I have 3 years of experience competing in Public Forum debate in high school. I mainly want to see comparative weighing of arguments and evidence, especially in the final two speeches. I would prefer to see analysis driven debate rather than evidence dumps. Speed isn't really an issue as long as you speak clearly. If you have any questions for me please feel free to ask before the round.

Nebraska College of Law '24

University of Nebraska-Lincoln '20 (BA in History and Political Science)

4 year debater on NE circuit, this is my 6th year judging

she/her

Some preferences:

I am not a fan of speed.

Don't be rude. Being assertive is one thing, but being a jerk will hurt your speaker points

I don't write down author names, so don't just refer to your "Johnson" card

Signpost after constructive

Pleeeease have your cards/evidence readily available

***Debate needs be a safe and accessible environment, give trigger warnings. Do not commodify/weaponize sensitive subjects for the sake of winning, I will not weigh those arguments in your favor.

Argumentation/weighing:

I am fine with any type of argumentation you want to use

- but just an FYI, I am not super familiar with progressive PF

2nd speaking teams don't have to rebuild in rebuttal, but it probably would be advantageous to do so

I care the most about your warrants, so explain your links as clearly as possible. I hate seeing huge impacts with poor explanations as to why they happen

- so, please! don't ask me to extend your argument from a tagline

I rarely call for cards at the end of the round, flesh them out for me!

If the round is a total wash, I will presume neg

Most importantly: have fun and be respectful!

If you don't have time to read all of this, just skim the bold points, and you'll be golden!

Hello! I'm Pranita, and I'm a PF judge. I was not a debater before but did judge regularly for a couple years, so I do have experience with PF. However, pretend like I am more or less a lay judge and don't get too technical with things like links/impacts/warrants, etc. I haven't judged for a couple of years, so also be patient with me being unsure on any new rules and timing changes. Speaking of timing, please keep time on your own as well, especially for prep, so we have some insurance in case I happen to track something wrong.

The things I look for are clearly organized rebuttals, and heavy weighing on the voters. For the rebuttals, make sure I know exactly what on the opponents' case you're responding to. If things get too muddled, I won't be able to catch it and pull through to the summary. Keep in mind: if you don't respond to something on the opponent's case in rebuttal, and start a counterargument in 2nd summary, I will not flow it through. If you drop a point in rebuttal and bring it up in 1st summary, it'll be up to my discretion whether or not I carry it forward, and will be generally grumpy about it if I do. Just get all your responses in the rebuttal, even if you just say one line about it. Anything you don't respond to, I will consider dropped. For the voters in final focus, weigh heavily and clearly! Remind me of the main happenings through the round that lead you to your claim that the voter should be flowed your way. I decide who wins solely on who takes more voters, unless there is a tie.

Crossfire: I like a civilized and polite crossfire section. Remember to look at the judge while speaking, not each other. Make sure to mention anything from cross that you want counted toward your argument again in your speech. I will not take into account points from crossfire that you don't bring up again. I am fine with you showing each other evidence after crossfire so that you can maximize your crossfire time.

Speaking etiquette: Please be humble and courteous. I have little tolerance for condescension/cockiness, and will start docking speaker points if it happens more than once. The point of debate is to masterfully craft a winning argument, not to play mind games on your opponents with an emotionally-driven confidence smackdown. Have genuine respect for your opponents, and you shouldn't have any trouble with this. :) Remember, the moment the round is over, your opponents actually turn into your allies. We have something to learn from everyone, and the moment we forget this, we actually end up losing because we've stopped growing.

I am extremely excited to be judging again and look forward to seeing everyone; good luck and have fun!

PF: I did public forum for 3 years in high school and was the 2nd speaker. I expect all teams speaking 2nd to defend in the rebuttal or will consider the points dropped. I am generally okay with speed, as long as you don't mumble. Negative teams cannot run counter plans or they will be dropped. More of a line by line then a summative flow. An argument should be brought up in every speech if it is to be weighed at the end of the round. A new argument must be brought up early in first summary or any speeches before that. Anytime after that, the value and credibility to me weakens.

LD: I am new to LD, but not new to debate. I am okay with speed as long as you enunciate, I will either say "Clear" or "Louder" if you do not speak well enough for me to hear. I can Judge well explained arguments, but will need you to do the work for me on framework and which to prefer. Don't just say prefer your criteria, give me a justification for why your framework/value should be weighed over the other teams. For me, you do not win the round if you win the framework, but i use the framework that i think wins, to evaluate the remaining arguments in the round. Since my history is with PF, where counter-plans are not used, I recommend staying to the value debate, but you are not going to automatically lose if you run a CP.

Fair warning: I'll pretty much toss everything here out the window the instant you're an unpleasant or disrespectful jerk in-round, including being a smarmy wanna-be comedian looking for dumb jabs at your opponent.

Stopped coaching and judging "full time" in 2018 to move back into academia. It was a healthy move, but my flow speed has tanked since then. Deal with that.

TOC top speaker in 2006. Former PF coach and active judge. Philosophy, Art and Theatre degrees.

Easy Mode: I disclose results of every round unless attacked by tab not to, and even then just ask me in the hallway before tab yells at me twice. However, you'll know before the end of the round pretty easily what's up just by paying attention. I'll laugh at patent absurdity and scowl at obtuse knuckleheads. My facial expressions detail *exactly* how I feel about what you're doing in every moment. This is bad community theatre facial expressions kind of stuff, people. Use it and react to alter what you do and run in the round.

PF tl;dr-->Expect second team to respond to attacks on case in rebuttal. Summary should crystallize the round, not be a rebuttal expansion. Will not vote on morally reprehensible water tester arguments like 'genocide good' or 'climate science is a liberal lie'. Will vote down on reprehensible decorum including blatant sexism and harassment. Default neg on presumption of affirmative burden of truth/net outcome or in case of insoluable flow.

LD tl;dr-->Somebody entered me in the pool by accident or desperation. I still have a philosophy degree if you're willing to slow the heck down...but I've honestly enjoyed nearly every round I've been in.

CX tl;dr-->Did it and moved on. Not here by choice. Do professional theatre and art criticism, and did Theatre of the Oppressed with Boal at UNO, and continue to be a Joker as part of pedagogical practice. Not impressed by shenanigans. Slow it down but don't insult my intelligence on argument structure.

Longform (PF primary)

It will forever be my goal to treat debate as a fundamentally educational activity. If I have one goal every tournament, it's to make at least one team know that they got the best possible feedback and push forward they've ever gotten from a judge and member of the debate community. We are here to make sure debaters come out the other side of a round as better students and people.

I am happy to see PF move in new and intelligent directions. Willing to listen to direct-clash TV-ready Ted Turner Debate as well as traditional policy maker standpoints, kritiks, theory, and performance elements if presented clearly within the confines of PF time structure, but recognize that you still have to make the round at least productive and educational for all involved rather than attempting to exclude or undercut other teams with a blatant attempt at LD or Policy approaches, and only 4 or 2 minutes to present them. This new-ish nat-style, hyperdismissive wanna-be technical jargon-fest is both annoying and utterly embarrassing in how much it gets wrong in trying to pull from LD and CX. Stop it. Use your time to build a core narrative with solid comparative analysis, not card dumps and baby's-first-topicality.

I hold to a line-by-line flow and expect second team to respond to attacks on their case in addition to engaging the other team's case. Turns and dropped arguments are voters if presented by a team, but in cases of competing voters: theory-framework and direct impact calculations should be done by the debaters. If I end up with null arguments that lack interaction analysis I will look elsewhere before coming back to pick apart the argument interaction myself.

Framework for round structure and impact weight should carry with it minimum standards of preference vs competing frameworks, be it educational, grounds based, or decision process justified. Competing frameworks should not drown out the remainder of the round, especially if you're going to go evidence heavy or engage in competing ideologies. You can still win the round if you accept your opponent's framework if you meet it and can offer comparative analysis that places you in a preferable voting position...and most of the time counter framing is just bickering in PF. Pick one and win everywhere else. If it's truly abusive, it should be an easy call to standards to say so and move on or prefer yours.

Summary should be THE place to present the clarity of your round vision, and make solid decisions on what the round has become, what can be disregarded, and where it should end up. No new arguments [and ideally no new evidence] from here on out. Final focus is an opportunity to pull from the summary vision and perform, crystallize, and leave no question on your side winning.

Aff must show, at minimum, the truth of the resolution. In cases of "on balance" resolutions, you must engage in comparative analysis to develop the status of this truth. Magnitude, time frame, probability, and threshold offer basic elements to compare two impacts.

I will pref neg if aff fails to meet minimum burden of resolution, or if round is left in an inconclusive position/null impact state. Don't expect great speaker points for anyone if that second situation comes up.

So long as the tournament/circuit rules doesn't explicitly forbid it: competitive alternative advocacy is fine by me. [Facing NSDA rules on plans and counterplans though, just follow them explicitly] Permutations by aff against alternative actions by neg are just tests of competition unless you push for wider terms of impact from the perm. However, if aff can show that neg alternatives are non-competitive vs plan/resolutional action, no amount of competing 'solvency' can push neg for a win without them also presenting a net harm to aff that has been dealt with via comparative analysis. Hey aff! Topical counter or alt with no net benefit or harms from neg? Just coopt it, and we can be cool.

I will not vote on any case arguments addressing sexual violence or rape that were not preceded by a pre-round trigger warning. If, upon hearing this trigger warning, the opponent requests the argument not be made and that request is denied, I'll listen/be receptive to theory arguments about why I ought to vote a particular way based on the introduction of that issue. That doesn't mean I'll automatically pull render a final ballot decision on it one way or the other, but I will be exceptionally open to doing so if the argument claiming I should evaluate the mere fact that the sexual violence argument is made is won in the debate.

Generally start at 28 on speaker points and move up or down. 30 is perfection in speaking, argument structure, logic and overall sense of "this is what is good about a PF debater". 26 and below are reserved for refusal to engage in clash or logical analysis while simultaneously being a totally unpleasant individual in terms of respect towards your opponent or myself. Speaker points are an opportunity to send a message of the kinds of interactions that will and will not be acceptable in a safe and educational environment.

Enjoy yourselves and enjoy the event as a whole. Keep it respectful, smart, and funny within the round and you'll make it a better day for everyone involved.

1. Second speaking team cover both sides of the flow in rebuttal

2. Extend warrants as well as impacts

3. Be at least decently nice in cx

Experience: I debated for Millard North for 4 years

I'm a fourth year judge. Speed is acceptable. Make sure that you flow through, or I won't consider it. If you make an assertion, mostly likely I'm going to need some evidence that that is true unless you can find a logic that would make your analysis true.

I'm going to take the evidence that the Congress or the executive wants to do something on very flimsy basis unless you can show support that it is mostly likely going to pass through both branches.

Rebuttals:

• The second speaking team should return to their case during rebuttle. If you are the second speaking team and arguments are made against your case, you need to respond to them if you want to extend them to the end of the round.

Prep Time:

• I don't count evidence exchanges as prep time.
• Road maps are off-time as well.

Background:

• I did PF for four years and competed at the TOC twice.

Respect and decorum. Don't talk over your opponent, don't talk/pack up while they're speaking. Cross isn't for arguing.

I was a first speaker in Public Forum from 2014-2017 and competed Nebraska Circuit/Nat Circuit.

I expect the second team to defend in their Rebuttal.

Don't speed read.

Don't run counter plans for me.

Don't personally attack your opponents in hopes of gaining clout.

Please weigh the arguments in the round, especially in Summary/FF.

I highly recommend providing voters for me because my decision is 100% based off of whatever you give to me in the round.

Try to have fun.

-I take notes on the outlines of cases, only writing word for word when wording is important

-Flow is taken into account, but isn’t necessarily the only deciding factor

-If you talk too fast, I may miss what you say. Talk at a decent pace so I can follow along.

-I expect the second rebuttal to address both sides of the debate

-I expect the summary to establish the main points in the round (big picture)

-If evidence requires a date to be valid, the date should be read aloud

-Decorum is a deciding factor (especially interruptions and insults)

-Staying on topic is preferred, but I’m not rigid on that. Off topic information is material that has little to no relation or impact with the debate topic.

**I have judged this NFA topic once (1). Please go slow and explain. If youre fast on tags, or fast on theory, it is entirely your fault if you drop because there was an argument I didn’t hear or understand.

They/Them

Competitive Debate Participation: Millard North 2014-2017 (PF), University Nebraska-Lincoln 2017-2021 (NFA-LD, 1 v. 1 policy)

Coaching: Assistant Debate Coach, Lincoln High School 2017-2018. Assistant Debate Coach, Marian High School 2018-2021; 2023-Present

Email: addissonLstugart@gmail.com

TBH you can probably avoid the rest if you're familiar with Nadia Steck's or Justin Kirks paradigms.

TL/DR:

Content warnings: If you are running something sensitive, you need to have a trigger warning. This means things such as suicide, human trafficking, domestic violence, etc. NEED to have a disclaimer before you say them. Furthermore, you NEED to have a back-up plan if reading it puts the safety of someone in the room in jeopardy. And, for both of our sakes, please don't use something sensitive solely as a means to win a round. Commodification of trauma isn't something that I will listen to.

I will vote on content warning procedurals.

Tech > Truth (what does that mean?)

I will always disclose first and will always give a detailed rfd. Not doing so is bad for education

Speed is a wonderful thing in all events unless it's used as an exclusionary tactic. If either opponent doesn't want speed, neither do I.

You can probably tell if I’m buying an argument based on my facial expressions.

Judge intervention will only ever happen if the safety (physical/mental) of a student in the round is at jeopardy.

Presume/default neg in all circumstances UNLESS the alt/cp does more than the aff. Then presumption flips aff.

Flex prep is a-okay in all events.

Evidence

I will call for evidence after round in 3 circumstances:

1. I have read the evidence beforehand in some context and believe that how you are construing it is wrong and unethical

2. The opposing team has asked me to

3. The round is decided on this evidence

Speaks:

Should be primarily based off of skill of debate, not eloquence of speaking.

While I believe speaks are arbitrary, I will generally determine speaks through this loose model:

28-29: You debated incredibly well. Strategic choices were made, and I have very little feedback for improvements.

27.5-28: Most frequently awarded speaks from me, baseline for my evaluation.

27: Arguments were poorly explained and require much more development throughout the round.

If you owe someone an apology at the end of the round, I may drop your speaks down to <26.

For public forum debate:

Observations: I will listen to anything. I LOVE strategic observations. I LOVE observations that narrow the topic based on grammar/interpretations of the resolution.

On the flow: Don't drop turns. Extend terminal offense. Ghost extensions of terminal defense from rebuttal--> final focus are the only extensions I allow to not be in summary. Other than that, if you want it weighed in final focus, have it in summary.

Rebuttal: It is preferred, but not required, for the second rebuttal to cover both sides. I used to card dump in my rebuttals, so I understand how it can get you ahead on the flow, though. I'm not strategically against it, but pedagogically I am.

Summaries: This is the MOST important speech in the round. This should set up the framing for the final focus, and should have all of the offense you want to go for in it. All previous opposing offense needs to be addressed in this speech (for example, if team a drops team b's turns in summary, strategic strat is for team b to sit on them in final focus. It's too late for team a to come back on that part of the flow.)

Final focus: The same framing should be given as was given in summary. But overviews or underviews are the best. I flow summaries and final focuses in columns next to each other. The final focus' main job is impact analysis. Explain to me why your impacts o/w because, as an owner of four dogs, if left to my own fruition, I could vote for 10 dog lives over nuclear war.

For Lincoln Douglas/CX Debate:

Inherency: I THINK THIS IS ACTUALLY A VERY VALID ARGUMENT TO GO FOR. Ya got me, I am a stock issues judge

"status quo acts as a delay counterplan" = *chefs kiss*

Value/criterion: I will typically default util~ especially in muddied v/c debates.

PLEASE, for the love of all that is good and holy, COLLAPSE V/C DEBATES IF IT DOESN'T MATTER (if I have to see another util vs consequentialism debate ???? I might SCREAM)

Also, please explain how the substance of the ac or nc actually relates to your v/c, or better yet, how it could *also* relate to your opponents.

Theory: After being in the activity for a while I have come to the conclusion that proven abuse is a silly metric to win theory debate. I do not believe that in order to win theory you should have to skew yourself out of your own time.

I am unlikely to vote for RVI's on theory in regards to things like "the theory is just a time suck".

I find “Drop the argument, not the team” to be fairly persuasive for general theory arguments (excluding t).

I probably won't vote for condo bad when there's one conditional advocacy.

Topicality: (I will never vote on "they have to prove abuse") I default competing interpretations on t but will listen to reasonability arguments. I believe effects t/extra t can be independent voters with independent standards. I think a dropped violation will *almost* always win a t debate. But because t is try or die, consider the following:

1. If you win the "we meet", reasonability explanations are easier.

2. T is something the neg has to win, not that the aff has to prove opposite. What does that mean? I am not doing the work for the neg to find the aff untopical. Extend and EXPLAIN your standards. (utilize clash, don't just rely on blocks) Tell me why the neg's definition is better than the aff's. Tell me why things like competitive reciprocity is key to eduaction, etc. I know all of these things but will judge *only* based on your explanations.

3. T is just like any other debate. The interp is the claim. The violation is the warrant, the standards are the internal link to>>> the voters being the impacts. So, just like any other debate, I expect you to win on all parts of the flow *especially because topicality is try or die for the aff*.

5. HOWEVER, I will always prioritize being tech over truth. That means that *even if* I don't agree with one's sides strats, or find that they are bad at performing the t strat (or responding) if the opposite side drops something of importance (a violation, concedes a voter, or even a standard that is sat on as the key internal link) I am probably voting there. Concessions are the easiest way for me to pick a winner on T debates.

Tricks: Take like 15 seconds to crystallize it after you do it to make sure I got it, and if you don't do this, don't be mad at me if I don't catch on.

Kritiks: I am open to all kritiks, but I am not familiar with all of the literature. Don't expect me to know the argument off the top of my head, but expect me to flow it and (hopefully) understand it the way that you communicate it to me. Debate is inherently a communication activity, and k debaters can lose sight of this. If it helps you to understand my experience with k's better, when I compete, I always go for framework.

I say K aff's have a higher burden of proof for solvency/explanations than standard policy affs.

Disclosure: Well first off, everyone should disclose. Debate is for education, not just the wins. IDK how I feel about voting on this theory. I have, but I don't like it.

Da's: disads with specific links are probably for the best. I am all about the net bens to counterplans. I am open to any type of argument here.

Counterplans: "Yes. The more strategic, the better. Should be textually and functionally competitive. Texts should be written out fully and provided to the other team before cross examination begins. The negative should have a solvency card or net benefit to generate competition. PICs, conditional, topical counterplans, international fiat, states counterplans are all acceptable forms of counterplans." -Dr. Justin Kirk; the man, the myth, the legend.

Ryan Wiegert- English Teacher/Debate Coach, Millard West

2 years judging PF, 1 year judging LD, 3 years judging Congress

Here is my overall paradigm, followed by changes for individual styles:

Speed of Delivery- I am strongly opposed to spreading and policy-style speed. While speaking at a clip is expected in a debate round, reading at “auctioneer” speeds occludes communication, games the system, and is frankly just irritating. I won't weigh anything I don't clearly hear.

Civility/Decorum- I absolutely expect politeness and civility in debate. You might still win the round, but I will be harsh on speaks.

Role of the judge/Meta- My role as a judge is to sign the ballot. That's all.

Kritiks- I usually just straight-up drop a k. I've made exceptions, but I would seriously recommend running an alternate case or using a strike on me.

---Specific Style Paradigms---

Congress:

While Congress has more of a delivery component than other debate styles, it still needs to involve debate. I need evidence, I need clash. After the initial authorship/first negation and maybe the first aff/neg exchange, the delivery style should be primarily extemporaneous and needs to address prior speeches directly. I grade repetitive/reheat speeches pretty harshly, unless they are summary/crystallization speeches. I'm not a fan of beating a dead horse, so when it's time to move the question, move it.

Public Forum:

I definitely subscribe to the idea that PF is supposed to be lay-accessible, and I encourage debaters to treat me like a lay judge despite the fact that I'm a coach. I'm not a fan of trying to win on technicalities and shenanigans.

I drop kritiks, plans/counterplans/topicality and any changing to the wording of the resolution.

The team that speaks second needs to address both the first team's case and rebuttal. This makes up for the advantage of having the last word in the round.

Extending your arguments is critical, and you have to extend them. I'm not going to do it for you. By the same token, if your opponents drop an argument, you need to call that out.

I like my summaries line by line. The final focus needs to include voters.

I don't flow cross-examination. That exchange is for the debaters to help develop the speeches which follow.

I do not weigh new arguments introduced in grad cross or later.

Lincoln-Douglas:

I tend to prefer traditional cases to the weird stuff. You can still win with the weird stuff, but you need to make sure I understand it.

Policy Style Arguments: I will drop you if your opponent runs even a basic LD style argument. If you want to do Policy debate, there's a whole division of the tournament for just that.

Lincoln-Douglas is the style of debate where I will accept theory and philosophy. Debaters in LD are not required to provide implementation.

I do not flow cross-examination in LD. Those exchanges are for you in preparation for the rebuttals to follow.

The aff debater cannot use the 2AR to "make up" for dropped arguments in the 1AR. The neg debater cannot introduce new arguments in the NR.

Don't speed. I cannot stress this enough. I won't flow what I don't understand.

I will drop you if you change even a single word of the resolution. I've seen this on cases lately and I'm not here for it. If you want to change the nature of the argument, you need to do that in framework.

The way to get my ballot is to show me how your value and criterion would improve the status quo, even if your better world is hypothetical.

I'm not a fan of trying to win on technicalities.

Dropped arguments need to have actual weight in order for me to consider voting on them.

-- PF --

I would consider myself to be a "traditional" PF judge, if that helps. I flow everything, but you need to impact and explain. I expect the second speaker to respond to the rebuttal of the first speaker. I am good with speed and most other PF styles and tactics. Spreading is highly discouraged. I don't believe it's effective, good, or educational, and I may drop you on face. If you just read cards at me and don't impact them, don't expect me to weigh them. As well, if you only extend a card by saying "Johnson 18, war is bad, pull through" that puts it on the flow but doesn't give it a lot of weight.

I'm open and willing to hear most any argument as long as you can explain it well and back it up. I tend to give long winded RFDs, so if I get talking for a long time, don't hesitate to say something. Sometimes I forget how long I've been going on.

-- LD --

I don't judge LD often. I would probably be considered the more traditional in terms of LD, and my judging style will be similar to my PF judging. I will flow everything. The value seems(?) to be the most important things, so make sure you tie your arguments back to it. Ask me as many questions as you want/need to, I'm still learning LD. I will also not be insulted if you correct me on something or challenge me on something.

Brown '21 | Lincoln East '17 | Email remaining questions to: a.a.zhu24@gmail.com

I will disclose and give oral feedback at the end of the round, just give me time to complete my ballot.

General notes:

- Be nice. I have no patience for people who are jerks. I will drop you, report you for being abusive, tell you in my oral critique, tattle to your coach, and take whatever other means I have available to me to ensure you're never rude in round again. Oh, and your speaks will be as low as they can possibly be.

- Debate how you normally debate. I'm open to everything, as there's a reason you got to where you are. I will never drop a debater or a team because I don't like their style of argument. I believe debate is an educational activity, not only for the students, but for judges as well. That means that we also need to continue to learn and adapt.

PF:

- I do not flow author names, rather, I flow card content. If you want to extend something, tell me what the card says too, don't just "Extend McDonald '18"

- Framework/Observations/Definitions: Don't run them unless it's absolutely necessary. Don't make the debate about the framework/definitions/whatever fluff you have at the beginning, this isn't what PF should be about. I will not vote on a framework just because it is there and is not utilized with your case. If the framework does come into play, however, I will reluctantly consider it. Finally, if both teams propose a framework, give me a good reason to prefer yours over your opponents'.

- Speed doesn't really matter, so long as your opponents and I can both understand you. To this point, if I can't understand what you're saying because of speed, I'll yell "Clear" at you. If I don't understand what you're saying because I don't think it makes sense, I'll look very puzzled at you and not be flowing for an extended period of time.

- I understand that debate is a game, but if you speak second and take prep after your opponents read their case, I reserve the right to deduct your speaks, or in out-rounds, pay less attention to your constructive.

- First rebuttal: don't go back to your own case and re-read what's in it. Feel free to weigh their case against yours, or make new analyses and even sub arguments, but do not simply reread what's already in the case that I heard the first time again. If you're done, end early. Rehashing what I already heard without giving your opponent a chance to respond to it isn't fair or strategic, and this will be reflected in your speaker points.

- I think it's extremely difficult for the second speaking team to win if they don't go back to their own case, but I have seen extremely talented teams pull it off. If the second speaker doesn't do some defense in rebuttal, that leaves the second summary speaker with 10 minutes of speeches to cover in just 2 minutes. If you want to go for this strategy, be my guest, just know that the path to winning on my ballot is paper thin in this scenario, and your summary speaker had better give the best speech of their lives.

- Please do some analysis and impact your cards, don't just throw cards/numbers/stats around. Impact calculus is important. I don't care if you tell me that this program will cost the U.S. $50,000 if you don't tell me what that means in the wider context of things. Will healthcare funding also go down? Will taxpayers have to pay extra? Will we have to cut other government programs? Tell me what is going to happen as a result of the numbers you tell me.

- I prefer big picture summaries. Start trying to narrow down the round into a few main arguments. If you must, fine, I'll try to evaluate "down their flow then down ours", but if you can cut a few arguments out that you deem unimportant, you'll only look better in my eyes.

Last updated: 2/2019