conflicts: groves high school (class of 2019), wayne state university (class of 2023, secondary ed major w/ minors in public health & gender, sexuality, and women's studies), detroit country day high school

always put me on the email chain! Literally always! if you ask i will assume you haven't read this! legit always put me on the email chain! lukebagdondebate@gmail.com

pronouns: they/them.

the abridged version:

• do you, and do it well

• don't cheat in ways that require me to intervene

• don't misgender me, or your competitors

• do not assume i am going to vote for you because you say my name a lot

some general stuff:

the more and more i do debate the less i care about what's put in front of me. when i first started debating, i cared very deeply about norms, the resolution, all that jazz. now, if you're willing to read it i'm willing to judge it. i'd rather see an in depth debate with a lot of offense and clash than anything else, and i don't care whether you do that on a T flow vs. a k aff or a cap flow vs. a policy aff.

my least favorite word in the english language (of which is not a slur) is the word "basically." i would rather listen to everyone for the rest of time describe everything as "moist" than listen to you say the word "basically." i've hated this word for years, do not use it. make of that what you will.

it should be said i at one point read a parody aff that involved my partner and i roleplaying as doctor/patient during the 1ac. i care exceedingly little what you want to do with your 8 minute constructive, 3 minute cx, and 5 minute rebuttals - but those speech times are non-negotiable (unless the tournament says otherwise). play a game, eat a salad, ask me about my cat(s), color a picture, read some evidence; but do it within the constraint of a timer.

(this "time fetish" is less of a "respect my time" thing and more of a "i need to know when i can tell tab who i voted for" thing. i take a lot of pride in getting my decision in before repko, and i wish to continue that streak.)

stuff about me as a judge:

i do not follow along in the speech doc. i try not to look at cards. be clear, be concise, be cool. debate is first and foremost a communicative activity. i will only read y'alls ev if there is serious contention, or you tell me to. i HATE DOING THIS, and this very often does not go how people think it will.

if you say "insert re-highlighting" instead of reading the re-highlighting i WILL consider that argument uncarded

bolded for emphasis: people are also saying they can 'insert a caselist' for T flows. this is not a thing. and i will not consider them part of the debate if this occurs.

i do not play poker both because i am terrible at math and because i have a hard time concealing my emotions. i do have pretty bad rbf, but i still think you should look at me to tell what i'm thinking of your speeches/cx.

speaker points:

Misgendering is bad and a voting issue (at the very least I will give you exceptionally low speaks). due to my gender identity i am hyper aware of gender (im)balances in debate. stop being sexist/transphobic jerks, y'all. it's not that hard. additionally, don't be racist. don't be sexist. don't be ableist. don't be a bad person.

Assigning speaker points comes down to: are you memorable? are you funny? are you a bad person? Did you keep my flow neat? How did you use cross?

I usually give in the 28.2-29.9 range, for reference.

ethics violations:

i consider ethics violations clipping, evidence fabrication/omission of paragraphs between the beginning and end of the card, and violence (e.g. calling Black people the n word as a non-Black person, refusing to use correct pronouns).

for clipping: a recording must be presented if a debater brings forth the challenge. if i notice it but no one brings it up, your speaker points will suffer greatly.

for evidence miscutting (this is NOT power tagging): after a debater brings it forward the round will stop. if the evidence is miscut, the team who miscut the evidence will lose with lowest speaker points possible. if the evidence is not miscut, the team who brought forth the violation will lose with the lowest speaker points possible. i will not entertain a debate on the undebatable.

for violence: i will stop the debate and the offender will receive the lowest speaker points possible and will lose. the person who is on the receiving end of the violence is not expected to give input. if you misgender me i will not stop the debate, but your speaker points will suffer.

one of these, because i love getting caught in the hype

brad hombres ------------------------------------X--banana nut brad

generic disad w/ well developed links/uq------X------------------------------------ thing you cut 30 mins before the round that you claim is a disad

read a plan--------------------X---------------------don't read a plan

case turns--X----------------------------------------generic defense

t not fw--------------X-------------------------------fw not t

"basically"-------------------------------------------X-just explaining the argument

truth over tech------------------X--------------------tech over truth

being nice-X------------------------------------------being not nice

piper meloche--------------------X--------------------brad meloche

'can i take prep'----------------------------------------X-just taking prep

explaining the alt------X--------------------------------assuming i know what buzzwords mean

process cps are cheating--------------------------X-------sometimes cheating is good

fairness--------------------------------X----------------literally any other fw impact besides iteration

impact turn-X--------------------------------------------non impact turn

fw as an impact turn------X--------------------------------fw as a procedural

green highlighting-X----------------------------------------any other color

rep---------------------------X----------------i don't know who you are and frankly i don't care to find out

asking if everyone is ready -X-----------------------------------asking if anyone isn't ready

jeff miller --------------------------------------X--- abby schirmer

PUBLIC FORUM SPECIFIC THINGS:

i find myself judging this a lot more than any other activity, and therefore have a LOT of opinions.

• time yourself. this includes prep. i'm not your mom, and i don't plan on doing it for you. the term "running prep" is becoming very popular, and i don't know what that means. just take prep.
• don't call me judge. "what should we refer to you as?" nothing! i don't know who is teaching y'all to catch judges' attentions by referring to us directly, but it's horrible, doesn't work, annoys all of us, and wastes precious time. you should be grabbing my attention in other ways: tone, argumentation, flowability, humor, sarcasm, lighting something on fire (please do not actually do this). call me by my first name (luke) if you have to, but know if you overuse it, it has the exact same affect as calling me "judge."
• PLEASE don't assume i know community norms, and saying things like "this is a community norm" doesn't automatically give you that dub. i entered PF during covid, and have a very strong policy background. this influences how i view things like disclosure or paraphrase theory.
• even more so than in policy, "post-rounding" me after a decision is incredibly common. you're allowed to fight with me all you want. just know it doesn't change my ballot, and certainly won't change it the next time around.
• i will never understand this asking for evidence after speeches. why aren't we just sending speech docs? judges are on a very strict schedule, and watching y'all spend five minutes sending evidence is both annoying and time consuming - bolding, because i continue to not get and, honestly? actively hate it when everyone spend 5-10 minutes after each speech exchanging evidence. just sent the whole speech. i don't get why this isn't the norm
• i'm fine with speed and 'unconventional arguments.' in fact, i'm probably better for them because i've found PF aff/neg contentions to be vague and poorly cut.
• PFers have a tendency to call things that aren't turns "turns." it's very odd to me. please don't do it.
• i'm not going to delay the round so you can preflow. idk who told y'all you can do that but they're wrong
• if you are using ev sending time to argue, i will interrupt you and make you start and/or i will tank your speaks. stop doing this.
• i'm very split on the idea of trigger warnings. i don't think they're necessary for non-in-depth/graphic discussions of a topic (Thing Exists and Is Bad, for example, is not an in-depth discussion in my eyes). i'm fine with trigger warning theory as an argument as long as you understand it's not an automatic W.
• flex prep is at best annoying and at worst cheating. if you start flex prepping i will yell at you and doc your speaker points.
• PLEASE READ THIS IF YOU WANT TO READ THEORY:I hear some kind of theory (mostly disclosure) at least once a tournament. I usually end up voting for theory not because the theory is done well, but because the other team does not answer it properly. I do like theory an unfortunate amount, but I would prefer to watch a good "substance" debate than a poor theory debate

LINCOLN DOUGLAS SPECIFIC THINGS:

• please read my policy and pf paradigms. they have important information about me and my judging

• of all the speech activities, i know about lincoln douglas the least. this can either be to your advantage or your detriment

• apparently theory matters to a lot of y'all a lot more in this activity than in policy. i got a high threshold for voting on any sort of theory that isn't condo, and even then you're in for the uphill battle of the century. i like theory debates generally, but watching LDers run theory like RVIs has killed my confidence in LD theory debate.

• 'i'm gonna take X minutes of prep' isn't needed. just say you're taking prep and take prep. i'll never understand LD or PF judges who act as if they are parents and y'all are 5 year olds asking for cookies after dinner; if you can figure out how tabroom works and how to unmute yourself, i'm pretty sure you can time your own prep.

• going fast does not mean you are good at debate, please don't rely on speed for ethos

• i hate disclosure theory and will prob vote neg 99.9% of the time (the .001% is for new affs or particularly bad answers). just put your stuff on the wiki, i genuinely don't understand why this is a debate to be had. just disclose. what year are you people living in.

things i don't care about:

- whether you keep your camera on or off (if you wanna lose free speaker points, that's up to you)

• speed. however, you should never be prioritizing speed over clarity.

hidden at the bottom: if you read the kato k and call it the "oppenheimer k" in the roadmap for the whole round i will give you a 30

neda-specific:

please use all your time. my bar for civility is much lower than most neda judges, so make of that what you will. please also use evidence.

Alpharetta '25

Alpharetta NM --- 2N/1A

Email

---aishnikkumbh@gmail.com

---email title should provide useful information. Ex. Tournament---Round #---Team A v. Team B.

TLDR

---I will not intervene unless my role of judge has been changed, or the round needs to be stopped due to (violence, threats, "cheating" or mass psychological violence being committed to the point the round can't end).

---debating and judging instruction matter far more than my personal preferences.---Every preference except the section under ethics can be changed by good debating.

---adopted from Eshan Momin, Anthony Trufanov, but NOT Lauren Ivey or Adam Smiley---[This just means my judging ideology/process is different from theirs]

---I am not ready when my camera is off.

---generally good: more cards, predictability, conditionality, judge kick.

Online Debate

---I prefer if everyone had their webcams on [though I understand if you cannot].

---debates already move slow, let's pick up the pace with technology.

---If my camera is off, assume I am away from my computer and don't start talking. If you start your speech while I am away from my computer you do not get to restart. That is on you.

---Here is how to successfully adjust to the online setting:

1. Inflect more when you are talking.

2. Put your face in the frame. Ideally, make it so you can see the judge.

3. Get a microphone, put it close to your face, talk into it, and make sure there is an unobstructed line between it and your mouth.

4. Talk one at a time.

Top Level

---tech > truth

---Unless my role as a judge is changed, I will attempt to make the least interventionary decision. This means:

1. I will identify the most important issues in the debate, decide on them first based on the debate, then work outward.

2. What is conceded is absolutely true, but will only have the implications that you say it has. Unless something is explicitly said, conceded, and extended, or is an obvious and necessary corollary of something that is said, conceded, and extended, I will attempt to resolve it, rather than assuming it.

3. I will intervene only if there is no non-interventionary decision.

4. I will attempt to minimize the scope of my intervention by simplifying the decision-making process. I would prefer to decide on fewer issues. If an issue seems hard to resolve without intervening, I will prioritize evaluating ballots that don't require resolving that issue. Example: a DA is heavily and messily contested, and may be straight turned, but the case would outweigh the DA even if the DA was 100% NEG. I will likely not attempt to resolve the straight turn as the ballot would go aff regardless. In complex debates, it would help you to instruct me on how I should do this, or instruct me not to do this if you would prefer that I resolve the debate a different way. You can also stop this from happening by debating in ways that don't require intervention to evaluate.

I am aware that this procedure can influence my assessment of substance. Given infinite decision time, I would not do this. However, decision times are shrinking. Post-round time is limited; minutes spent resolving complex or under-debated issues that are not outcome-determinative trade-off with the quality of my assessment of issues that are. I believe this process net reduces error costs.

---asking for what cards were read is CX

---flowing is great---if I can tell you are not at least sufficiently, it will not go so well.

---condo is good

K

---don't say buzzwords you can't explain logically---does not mean I will not hear these arguments but will need more explanation

---Long scripted overviews in the 2NC, 2NR then proceeding to do line by line by saying "That was in the overview" is horrendous. The standard for line-by-line doesn't decrease just because you are reading a K

---specific > backfile.

---have links to the plan/material consequences of the plan > links about reps

---do case debating

---good framework debating and links don't usually need an alternative

T

---competing interpretations > reasonability.

---predictability > debateability

---vagueness in any form is almost always not a voting issue but can implicate AFF solvency.

---better interpretations and more cards are always good

---impact comparison and evidence will heavily shape my decision.

CP

---DA/CP---love them, most comfortable with these debates [even the cheaty process cps]

---solvency deficits need impacts tied to the ADVs

---pretty NEG on most theory

DA

---im down for politics DAs in most variations---please explain what is going on for UQ

---impact turns are fun BUT plz make them coherent

---good impact calc will be rewarded and is always good

Ethics

---clipping cards = auto L

---"Being racist, sexist, violent, etc. in a way that is immediately and obviously hazardous to someone in the debate = L and 0. My role as educator > my role as any form of disciplinarian, so I will err on the side of letting stuff play out - i.e. if someone used gendered language and that gets brought up I will probably let the round happen and correct any ignorance after the fact. This ends when it begins to threaten the safety of round participants. Where that line is entirely up to me." – Truf.

Coach at Alpharetta High School 2006-Present
Coach at Chattahoochee High School 1999-2005
Did not debate in High School or College.

E-mail: asmiley27@gmail.com

General thoughts- I expect debaters to recognize debate as a civil, enjoyable, and educational activity. Anything that debaters do to take away from this in the round could be penalized with lower speaker points. I tend to prefer debates that more accurately take into account the types of considerations that would play into real policymakers' decision making. On all arguments, I prefer more specifics and less generics in terms of argument choice and link arguments.

The resolution has an educational purpose. I prefer debates that take this into account and find ways to interact with the topic in a reasonable way. Everything in this philosophy represents my observations and preferences, but I can be convinced otherwise in the round and will judge the arguments made in the round. I will vote on most arguments, but I am going to be very unlikely to vote on arguments that I consider morally repugnant (spark, wipeout, malthus, cancer good, etc). You should avoid these arguments in front of me.

Identity arguments- I do not generally judge these rounds and was traditionally less open to them. However, the methods and messages of these rounds can provide important skills for questioning norms in society and helping all of us improve in how we interact with society and promote justice. For that reason, I am going to work hard to be far more open to these arguments and their educational benefits. There are two caveats to this that I want you to be aware of. First, I am not prima facie rejecting framework arguments. I will still be willing to vote on framework if I think the other side is winning that their model of debate is overall better. Second, I have not read the amount of literature on this topic that most of you have and I have not traditionally judged these rounds. This means that you should not assume that I know all of the terms of art used in this literature or the acronyms. Please understand that you will need to assist in my in-round education.

K- I have not traditionally been a big fan of kritiks. This does not mean that I will not vote for kritiks, and I have become much more receptive to them over the years. However, this does mean a couple of things for the debaters. First, I do not judge as many critical rounds as other judges. This means that I am less likely to be familiar with the literature, and the debaters need to do a little more work explaining the argument. Second, I may have a little higher threshold on certain arguments. I tend to think that teams do not do a good enough job of explaining how their alternatives solve their kritiks or answering the perms. Generally, I leave too many rounds feeling like neither team had a real discussion or understanding of how the alternative functions in the round or in the real world. I also tend towards a policy framework and allowing the aff to weigh their advantages against the K. However, I will look to the flow to determine these questions. Finally, I do feel that my post-round advice is less useful and educational in K rounds in comparison to other rounds.

T- I generally enjoy good T debates. Be sure to really impact your standards on the T debate. Also, do not confuse most limiting with fair limits. Finally, be sure to explain which standards you think I as the judge should default to and impact your standards.

Theory-I am willing to pull the trigger on theory arguments as a reason to reject the argument. However, outside of conditionality, I rarely vote on theory as a reason to reject the team. If you are going for a theory arg as a reason to reject the team, make sure that you are impacting the argument with reasons that I should reject the team. Too many debaters argue to reject the team without any impact beyond the argument being unfair. Instead, you need to win that it either changed the round in an unacceptable way or allowing it changes all future rounds/research in some unacceptable way. I will also tend to look at theory as a question of competing interpretations. I feel that too many teams only argue why their interpretation is good and fail to argue why the other team’s interpretation is bad. Also, be sure to impact your arguments. I tend towards thinking that topic specific education is often the most important impact in a theory debate. I am unlikely to do that work for you. Given my preference for topic specific education, I do have some bias against generic counterplans such as states and international actor counterplans that I do not think would be considered as options by real policymakers. Finally, I do think that the use of multiple, contradictory neg advocacies has gotten out of hand in a way that makes the round less educational. I generally believe that the neg should be able to run 1 conditional CP and 1 conditional K. I will also treat the CP and the K as operating on different levels in terms of competition. Beyond that, I think that extra conditional and contradictory advocacies put too much of a burden on the aff and limit a more educational discussion on the merits of the arguments.

Disads- I generally tend towards evaluating uniqueness as the most important part of the disad debate. If there are a number of links and link turns read on a disad debate, I will generally default towards the team that is controlling uniqueness unless instructed by the debaters why I should look to the link level first. I also tend towards an offense defense paradigm when considering disads as net benefits to counterplans. I think that the politics disad is a very educational part of debate that has traditionally been my favorite argument to both coach and judge. I will have a very high threshold for voting on politics theory. Finally, teams should make sure that they give impact analysis that accounts for the strong possibility that the risk of the disad has been mitigated and tells me how to evaluate that mitigation in the context of the impacts in round.

Counterplans-I enjoy a good counterplan debate. However, I tend to give the aff a little more leeway against artificially competitive counterplans, such as consult counterplans. I also feel that a number of aff teams need to do more work on impacting their solvency deficits against counterplans. While I think that many popular counterplans (especially states) are uniquely bad for debate, I have not seen teams willing to invest the time into theory to help defeat these counterplans.

Reading cards after the round- I prefer to read as few cards post round as possible. I think that it is up to the debaters to give clear analysis of why to prefer one card over another and to bring up the key warrants in their speeches.

Townsend Turner

towns.turner119@gmail.com

Consider this paradigm a constant work in progress as an example of my conviction that to get the most out of speech and debate, one must have an open mind and be eager to reevaluate their pre-established notions on a topic. That said, winning is far from the most important or beneficial thing in competitive speech and debate and I mean that as more than rhetoric.

I began competing in speech and debate in seventh grade in the homeschool Stoa debate league. For two years I competed in Policy and Original Oratory. I moved to a traditional high school during my freshman year, attending and eventually graduating from Landmark Christian School. We did not have a debate club at the time so I competed in Mock Trial for two years. In my junior year, I founded the speech and debate program at Landmark and served as the Head Captain for two years. I competed in CX, OO, and Impromptu. I qualified for NSDA Nationals in CX and OO in my junior year. I also qualified and competed at Nationals in Arizona in my senior year in OO and Imp. I also served as Lead Lawyer for my mock trial team in my senior year. I have about three tournaments' worth of judging for CX debate under my belt. Now, I am a freshman at the University of Georgia and I serve as an Assistant Coach to Landmark's club.

As far as speech and debate goes, I am a student of the enterprise. I believe above all, that debate and speech should be teaching the fundamentals of persuasion as well as the nuances. As such, I don't put as much stock in technically sound, standard arguments that everyone runs, non-unique in that sense, when the team or individual is neglecting to try to actually speak well. That basically frames my view of all speech and debate that, since it is a public speaking and persuasion activity, it should be treated as more than just a game. Too many speechies and debaters "play the game," and they forget the fundamental purpose of speech and debate. There is one primary rule and it isn't to say the same thing to me that you say to every judge because it is a popular argument or topic. Connect with me. Convince me. Make me feel your position. Connect with ME. I am a human being, just like you, and therefore I have my own unique stances on everything, including the round. Treat me like an individual and you will get much farther than if you treat me like another judge just like the others. Now, since the main area you will see me judging is policy, the rest of this will be my policy stances.

As a debater, I was a traditional debater. As a coach, that is what I remain. However, as a judge, I will roll with whatever style you want to throw at me. That said, my personal beliefs will affect how easily you can connect with me. As a debater debating in a progressive debate state, traditional debating, particularly not spreading, was hard. We took a lot of losses simply because of the way we debated and the ways it will cost you. Truly I say unto you, I have always stood by the idea that debate is meant to teach you how to think and argue and persuade logically, with evidence to support your position. I have always hated spreading because it is a tactic used in "playing the game," and it sacrifices the art of persuasion, true comprehension, and all use of logic. The art of persuasion is gone as debaters just verbally vomit evidence in the general direction of each other without truly taking the time to connect with the judge, your audience, and explain why this "evidence" supports your position. Debaters don't truly comprehend all that they hear because, despite what the opposing side says, the speed at which things are being "said" is not conducive to learning. Finally, logical arguments that illuminate a hole in the stance of the opposing team have gone out the window; no more do we see any logical arguments without a blurb of typically unrelated or poorly applied evidence from a card the debater didn't even make from a wiki. I will not make a decision solely based on small arguments that are dropped due to inability to respond in the time given if that team is speaking slower than their opponents. In other words, while I won't count against you for spreading, I will give the opposing team some leeway if they do not spread. I greatly dislike spreading to say the least. All that said, I am an alum judge. I do know the game, no matter how much I dislike the way it is played now. I will not count against you for any tactics unless I consider them unfair in some way. Similarly, as an alum judge, I can hang with any theory you throw my way; go for it. My dream is that truly skilled debaters will read this and be determined to challenge themselves to debate differently for one round, but if that doesn't happen, that is okay.

Counterplans -- This is the area that I believe provides the most potential to sculpt into winning arguments when you're neg. As far as conditionality goes, I appreciate when the aff asks the neg their stance on it, because while I won't generally vote based on "conditionality good" or "conditionality bad" arguments, if the neg comes out with a ton of counterplans to simply see which one is the dead ringer, fully planning to drop all the other ones, I will not weigh those nearly as heavily as when the neg comes out with one or two good CPs that they plan to keep the whole round as long as they have any ground at all to stand on with them. Above all, what carries virtually no weight in my book are "CPs" that simply take out a word or two in the aff's plan and call it a CP, designed simply to take up the aff's response time. This utilization of a PIC is cheap and basic. If you do not take the time to explain why this subtle change is important to the round and why it makes your CP better, the aff is free to focus on more important issues and ignore your "CP" in my view. In other words, simply saying "CP - AFF PLAN MINUS XYZ" is not enough. At some point, its taking shortcuts and that doesn't deserve to even go on my flow. Aff: Perms are great if they work. Meaning, don't just run things to run them and see if they work. Just saying "Perm - do both" is lazy debating. Even though I can and will weigh your argument even if that's what you do, it will weigh a whole lot more if you explain the basic logic. If a spectator would be lost in the round, it is not debating; it is just jargon. If it's logical to respond with perm against a CP, do it and I will very likely vote your way. Otherwise, don't waste all our time. The art of running CPs is truly a great one so run them and respond to them well and you will have my full interest and investment.

Topicality -- I will listen to any topicality argument under the sun. Obviously, it needs to make logical sense or I won't vote for it but I do think the art of topicality is under-appreciated. Further, most topicality arguments now are not fleshed out enough to be considered fully argued. Run a good topicality argument and I generally lean neg because most aff responses are consistently weak, mainly because they are used to refuting weak T presses. Above all, make sure the definitions you bring up with topicality are actually ones that actually apply to the point you want to make, otherwise, I will disregard it virtually every time.

Kritiks -- I'm not a huge fan of the way kritik debating is executed today. Most teams run the same darn kritiks every single round because they are "old faithful" kritiks that they can always twist to apply to the round. I love the concept of kritiks. But if it is just another cap k or other standard k that is a stretch to apply, I typically lean aff.

Solvency -- As a traditional debater trying to make up lost ground against progressive debaters, we attacked stock issues nonstop and solvency is huge in my book. There are so many aff plans out there that just would never work for a million reasons. As debaters, we get so caught up in the line-by-line and the clash that sometimes we forget to step back and assess how the plan functions logically. If the summation of the aff's arguments was a balloon, disproving solvency pops it no matter if you have lost every other clash in the round. Utilize that. It takes two seconds to see if attacking solvency might be fruitful. Ask yourself at the beginning of the round and it might really help you.

Case -- Please! The world needs more case debating! It is under-utilized and it has so much power! Yes, offense is important, but case is where you win rounds. What is remarkable is that most affs now, in the age where we are just pulling cards from wikis, don't realize that what their tag says is not generally what the evidence is, but they never get caught on it because no one runs case and attacks that. When the lone instance comes up that someone does attack some core evidence, they don't often defend that attack well because they do not always understand their own evidence and they virtually never have to defend against this kind of attack.

Significance -- I would be pleasantly surprised to see an actually good significance argument presented. Don't take that as a challenge to force it because it doesn't always work and based on the aff's response it might backfire on you.

Inherency -- This is my favorite thing to judge. If you can figure out some way to spin it that the aff's case is inherent, and it logically tracks, you will not only likely win but also elicit an actual, audible chuckle from me. It is the greatest "gotcha" in debate when this happens.

Okay, if you have read this far, you deserve some fun tips from me about speaker points. Honestly, if you are an engaging speaker, that is the scale that I use for speaks. That said, I love some intros. I know, it's totally old-fashioned. No one uses intros anymore. But, if you take two seconds to introduce what you are going to say in a clever way, and I don't mean road-mapping, you will get extra speaks. And if it is one of these, you will get even more boost in speaks I promise...

"The affirmative team's plan is like a penguin. Cute, cuddly, fluffy, but it's not gonna fly."

"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." - Mark Twain

"America is a large friendly dog in a small room. Every time it wags its tail it knocks over a chair." - Arnold Toynbee

Literally any Marvel quote. There are a ton to pick from.

Good luck!