major at Samford.
I'm pretty flexible when it comes to how you want to debate but here are just some short preferences and tips that will make the round more enjoyable for all of us:
- Do NOT be overly aggressive. This is debate, it gets heated, its fun, I get it. But if you are out right rude to your opponent or speak in a manner that doesn't reflect the intellectual and educational atmosphere we are in I will dock your speaker points.
- I'll keep time but do your best to as well, that just makes you look more professional. There will be a few seconds of grace period but don't steal time.
- I am not the biggest fan of off-topic arguments for two reasons. First, I'm not a fan of their appearance in Public Forum because of such short speech times, we're supposed to be arguing a topic that both sides are prepared for. Second, I think most people run them to get an easy win and not because they actually want a change. However, if there is an ACTUAL concern in the round we will address it when we get to it.
- Evidence ethics are cool, but don't waste excessive time calling for cards unless you need it -- if you won't be talking about the evidence/quote/stats/etc. in a speech or cross let's keep it short.
- Weigh a lot and start weighing early. It changes a round. I don't want to be the one deciding what is more important in a round because it may not go your way and YOU have a chance to prevent that!!
- First summary is short, but if you frontline it will only help you -- you can't place a voter on an argument that got torn apart in rebuttal without a good response.
- If you want to extend an argument you at least have to respond to all the turns your opponent extends.
- No new arguments in 2nd summary.
I'm cool with speed but don't start spreading -- I would rather you say a few important points really clear than 50 not very important points super fast.
After I submit the ballot to tab I am more than willing to disclose after the round if it is asked for! As your judge I will do my very best to give clear and precise feedback about the decision I made and what can be improved.
Email me with questions, concerns, speech docs, or for an email chain email@example.com
Dr. Danielle Deavours
Assistant professor, broadcast journalism
Former debater and volunteer with Samford Debate Team
PhD, University of Alabama, 2022, media sociology
M.A., University of Alabama-Birmingham, 2019, communication management
B.A., University of Alabama, 2008, telecommunication & film/political science
Samford University, assistant professor, 2022-current
University of Montevallo, assistant professor, 2020-2022
University of Alabama, PhD student and graduate research/teaching assistant, 2019-2021
UAB Medicine, communication and marketing specialist, 2016-2019
American Heart Association, state communication and marketing director, 2015-2017
American Red Cross, communication and marketing director, 2014-2015
WVTM-13, executive producer, 2011-2014
CBS 42, executive producer, 2011
CBS 8, executive producer, 2009-2011
Former high school debater in LD, PF, policy, and extemporaneous
Things to know
At the end of the round, I find myself most comfortable voting for a team that has the best synthesis between good ethos, good tech/execution, and good evidence. I will not vote on better evidence if the other team out debates you, but I assign a heavy emphasis on quality evidence when evaluating competing arguments, especially offensive positions. Make sure you're telling me clearly what I should vote on, where you did better than your opponent in making the argument, and ways that your position is stronger. I shouldn't have to guess at why you think you won.
I am a big believer in public speaking and speaker points as a large part of the debate world. I want to feel persuaded, make sure you're connecting with me through eye contact, direct address, and voice emphasis. Don't just read the entire time, although some reading is of course acceptable.
Collegiality and respect of all people is integral to debate. If you cross the line from assertive to aggressive, you will have speaker points deducted. If you cross the line into harassment, you will lose the debate even if you logically win it.
I keep a running clock and "read along" with speech docs where applicable. Err on the side of truth, and make sure your sources are credible.
I will flow your arguments. Successful teams should interact with the other team's arguments and prioritize good line-by-line arguments. If you're not addressing your opponent's arguments, it's likely they will be able to harm your case - perhaps fatally.
Speak as quickly as is comfortable for you, but I need to be able to understand you. As a former spreader, I can understand fast speeds, but make sure you are speaking clearly and with enough emphasis for the judge to understand you. I prefer to be able to understand your speech as opposed to speed. If you are spreading, I prefer you share documents with the judge and your opponent. Speed doesn't always mean that you get more evidence in, especially quality evidence.
Hello. My name is Ella Ford, and I am a Novice debater at Samford University. I am a first-year policy debater.
Please include me on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Some things to know about me:
1) My decisions are unbiased, which will be reflected in the comments I make. You are welcome to talk to me after the debate if you think I have been unfair in some way.
2) I am most likely to vote for the team that presents appropriate literature and demonstrates an understanding of the topic.
3) I lean towards tech over truth, but I will evaluate based on the situation.
4) I will flow your arguments. Successful teams should interact with the other team's arguments and prioritize good line-by-line arguments.
5) Speak as quickly as is comfortable for you. I prefer to be able to understand your speech as opposed to speed.
Feel free to email me with questions.
Hello! My name is Madison Hackett and I'm a Novice debater at Samford University.
I flow every debate, make sure your arguments will show up on the flow.
INCLUDE ME ON THE EMAIL CHAIN: email@example.com
Things to be aware of:
1) My decisions are always neutral and unbiased to the degree that I can make them. Feel free to email me or ask any questions after the debate if you have any questions.
2) I am most likely to vote for a team that uses reliable evidence and demonstrates clear understanding of the topic.
3) I have a SUPER low tolerance for rude and disrespectful comments in my presence. I don't care if it is before, during or after the debate. Be respectful.
4) I am most likely to vote for a team who interacts with the opposing teams arguments/claims.
5) I appreciate when teams keep up with their own prep time.
Please do not go faster than you are capable. If you are not able to clearly enunciate your evidence you need to slow down for the sake of the debate. Speed is not key to winning a debate.
Feel free to email me:firstname.lastname@example.org
Hi my name is Mary Grace Hammond and I am a member of the college debate team here at Samford University. I have debated one semester in policy debate.
You can add me to the email chain: email@example.com
Somethings to keep in mind
1: I expect you to be courteous to your opponents in and out of round. Any form of rudeness or unsportsmanlike behavior will not be tolerated. You can be assertive in round without being rude.
2: Make sure to stay organized. Make arguments in order and make it clear what you are answering. The more organized your line by line is the more likely I will be able to follow the arguments you are making and give you points. Please do not go so fast that it hurts your coherency. If I do not understand something you are saying you will not receive points for it.
3: Keep track of your prep time and do not steal!
4: I will make as fair and unbiased a decision as possible. If you have a problem with the decision you are welcome to talk to me after the round or even email me after the tournament to discuss the results in further detail.
I am a novice judge who has been judging for year and a half. I believe delivery is important but will prioritize evidence based arguments. Speaking fast, spreading, is ok as long as you are enunciating and speaking clearly.
Hi! My name is Praise Kelly (I go by Praise) and I am a Samford novice debater. This is my second semester doing policy debate.
My email is: firstname.lastname@example.org
Things to be aware of:
1) I am very new to debate so I am not a fan of debate
2) I am not worried about whether your argument is true or not, I care more about how you argue it
3) Good analytics could sway my ballot
4) I would like to keep the debate fun so remain respectful of your opponents and judge=
1) I do not care about speed more than I care about the content of your speech
2) Please speak as clear as possible
I am a speech and debate coach as well as a high school history teacher. I have no preferences in round, but I do expect each side to be respectful. Speak and debate your hearts out, but leave it in round. Congratulate each other on a great round. I will follow you as you present your argument. Mess up? Don't stop, keep going.
Big Evidence. If you are arguing something you need evidence to back it up
For the online do not speak fast since it will be hard to hear some things
If it is in person I can handle speed but just rember to enunciate your words
I do not care for crossfires. However, if something does happen in the crossfire bring it up in your next speech
If evidence is misread or miscut then I will not flow it
Please signpost so I know where you are going during your speech
If you have anymore questions just ask before the round
I'm Abi McKibben and a former debater for Samford University's policy debate team. I started debating in January of 2021. My email is email@example.com
- PLEASE read a plan
- Love me some impact comparison
- ROADMAP (announce when you are moving from one advantage/disad to another)
- I am not familiar with LD so keep the lingo to a minimum...
Preferences (Public Forum):
- Follow general prefs below...
General Speech Preferences:
- Don't spread/speak too fast, unless you want me to miss what you're saying...(If unclear, I will say "clear" briefly)
- Impress me by extending arguments AND relating them to the opposing team's evidence/args
- Easy on the abbreviations
- Evidence quality > evidence quantity
- Be aggressive, but cordial... if you're overly rude I will dock you serious points
- As long as I can tell you're giving your best effort (even if you're losing badly) you'll get a decent score for speaker points...
Hi! My name is Abigail Montgomery and I'm a JV debater at Samford University. This will be my fourth semester debating policy.
Some things to be aware of:
1) My decisions are neutral and unbiased, which will be reflected in all comments/critiques I make. If you feel I have been unfair, you are welcome to talk to me after the debate.
2)I am most likely to vote for a team that relies on reliable lit, detailed evidence, and a clear understanding of the topic.
3)I have a low tolerance for rude, snarky comments made in my presence. I don't care if it is during the debate or not, be nice.
4)If you want to win the debate, prioritize interaction between flows, extending evidence, and good line by line arguments.
5) DO NOT steal prep time.
INCLUDE ME ON THE EMAIL CHAIN: firstname.lastname@example.org
Please, please, please do not go faster than you are capable of. If you aren't able to enunciate all your words, that is evidence you need to slow down. While I am all for being fast, if you are unable to do so clearly, do not make an attempt. Speed is not the key to winning a debate- a solid argument is.
If you have any questions, feel free to email me at email@example.com
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! :)
Debate experience- I do not have any high school/college debate experience, but I have been a sponsor in speech/debate (learned as I taught it). I have judged Congress, PF, LD, and most IE's. I have a BA in History, MEd. in Education, and a MA in History and have taught AP World, AP Euro, regular World History, Contemporary World Religions/Current Events, and regular US History 11th gr. for 19 years.
I do not go in with a bias towards one side or another and will listen to all arguments/contentions, etc. made and typically make my decision on who has convinced me of their case and who has not dropped contentions/points. I like a good clash and substance in the debate; less on theory/policy. I would be classified as more of a traditional LD and PF judge. I like students to have clear contentions and be able to back those up.
Speed: I have never judged Policy and I can see that some policy students have trickled down into the world of LD and even PF. If you spread, you better make sure your opponent can follow your argument and I can follow your argument! Using the strategy of spreading to overwhelm your opponent with information just so you can go back and say that your opponent has dropped your contentions frustrates me. If you have a solid case, there is no reason why speaking at a normal rate of speech would not be preferred.
Respect- Please be kind! I despise when students talk down to their opponents or interrupt them. Some students are still new to debate so they don't need you to crush their spirits. I want everyone to have fun and have a strong, respectful debate.
Disclosure- I do not like to disclose; please don't ask. I will give as much feedback as I can on the judges sheet.
Hello! My name is TJ Riggs and I'm a Sophomore Policy Debater at Samford University (Qualed to NDT Freshman Year) and coach of the SpeakFirst debate team. I have been debating since sophomore year of high school at both the state and national level. I always try my best to be Tabula Rasa and I will generally weigh tech over truth. That being said, I reserve the right to gut check egregiously false claims. I am a pretty active listener, so if you see me nodding my head then I am probably vibing with your args. If I look confused or unconvinced you'll probably see it on my face. I look forward to judging you!
INCLUDE ME ON THE EMAIL CHAIN: firstname.lastname@example.org
Below is a more comprehensive list of my judging preferences:
1 - LARP/Policy
2 - Trad
3 - K's
4 - Dense Phil
Strike - Tricks
Traditional (V/VC Framework): Traditional debate is where I got my start, and I always love hearing a solid traditional round. Framework is important, however I also heavily value the impact debate. Explicitly tell me why under your framework your impacts matter. Being able to tie your case together is essential.
Dense Phil: Eh, not really my favorite. I am generally unconvinced that intentions matter more than consequences in the face of extinction level scenarios. Not to say I won't vote on it but I probably should not be at the top of your pref sheet.
Tricks: Tricks are really stupid and bad for debate. I honestly don't even really care if your opponent just refuses to acknowledge them the whole round, I'm still probably not going to drop them for it. Go ahead and strike me :)
Adv/DA: Easy, clean debate. Please clearly announce when you are moving to the next advantage or disadvantage. If you are reading an advantage aff please read a plan, even if it’s “Plan: Do The Res”.
CP: Counterplans are always nice. Run them as you please, and I’m happy to listen. I don't love PIC's in LD but I will listen to them. 1 or 2 condo is probably ok, more than that starts to push it. 3+ contradictory options and it starts getting bad for you.
Theory/T: Theory and T are fine as long as it’s reasonably warranted. Topicality really has to be warranted or I’m not going to drop them for it. I think topic relevant definitions are important, I probably won't drop them because your dictionary.com definition of "the" meaning "all" probably won't convince me they aren't topical. Please make sure you are familiar with the format of Theory and T shells, don’t run them if you aren’t. I will listen to RVI arguments (LD not Policy). I will listen to Frivolous Theory because it is your time and you can do with it as you please but I won't give you the round over it, so its most likely a waste of your breath.
Kritiks: Topical Kritiks are fine. Non-topical Kritiks are not my favorite but if it is properly warranted i'll vote on it. Familiar with most standard K lit, anything fancy please explain well.
Preferences (Public Forum):
Email Chains: Up to debaters if they would like to chain.
Evidence Standard: Not a fan of paraphrasing. Let the experts who wrote your cards do the talking for you. I won't instantly drop you for paraphrasing ev, but I will read the evidence and am open to arguments from your opponent as to why paraphrasing is bad. Excessive exaggeration of what your evidence says will hurt your speaker points and possibly even your chance at the ballot.
Extending Arguments: Please argue the substance of your ev, not just the taglines. I am going to be much more inclined to buy your evidence if you thoughtfully explain why it specifically answers parts of the flow. Just saying "Extend Riggs 2021" is not sufficient. Carry your arguments through the flow, I should be able to draw a line from your constructive to your final focus and see the argument evolve throughout the round.
Speed: I'm cool with any speed. Spreading is fine, but please articulate. If I can not understand you I will say "clear". Please do not go faster than you are capable of, many arguments can be made just as well by slowing down and sticking to the point.
Speaker Points: Clarity is key for speaks. Please be respectful to your opponent, being rude will result in points being docked.
If you have any questions about my judging style, experience, or preferences, please feel free to email me at email@example.com
Name: Grace Scott
My name is Grace Scott. I am a sophomore at Samford University. I came into the debate community new freshman year, and have really been enjoying the rigor and joy of this singular activity.
I value arguments that are brought up consistently and clearly, such that they show up on my flow.
Regarding evidence v analytics, I value clash. The context of how an argument is being made changes how I value it. For example, if someone makes a point, contextualizes it in the debate, and uses evidence to back it up, I value that over analytics no matter how good the analytics are. However, if evidence is used in a rote manner that does not engage the other side and the opponent's analytics are highly specific, responsive, and intelligent, I will prefer the analytics. It's contextual, so be specific and responsive.
I don't value hostility in cross x. Cross x is for clarifying and communicating to your opponents and to your judge. You don't need to be passive, but if the hostility is such that it doesn't move the ideas forward, you are wasting your and my time.
When giving my RFD, I aim to communicate how I understood the debate and give you feedback you can use to improve your debating.
To avoid my pet peeves:
Don’t leave time on the clock. It is better to stand up there in the painful silence and shuffle through your flows thinking up analytics on the spot than to forfeit time. Using up every second of time is a mark of a tenacious debater.
COMMUNICATE WITH ME ABOUT TECH ISSUES.
I am not here to police your prep time. I trust that when you are running prep time you are prepping, and when the timer has stopped you are transitioning to giving a speech. I don’t like it. If you run into a problem outside your control, let me know and use your tech time, it’s there for a reason. Narrating what you are doing, “I’m saving the document” “I’m pressing reply all” “The doc is attached and once it loads, I will press send” are great ways to ensure transparency.
I would love to chat with you about Samford debate, or debate in general. Feel free to shoot me an email if you have further questions.
Extras: None of the following will make or break a round for me, but I do have preferences and I want to preempt questions:
Flex prep: Am I cool with you asking CX questions during prep? – No, prep is prep, CX is CX.
Flex CrossX: Am I cool with both partners asking/answering questions in a CX? – I’m ok with it. I won’t mark you down for it, but I will mark your speaker points up for not doing it. I value teams that let their partner use their CX for prep and show that they can handle any question being thrown their way.
Is using prep to send a speech doc something you care about? I prefer it. It is a norm to end prep time and then send documents, so I won’t penalize you for it. However, if you do send your docs during speech time, it will increase your speaker points.
I’m a sophomore at UAB, and I was debate captain at Hoover. Speak loudly and clearly. Emphasize important points and be organized. Please please please sign post. Don’t spread. I appreciate off time road maps. Keep your own time. I judge based on my flow and what I can get to “flow” across it. You'll do great. I've judged PF debate, but never LD or speech. I will try my best to judge fairly. Don’t be mean to your opponents.
Give roadmaps before each speech
I like to see framework debate and connection of contentions/arguments back to value and criterion.
I am not a fan of spreading (speaking extremely fast), but I will not count off if I can still understand you.
I will be keeping time, but I suggest you do, too.
Voters help me weigh the round.
Please be on time for check-in. Also if you're interested in college debate, I'd love to talk to you about Samford debate!!
If you have any questions about things not on my paradigm, feel free to ask before the round or email me.
Assistant Coach at The Altamont School
Policy debate at Samford (class of 24)
4 years of LD in high school
I would recommend starting off your speech at like 75-80% speed to give me a second to adjust before you build up to full speed. Clear differentiation between tags and the card body is also appreciated.
I do a lot of work on both the policy and critical side of debate in college. I typically consider myself more policy oriented in my style of judging, and think that the aff should probably defend an instance of the resolution. I am however a pretty good judge for nuanced Ks that have indicts of specific aff practices/assumptions.
I'm generally more neg leaning on CP theory debates and typically default heavily to reasonability and rejecting the argument, but I think especially egregious practices can make me swing more toward the middle on issues like condo (especially not a fan of 2NC CPs out of straight turns). T is alright, and I especially appreciate interps that strike a solid middle ground of limits and aff creativity/ground rather than just "you get one whole res aff" or something similar, although I suppose I could vote on it if executed well enough.
Only other major paradigmatic things are don't say/run things that are egregiously offensive, i.e. racism/sexism/etc. good, death good, things like that.
Note for LD: I would not consider myself a good judge for "tricks". If you regularly do things like hide blippy theory arguments or rely on obfuscating tactics to win debates, I am probably not the best judge for you.
First and most importantly, I am excited to be judging you and glad you are a part of this activity!
I did a lot of lay debate in high school, it was probably 80% or more of what I did, so I can really appreciate a slower debate with more emphasis on rhetoric. My advice for you is to do what you do best and are most comfortable with, don't feel like you have to spread or read positions you are unfamiliar with because of my policy background, as my original high school background was in lay debate.
Please make sure you have with you and can show me any evidence you read. I may not need to reference any evidence after the round, but if I do I would prefer you have it readily available.
I also really appreciate folks who have a very evident understanding of things like evidence comparison and strategy, as those were some of my favorite things as a debater. I really enjoy judging debates where the debaters who know their evidence and author qualifications and use them as strategic tools, as well as making smart strategic concessions in other parts of the debate to either get you more ahead on another key issue or to get you a more positive time tradeoff on other areas. Strategic technical concessions and evidence comparison are (in my opinion) some of the most underutilized parts of debate and are often what separate good debaters from great debaters.
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.