Tin Puljić - Extension Speeches

2:47 okay hello everyone I'm being told by the organizers that everything is set up for the stream so I will be starting now if someone could just message me hearing the chatter somewhere to confirm that they can hear what I'm saying that would be really cool excellent so as you all know the topic of this talk is going to be extension speeches the way I intend structured is is I'm probably going to talk for about an hour

3:18 I'll try not to go longer than that as to keep everything clear and concise I will leave the the period after that for any potential questions I don't I'm not sure I will be able to track zoom questions during the talk but I will definitely answer everything that you guys asked either on Zoom or on YouTube as soon as I finished I also intend to reference and the questions that have been left for me before this talk during

3:48 the lecture and I will flag when I'm answering them so people know that the question is being answered the way I'm going to do this I'm going to first Jared off but what is in an extension what constitutes an extension to something about what I would call the mindset you should have as an extension speaker and how to let's say conceptualize extensions and then I'm going to talk about the process of creating one and delivering one from

4:10 prep time up to your speech so to get started with that what is in essence an extension and everyone knows this definition but I think it's important to repeat it as to be able to get to the core of the issue a lot of people have an extension so an extension will be a contribution that meaningfully adds value to the overall case of your bench and now obviously as everybody knows it does not have to be a new argument it

4:36 can be new analysis to make an argument from opening a flow better it can be new responses it can be new framing and characterization and similar things however one this means is that we should always keep in mind that the role of the extension is not exclusively to be new the role of the extension is to add meaningfully to what is said in general overall on government bench or an opposition bench so the extension has to be an

5:03 improvement an additional reason an additional contribution that makes the judge believe that your general side with government or opposition should win and around and in this and this is where I'm going to digress a bit because I think it's a good good piece of advice I think that what extensions should do is similar on the micro level to what deputies do in opening up right because when you're deputy prime minister or deputy of Opposition what you're

5:30 essentially doing is you're trying to add to the case of your p.m. or ello you're trying to add the analysis that they did not have time to deliver to introduce the new argument that you guys have decided you know introducing deputy you are trying to respond you're giving new examples or trying to burn the turf so closing cannot extend but the logic is generally the same right so thinking very often helps with those two speeches to think of them as quite analogous it's

5:53 very often when I talk to people who are deputies the advice I'd like to give them is think of your speech as if it were an extension right so how do you avoid respecting listen debtors imagine you were extending on your prime minister only dry walk would you consider what you're going to say in deputy to be a meaningful extension if you were extending right would it be repetitive or would it be adding something in anyway that's a good test

6:17 for deputies to test whether or not they're being repetitive or they're adding something but I think converse in the extension speeches can imagine themselves as if they were deputy speeches what do I do in order to meaningfully add to my opening imagine they're just my p.m. or ello in order to make this an addition to our case rather just a repetition within our case I think what comes out of this is a specific mindset that they think is very

6:42 useful for people when they deliver extensions just give me 30 seconds I have to close the blinds because the Sun is getting very irritating cool what do they mean by an extension might so this is a general frame of mind you think people should adopt when thinking about extensions all of extensions features and in the way they approach their role when they are

7:12 closing document or closing opposition I think there are two parts to this first remember that you are still trying to win the debate so from any position within an eobeochigi oh wow CGC or doesn't matter you're trying to win a lot of people just focus too much on the sacred quest of having an extension and being afraid of whether or not that have that they forget to just listen to what's going on in the debate so the point with extensions is

7:41 not to have a premade list of ideas or headlines of arguments and just hope nobody's ever going to mention them in the DB the point is rather that you should listen to the debate and find out what you have to do to win so is oh whoa beating the crap out of OG and you're closing government obviously a very efficient way to win open heart is then to efficiently respond 200 therefore you would beat the law if you respond to

8:09 them well enough but you would also then beat og because it did what od didn't do better and this oh gee have a case that sounds like it's a winning case has good impacts but lacks a mechanism then maybe your road victories to add a mechanism so this obviously means one that you're never going to have let's say a definite order shouldn't have a definite pre-made idea of what you're going to run an extension for the debate which can be

8:34 scary but it also means you're never really without an extension because if you focus simply on listening to the debate and trying to find out given the specifically made at hand given what teams have done so far even though things have done well or are lacking given the responsiveness between teams engagement in teams if you can find out what you should in theory do to win so what specific strategy in this case would land you a first if done

9:03 properly you probably have an extension obviously this moves a lot of ideas are going to Papa during the debate that you will not going to debate knowing what your extension is or just having one good idea and hoping you'll get to run it but rather you don't have to adapt to the debate at hand sometimes you will have a lot of substantive ideas and all of them will be very well taken away by opening however your way to win you will realize

9:30 during the debate that opening up is responding very well to those ideas and then what you will focus on is creating an extension out of rebuttal to opening up in order to win opening half depending on what is your opening doing or not doing well you will choose what to run concerning the debate but always remember and this is the primary mindset for an extension Speaker you're trying to win never ask yourself what is my extension ask yourself what should I do

10:00 in order to get the first what should I say that if proven properly will make the judge believe that I am winning this debate and then try to identify that gap and insert yourself into that gap an extension is not a monolithic clearly defined part of your speech an extension it's just a name we have for a contribution which you add whose point is to win the debate so they just focus on thinking what can I do to win rather

10:29 than being like oh my god am I going to be new his contribution to be novel and stuff like that the second part of the extension mindset which is kind of complementary to this is listen to the debate as if you were a judge so imagine that you were listening to opening howl and you were adjudicating you would obviously have some pieces of feedback for them you would obviously identify some things they did wrong and then in

10:56 the away and individual feedback if they would ask you for it you would be like cool I think these were the things you could have done better there's perhaps this other argument you could have ran I think that the there is a potentially more prudent framing that could have helped you this is something that I would have done as a speaker and similar things and obviously we all do this cuz judges so my my advice to you

11:20 guys would be just imagine that you doing this when you are speaking listen to your opening as if you were judging them and trying to find mistakes try to find out what you would give them as feedback if you were indeed judging them what do you think could have made their case stronger were there new arguments it could have ran was there mechanisms that were missing was there a model that was not clearly developed immunise okay

11:45 you can add a model obviously in closing government like a characterization or an explanation of why emotion is likely to pan out the way they claim in it and then do that identify the gaps as if you are dedicating and insert yourself into those gaps I think the same works for the for the opposite bench right if you can find out the things that they did badly if you can find out the things that you would

12:11 have probably advised them to do better these are probably things you want to criticize when you are doing rebuttal to that team but here's then the thing the minds that you should have is let's say a critical mindset of looking for gaps and mistakes identifying gaps and mistakes and then inserting yourself into the strategic position that these gaps and mistakes provide for you this is why very often you hear certain speakers beginning their speeches by saying this is the clash on opening half

12:42 this is why it was let's say I'm comparative what we're going to do for you is resolve this clash or they say things like I'm going to give you reasons why regardless of who wins opening half we're going to win in extension why are they doing this because they are telling me as a judge what is the gap they have identified in the debate into which are going to insert themselves to resolve the clash in their favor the second part comes out

13:09 of them the mindset of let's say an adjudicator trying to critically assess opening half is keep in mind that the primary goal behind an extension is to get the judge to say aha this is what I was missing right this is the reason that I now believe the proposition side of this motion rather than the opposition side of this notion the wow factor the missing link fight so then conversely ask yourself what would make you as a

13:40 judge say that what if you were listening to opening half of the debate and we all didn't do this as adjudicator so you're listening to an opening half and you're like I hope I hope cause he's gonna say this there's such an easier bottle to this argument or opening ask open government clearly miss this characterization right what would you as a judge one to hear what would be the thing that you would want to see in the

14:03 debate it would probably make it easy for you to give the theme at first because it did the one thing that didn't have an answer so far making you confused as a judge or similar things so to sum up these two things I would say one keep in mind that you always want to win and to look for gas your mindset is one of a critical Assessor you're looking for mistakes and then you're seeking to improve those mistakes and

14:30 doing those things that you claim other teams haven't done therefore to conclude the idea of the mindset of the extension speaker you are never without an extension to the extent which nobody is perfect and especially in seven minutes nobody is perfect and the extent which in any debate there is something you can do to win it be it rebuttal reframing mechanizing doesn't matter you are never without an extension consequentially and

15:01 more importantly do not worry about your extension being new you should not be asking yourself the question is my case new because they often can be new not particularly useful not particularly well done you should ask yourself the question can my case win and why I think my case would win if I explained it well because if you can find me a reason why your case wins it's probably also new right because you're giving me a reason

15:31 that given the current context of the debate is the best reason to believe your side which probably that means it's better than what has been done so far which it probably means it's new so if you can answer the question of why I think I would win if I deliver this well and if you can get yourself to be sure that like if I use my minutes while my partner whips me well we're gonna probably take this first

15:54 maybe a second you don't have to worry about probably have an extension you probably do so the question is not is it new the question is does it win and why does it go having this in mind and how you learn about the heeta mindset of the extension speaker speak I would move on to the process of crafting and preparing an extension so first of all is prep time and obviously in prep time the logic of winning the debate applies so

16:23 as with any prep time obviously they all have their specifics will based on whether you're og or well CG Co you want to go into prep them with the idea of wanting to win that debate and trying to identify what will help you do that so the benefit you have been prepping gets close enough is that you do not need to have a well prepared well detailed written down case that you're going to deliver pursue into the debate you have

16:50 factually more than half an hour prep time as closing given your position near the debate what this allows you is to focus your prep time less on coming up with arguments and more on just generally talking about the debate in what I think is most important identifying burdens so I think that the most important part of pressure on as closing a fee is identifying burdens trying to find out what we need to do within the motion in order to win it

17:22 conversely what do we not have to do and what do we not have to do that why is this important because this plays into the idea and into your capability of knowing what are your tasks that you need to fulfill in order to win you come you have more time to devote to things such as specific word by word analysis within motions which very often can be a very good let's say prompt for an extension for example half a motion that

17:53 says that's I think around 7:00 or Cape Town world this house believes that his fate should significantly disincentivize women from having children didn't go through the motion word by word can be like aha there's the world significantly in there significantly implies some pretty hard line in punitive policies we can maybe talk about why this is going to be a disproportional measure between harm a lot of people regardless of what Ordonez or the benefited is going to bring if

18:22 it's a regrets motion you have the luxury of spending more time thinking about the counterfactual thinking about why the counterfactual is likely thinking about different counterfactuals the things may come up with how you're going to respond to each and every one of them if it's a motion about narratives you can spend more time thinking about how the narrative is going to look who is going to push the narrative with the narrative reaches and doesn't we have a lot of time to spend

18:48 on identifying burdens and spending it on characterization so what actors want how far are they willing to go to get what they want what is the current context what's going on in the world regarding this motion why do you think the frame is why do we have to defend what we don't have to tell there's a lot of time that you can spend on doing it that in particular which allows you to prepare very well for the debate because

19:11 it probably means you're going to be able to add the debate very significantly at the point where you know what you have to prove in order to win it and when you know what framework you think the debate operates under because then when you are in the debate and listening to those speeches you can cross-reference what's happening in the debate to your very clearly established idea of burdens that teams have and whether or not they're fulfilling them

19:39 and focus what you're going to say on fulfilling those burdens you can cross-reference what's going on in the debate and how teams characterize the debate to the characterization that you have prepared and you can assess whether or not adding that characterization to debate is going to help you win from extension so I think that prep time in close have should be focused primarily on those two things burden identification and characterization obviously we are going to talk about

20:04 potential arguments you can run but the reason why you should not go incredibly deeply into them or start writing them down or preparing them as if you will deliver them in your speech is obvious because you might not end up running not just because somebody might they him away from you or because they might not be new but because given the debate that may happen they just may not be useful you may realize during the debate

20:25 that responding 200 is the far more useful thing that that new extension on the most vulnerable group that you have and you might abandon the extension don't because it's no longer an accession that was no longer useful in winning and that is again why I think the victory reminds it is very important here because people just tend to run extensions because nobody has taken them obvious like cross list of headlines and it's they took 1 3 & 5 but 2014 I'm

20:50 gonna run to inform if 2 & 4 don't win the debate it that's what you should not turn to inform but that's why the way you think and conceptualize extensions should be the one that focuses on how in particular you win the debate so I think the second thing that's very important for prep in in extensions is discussing various possibilities and I think that this is both a strength and a deficit of being closing out and that is there are

21:18 different ways in which the debate can go especially under this wouldn't energy model sit in a very weird way and well yeah depending on how they do that the limit is going to look one way or the other way depending on the clashes and what arguments and people are going to run whether or not you have successfully predicted what they're going to run the base rate look differently sometimes there are different strategies you can you can take for a debate so it's like

21:47 for example the the open open final of Worlds 2020 so so the redacted final right the motion about great China granting universal suffrage to Hong Kong citizens so one way to run the arc was obviously what older than one and that's to say we're going to have a less hard-line stance we're going to replace the current administration we're going to let's say relax some of the some of the current repression on them but we're not going to give them the code because

22:18 this amount freezes another strategy which would also have one was to go more hardline is say oppression is probably a very efficient tactic we think we should send troops and tanks in the region quell the rebellion like a full hard-line young man 2.0 or whatever so both of these strategies could have been viable they ran one it was useful they could have run the other they still won with it but based on what they had ran opening

22:44 up and will have significantly changed the strategic layout of the debate for both government and was in opposition so what you should do in prep for closing is focused on discovering the possibilities within the debate what are the different strategies the teams could potentially run and how you're going to react if they run one or the other and how do you intend to reconcile your potential framings and characterizations with one or the other

23:14 you can never do this perfectly and now you can ever do this completely in sometimes you will miss and you will not be able to predict what's going to happen but it helps to be prepared for various scenarios this also plays into what I said earlier of never having a predetermined idea what you're going to be running as extension right the last thing I would mention in terms of prep is how to evaluate potential ideas for

23:40 arguments I think that's a good question but you can always ask yourself and I do think this is true just for closing government or closing off any debate is to ask yourself this argument this idea I have let's imagine that they prove it's perfect let's imagine this is the ideal version the ideal form of that argument and I will deliver it exactly the way I have it in my gut what does this do for me what does the

24:07 judge believe after he has completely bought my argument in other words this argument is proven perfectly contributes what specifically to me winning because very often people run arguments that are very well done in terms of analysis within them run arguments based on good content the arguments just end up being very let's say I'm contributed to the debates like very often you can see this happening in an actor debate sometimes

24:39 people so an actor should do X people tend to round the argument off after X is hypocritical if they do this because they themselves have done different things at best and this argument is very often proven very well to prove the doctrines critical data but with examples the question remains why do we care about that very often these arguments and these arguments and end up being just like yes this is true this person has done different things and has

25:04 been moral inconsistent without the adjudicator being sure what is the moral significance of this why this weighs off against other arguments and debate and similar things so people very often tend to run arguments that are within their own frame well done but do not necessarily contribute a lot if they're even if they're proven well so a good question would be if I prove this argument well what does it do for me and I think conversely when you're trying to

25:29 identify burns in the debate that's also a question you can ask which arguments if proven very well our debate winning arguments here and then when you're starting to discuss the substantive additions to debate the mechanisms the actual content you can focus the content building more on arguments or on broader clashes and not necessarily governmental or pushes that are going to be debate winning and debate deciding and therefore be more ready to add at the

26:01 point where when you are in the debate so those are the three things that I would emphasize in terms of prep a question I would like to answer here because the thing this is probably where it fits the most is a question I was asked regarding the specific knowledge that the members have and whether or not it is better to have the extension speaker be the one who knows more about the motion so I guess this depends a lot

26:28 both on the debate and on preferences of team so one question would be how comfortable is the person who is usually the extension with speaking with and how comfortable the whip is with speaking extension because if people have very strong preferences in terms of positions and have not for example delivered a competitive whip speech in two years this probably means that they're going to underperform if they were to deliver the whip especially since they already claim that they do not know a lot about

26:56 the motion the person who knows that case if they had to be an extension would struggle with the role of the extension and therefore will not be able to weaponize their knowledge correctly so I would say we have strong preferences for staying extension or staying with you should probably do that and prioritize that the second thing is I guess it depends a lot on will be paid so first of all on your assessment of how strong your potential opponents are

27:21 who is the strongest team in the room and whether it would strategically help you in any way to switch so whether or not is it's important that the person who is delivering the extension has more knowledge or do you think that them just delivering a premade extension from their partner to be sufficient to win the debate that depends on the positions of things in the round so I guess if if your strongest opponent is closing up

27:46 and you're closing government I would then probably suggest the person who knows more be the whip because they would have to respond to the strongest team in the room so that depends on your strategic assessment of the situation in the room but they also think a similar argument can be made for the more knowledgeable person being the way right because I mean then this is what we said this is not not universe experience and this any difference between things and

28:09 this is what me and my long-term partner Walker used to do so I don't I really really don't know me Connor I don't like econ especially microeconomics it's just like very very hard for me to find my way in these motions Lauro new econ very well but what people do the prep would mostly look like me asking questions so I would always try to draw general presumptions about the motion that's which is like okay if I'm understanding

28:39 this correctly if after X does Y Z will happen is that true and like yeah or not I'll try to understand things about the debate and then after I would clear up what was let's say missing from my knowledge after I would have only some general presumptions I could operate out there we would start prepping our case obviously when we were closing we would not have a clearly find case we would have various ideas if I can run but it's

29:05 mostly lower explain to me how these things would look and how the argument pan out if we were to write I would deliver the section I would ask him to tell me some things I necessarily have to say and if he wants me to say them in those specific words I would say tell me the specific way the exact way in which you want me to say that how deliberate extension and then he would be wick

29:28 because given that he knew more about the motion he was the one who had to be the responsive speaker he was the one who had to compare our gauge to other Dean's so to us it made more sense apart from the talent we did have a strong preference for extension and for it which is my first point it made more sense for us that given his knowledge he would be the one doing the responding whereas I was more comfortable

29:51 delivering what was explained to me rather than weaponizing the case whereas other teams at the point where I was unsure how different arguments were making isms interact was in a type of motion I'm not particularly comfortable under so I think there is a compelling argument for both the more knowledgeable person well first we're going second as I said I think it depends on the preference of the two teammates depends on a specific debate in a specific

30:15 motion so I think the level of knowledge here here matters so sometimes you have motions where both partners don't really know a lot but somewhat just knows a little bit more you have motions where some of you knows a lot of young but the other person still knows like the basics that can probably find their way so that's also consideration the positions in the room and where your strongest opponents are also a consideration I think that's the way these are the

30:39 frameworks and probably questions that you should assess assess a position now let's talk about what happens during the debate when you enter the room and you sit down another CG or scale so the first thing I would say is listen to the debate and this is being me being repetitive want to sit at the beginning but I will emphasize this a number of times from the stock listened to the debate and I would also say listen more

31:09 right the less be very attentive to the premises of the arguments be very attempted to what things claim that their mechanisms are be very attempted to the impact that they claim their contributions and what they base the likelihood these impacts on listen carefully to the opposite bench to hear their if they're conceding anything implicitly without being sure of that be very careful when

31:39 you're listening to what everyone is saying and try to identify the gaps as we've said earlier but do not go into a debate panicking because if you go into a debate panicking writing down everything everyone is saying Crossing down monocular crossing out maniacally all of your headlines because someone smashed them you'll probably end up taking the third or fourth not because you could not have done better but because you focus too much on the fear of not being new and

32:06 focusing on what things have done well and what they have taken away from you rather than focusing on why they have probably potentially not done that well in 14 minutes there is no case that can be done perfectly so even if you're not sure you have no idea what you're doing you think that you don't have any any case or any contribution listen listen and identify what the what teams have been doing wrong so this happened to me

32:34 and my partner so essence open 2019 around 5:00 was this household legalized old trucks so we were closing up and we didn't really have all that much going into into the debate so our prep was very chaotic is the last round determines the break we personally both lean towards golf in that motion we thought it was a bit of heavy it was hard for us to think to think of material for office fashion clothing golf we were like yeah whatever we say

33:00 or anything I was probably gonna say it and when the debate was almost empty papers but then the prime minister stands up and they start running a case and it's primarily based on choice an agency and they have a case that talks about how this is an expression of people's choice if we were to legalize drugs people could freely without legal pressure choose how they want to express their desires what kind of physical sensations they want to experience that

33:31 they should do this because it's bodily autonomy that's pretty well done bodily autonomy case and then what we decided to one was a case that would completely destroy the idea of agency not just through claiming are the obvious this is this is not a free choice because you get ten in Charsadda we ran a whole expansion talking about how if you were to legalize business kind of amount of government in that debate if you were to legalize this if

33:58 this were like marketed commercially like alcohol or cigarettes would probably have a huge a huge marketing industry we probably have a lot of money being funneled on making this attractive to people on covering up or just like say putting aside the negative negative side effects that probably be a a commercial incentive to make these things more addictive because its market but there's a profit incentive yada yada yada but that extension is not something we had going into the room we decided to

34:25 run that extension when we heard the Prime Minister and we communicated to each other cool let's try to find out the maximum possible number of reasons why this is not going to be a free choice what are all the factors that make this not just a commerce chase but than bad words to us and that was the entirety of our extension but that came from the minds into finding out what we have to do to win we listened to the opening

34:50 government and to how most oo started to respond and we realized that the team that wins the debate is going to be the team that wins the classmates and we were like cool what can we do to win the clash agency and then we started like training ideas discussing writing stuff down i've asking my paper and I'll be like should I run this you know from this yeah the other but the logic came from listening to the debate attentively

35:15 the second thing I would say is have a clearly defined method of writing your extension and this is this depends on walking practice right so especially if you're a novice it'll probably take a lot of time for you to finally find out what type of note-taking suits you best and what type of notetaking you're most comfortable with but this generally means having a way to prepare your extension and have your extension ready in time for your speech so the way

35:48 I do this is if I'm closing government I start during the PM if I'm closing opposition I start writing during gala so here I want to answer a question that was asked in before before the election regarding how do you not miss things said in DPM and diello if you're focusing too much of preparing your case these themes can say something new which which would either take away your extension and make it not new and you would not be aware of

36:19 this you can miss something the opposite side has said and I'll be able to rebut it so the answer to this is communicate within your team and have a clear division of labor so the way I do this when I'm starting to write my extension for example during EPM I tell my partner I will be writing my extension I will not be listening very attentively now please listen to this speech and tell me immediately if they are saying something

36:49 important and if you think I should listen to this so I think that solves a lot of problems things having communicating in general and that is give roles and tasks to each other if one person is writing the extension the other person should listen also obviously if I am member of government and Biello is speaking I will not be giving pure lies so I will tell my partner please give be your wise ask me if you're unsure what you want to give us a

37:17 pure lie but you are in charge of Pio eyes now because I am preparing my case so the solution to this is relying on your partner to inform you if there is something is attentively listen I always had the the let's say bird in the luxury of having partners I completely trusted and therefore I was always very comfortable just focusing on my extension when I was writing it so I see communication is very and I say I would

37:45 say communication is also key in terms of determining what you're going to run because obviously when you hear the debate you have to communicate with your partner why do you think the best strategy is so you hear oh gee and hero and you have to talk to them about okay what do you think we should run are we running this argument I am unsure whether this debate it wins as the debate do you think we should still run it yes or no

38:11 cool what do you want to be art what do you want our frame to be how do you want me to frame this what do you think we need to prove obviously you cannot talk very openly like you practice you're in a debate you want to make noise but have a method of communication some people prefer to write to each other and that's fine some people can be silent enough as to not disturb others in the

38:29 room and that's fine some people like to use the time in between speeches to talk to each other and communicate and it's also fine but you need to make sure your partner knows what your extension is and that your partner is okay with what your extension is but you just don't tell them before your speech cool and then run these three things just listen to me and trust me this usually doesn't work they shouldn't know what you are running as

38:52 an extension and you should communicate this to them one exception of this is if there is something that you guys know you need to prove and you or something you know you need to report and you know how you're going to report this you have a good analysis for this but in a that's too long for a parent to explain to explain to you can tell your partner but you have to flag this explicitly because you obviously know that you have to do

39:15 this to win a debate you can tell them okay I know how I'm going to do this I have an analysis for this keep in mind I cannot explain this to you now it's too long this is the part of my speech you should listen to when I swear I flag that I'm doing this you should listen to me but this is also something you should communicate your partner if that happens so communicate communicate communicate to me I think that solves a lot of the

39:37 problems no pleasantly if there's thing I think matters for for what happens during the debate is that you should also develop a good writing style in terms of the way you write your notes and this starts to spill over a little bit into efficient delivery so I think the first thing I want to talk about here is rebuttal so a couple of things regarding your book in terms of how you write your rebuttal down the first thing I would say is try

40:10 to integrate rebuttal as much as possible why because your primary role is the extension speaker is to delay over your material you should obviously also be responsive to other teams but but very often happens to people is they spent too much time on extraneous rebuttal and start introducing their extensions at like 400 or later Sagra people if you're watching this I'm warning you don't do that your coach is

40:40 always watching so yeah people start delivering their extensions too late therefore they do not have time to develop their extensions the problem is it's very often the material we have in your extension is also implicitly responsive to the other team and you did not necessarily need the extraneous rebuttal so I would say when you're writing after extension be conscious of what parts of your extension are also responding to the other team and then flag them as such tell me when you

41:12 really have delivered one such part this also responds to this idea of promoting rock and tell me why it responds this response disappear from opening up because it explains that the premise for their mechanism is not true because of my analysis on whatever you were talking about tell me tell me flag me that it's response that also tell me why and how it responds the other way to integrate the bottle is the input Roboto in between different substantive parts in

41:39 your of your speech so if they're not integrated in the sense that you're responding with your case but you're inputting Roboto let's say in between two of your arguments where that robot just structurally makes the most sense so you deliver an argument and up has an argument that if proven would probably disprove your argument and then you're like cool I have now explained this argument but let's see what obsessed with this they have these three things

42:02 we respond like this and then you move on to the next argument but I would say this is generally a more efficient technique than having a lot of extraneous rebar always sometimes you cannot avoid having extraneous rebuttal but I think integration is the more efficient way to go in terms of how you do this so you need to develop a very efficient writing style this works very differently for different people because different people have different purposes

42:28 the way I do this is through color coding when I start to write my speech I write the substantive bars in my speech in blue and they're write widely enough that I can write in between lines or I can like have like small arrows but like point different parts of my paper and similar things and then the stuff that is responsive stuff that's Roboto tablets reframing ayah write it in red and I visually input it on the part of

43:01 my paper that corresponds the part of my speech and we'll talk about my paper is essentially a flow of my speech it begins so I have one paper or two papers Max and I write everything I'm going to say in the order in which I'm going to say it and then I input the rebuttals or the framings or whatever in red at the points where I think they're most suitable I literally input a red line of

43:26 Roboto in the middle of my argument if this is where I'm going to flag the time now also responding to the opposite batch so I do this through one having a structure of writing which is in order and to I do is to color coding so when I reach something that's red the color red immediately notifies me that I should flag this is being responsive or just flag this is being reframing and similar things obviously you're going to change

43:56 your noting style and you'll notice tile is going to differ based on what your preferences are speaker some people have to have ten different papers some people have like one words on one paper some people don't use notes I've seen that happen too so it depends on what your preference is our speaker but I would say this is generally my advice for it be writing stuff the final thing I'll talk about here is when you are going

44:23 out to deliver your extension have a plan for victory what does this mean when you are deciding but something is your extension your reasoning behind that should not be I am running this because nobody has run it so far and hoping that the judge concludes it is the most important thing no there's two questions to ask yourself 1 why should the judge care about your contribution let's say it's new it's definitely an extension nobody can deny

44:54 that this is something you brought to the table and nobody did before why should we care why is this contribution something that matters in the debate and two I know I've already said this but then again I said that we would repeat all these important things very often how does your contribution if proven well bring you the debate so when you're going up to deliver your extension speech you need to be able to answer the question how do I intend to win what is

45:24 my plan for victory what do I intend to do within this room to win and I think this is a good practice also for extensions when you're practicing in your societies if you're coaching this what you can ask your debaters 3 debaters basically you're trying to try to implement when you're assessing a potential extension ask yourselves why does this win if improve it well why does this win because very often when I ask debaters cool what would you run as

45:53 expansion of them how I would run these three things then I ask them why would you run them and they're like I guess cuz it's new but that's not the answer right the answer is I would run this because it out frames opening half I would run this because I think there is one if for cg there's one big challenge from oh wow oh gee never responds if we take down this challenge from oh whoa we take down probably most things

46:16 on opening half I'm running this because og is claiming a huge impact they have one line of mechanism I'm going to give them the mechanism you need to have a reason why you're running something apart from it being new and I would say treated as a prohibited reason if the reason why you're running it is new come up with a different reason you need to have a debate related strategic reason why you're running as an extension and

46:38 this starts to answer the question that I was asked in the forum before the talk how do you frame your extension right or how do you deliver analysis extensions the answer to the questions I have just mentioned will become parts of your speech I will also reference this later in more detail but the answers to the questions of why you think you win and why you think for example an analysis extension why you think your mechanism is key should also become a

47:08 part of your speech or you will explicitly tell me I think this mechanism is key because here is the part of the opening government case that doesn't work without the mechanism we give you the characterization of the process and how it works of the incentives of the actors within the process therefore our case is necessary for the ogee case to work the answers of your strategic plan for victory which answers the questions of why the judge should care about your

47:36 contribution and wire contribution is a winning one if proven well should also become explicit sentences that you say in your speech when comparing your contributions to other things both in the extension and the last thing and this is what I will end with like 10 or 15 minutes is your speech so a couple of advice in terms of how to deliver your speech the first thing and this also answers one of the questions I was given

48:04 before the year before the lecture and this is this I think a sub question within one of the questions how do you start your speech so what to do with your introduction how to best use your introduction I would say dive straight in what does this mean you want to be saying things that you want the judge to be writing down ideally as soon as possible because this simply makes you more time-efficient and

48:35 I think this is particularly true for ESL speakers right one of the disadvantages of ESL speaker is you have a smaller vocabulary sometimes have to think of a sentence and like phrase tendons in your head before speaking it doesn't come naturally and you say less words per minute the way you make up for this is starting to be relevant from your first second you want every sentence you say ideally to be something that has a role in the debate and

49:01 something that the judge will write it down rather than just a rhetorical introduction you can always frame your introduction in a rhetorically pleasing manner but I would say always try to use it for something you is important a couple of stock or generic examples of this are the primary mistake from our closing up the primary mistake of opening opposition is that they do not realize people do not work in the way they do there are four

49:29 reasons why incentives do not work the way plus the open opposition says or the thing that is lacking in this debate is a characterization of how the world looks like an I don't know don't know about integration Afghanistan let's characterize Afghanistan for a moment and this can be let's characterize Afghanistan for a moment in literally your opening sentence so as they try to open with something that is relevant and try to open with something that is

49:54 useful in setting the strategic terrain for your speech things like identifying the gap in oak in the in V in the opening half part of the debate but you need to insert yourself into things like pointing out the primary mistake or the primary misconception of the opposite bench things like pointing out a key piece of framing a key piece of characterization that you're going to use a reference to out your entire speech use your intro immediately you

50:23 use it for something that contributes and try to make that something that set the strategic terrain for the debate in whatever way I think this simply makes you more time efficient and gives you some unless it's unlike extra valuable seconds in order to deliver everything you want to deliver the second thing is regarding Ripa so I talked a lot about integrating robot already so I will not repeat that one thing I will add here is not more things that are out here the

50:54 first one is division of labor works here as well it's a very often the reason why extensions start very late is because as I said people tend to do a lot of extraneous remodel and they lose valuable time for an extension the and that happens because they try to respond well you don't have to respond practically as the extension you want to try and identify two or three main premises right two or three general thoughts and light motifs from the

51:22 opposite bench that you want to respond to things that make up the crux of their case key premises or key mechanisms you have to respond to all of the examples all of the sub points or secondary points your whip is the responsive speaker you should use the opportunity to delegate Roboto explicitly to your whip tell them I will not have time to respond to this you have to respond to this and you can tell them that before

51:50 the extensions speech so they know in advance what they will have to prepare responses to I and I think this communication also works after the extension speech after you sit down tell your whip this is something I did not have time to develop try to whip it more or try to add some analysis but I did not have time to add and try to frame it as rebuttal you know I usual tactic if you want to add things

52:18 away you try to frame them as Roboto and tell the child is actually responsive to something and stuff like this so communicate your with even after your speech what did you not have time to do what do you want them to do what did you try to respond to but if you didn't do adequately with the PIO I catch you up guard tell your whip I would like you to have another response this pyb just think my response will not be sufficient

52:39 but communicate your partner and give them tasks second thing I will arrive here when you are doing rebuttal integrated or not if your rebuttal is novel and if it is refuting the other side in a way that has not happened and opening say it notify the judge but your Roboto is responding in a different way maybe things like notice this is the most efficient piece of rebuttal in this debate because all the rebuttals until

53:11 now have tried to show you that impacts will not happen we have shown you for example but even if impacts happen here this is still that there's a stock or generic example of how you do this notify the judge from the rebuttal is new thoroughly in terms of delivery and this again the boil boil boil down into the question about how do you deliver now suspensions have your frame rate mentions you need to tell the judge why

53:35 you think you are contributing meaningfully why is it that your arguments should out way other arguments there are different ways you will hear speakers do this you will sometimes say we think we win because Toronto rcg we think that oh-oh-oh-oh poses a very legitimate challenge doji would you never respond so their problem is 200 but we beat over and we'll beat openly half does respond better the second sometimes you'll hear

54:07 speakers say we win because we were the only team in this debate to actually give you a characterization everyone is talking about an intervention in Syria all of their injured all of their arguments are premise on their preconceptions of how Syria works which they assert but never prove so given that we are the only team that tells you how Syria or Afghanistan or Iraq or any other usual IR actor China usually works we are the ones who tell you what the

54:35 incentives there are given it were the only thing to do this other things cannot win without either being based on our contribution or simply being wrong because they have wrong conception of how the debate works sometimes you will hear speakers say we win because we took the best case of government or the best case of opposition let's imagine that their impacts really do happen let's imagine that the mechanism really does let's imagine the world looks exactly

55:05 like Ana tell us we will show you how we feel their frame we still win the debate the reason why we're winning is because we want within the frame of the opposing team sometimes people will say we win because we gave you the mechanism for this everyone runs the impact of I don't know we will save more children nobody tells you how saving children works we give you the mechanism therefore also the likelihood by peaceful work

55:29 therefore because our case is necessary for other cases to work we win sometimes people will just run new arguments and then they will weigh these arguments off against other arguments on various metrics they will say my argument is most important in the debates because it deals with the most vulnerable group my argument is the most important debate because it impacts the largest number of people my argument is most important in the debate because other other impacts

55:56 but they happen marginally so they are so they can be neglected my argument is the only argument has a non margin Linda so as you see there are many ways in which you can wear your arguments in case off against the other the other teams there is no one formula to do it the one thing that you always have to do you have to say it you first have to come up with the reason why you think

56:18 your extension wins this what I said earlier and then both in the extension and in the web you should flag it tell the judge explicitly why your extension should win ideally and I think this is a good rule of thumb you should be telling the judge what you want to hear from the judge and boa you want the judge to say I felt that this team won because I felt that they were the only ones who truly tackled

56:48 this claim from all if that's what you want to hear from the judge and that's what you think you're doing you should say that you're doing that we think we're beating this is winning this debate because we're the only ones back of this fight from all tell the judge what you want me to repeat later and deal away I think that's that's a good way to phrase it and also lastly in terms of the this this analysis

57:11 extension question because I think this is very important because in in a lot of strong rooms most often you will not be running it so if you have things that are breaking topic yours and roles in your room there's probably not going to be a general basic accessible argument that they did not think of and so this means that most top debates or most good Ebates well are one on two things there

57:44 one on having better analysis do they're one way in terms of analysts what how do you announce extensions identify the gap so an argument may be good an argument may be persuasive may be delivered by an excellent speaker that's 94 but he spoke for seven minutes nobody can deliver a perfect argument in seven minutes there have to be something he didn't do there have to be some reasons simply do not have time to

58:14 mention there have to be some things he glossed over look at his speech as if you were judging him and find the things that he did not do perfectly because by the law of nature there have to be things people know the perfect it's a good room probably opposition has responded and they have probably also responded well there is definitely going to be something opposition is also going to prove because DPM is not going to respond perfectly to everything

58:43 opposition says so you can find thing that opposition said and has probably proven government did not respond too well and you can respond to those things there are always things speakers haven't done a lot of the reason why people lose out in good rooms or higher rooms and data forth is not because they're too bad for that room and very often the top speakers they everyone fears of these good speakers there the legend of debating most often they don't give 84

59:10 speeches especially I can in rounds you like round 4 you come hang where people come hungover to a debate or its round one you haven't spoken English in like two months and stuff like this people with a muscle but they win because other teams are afraid of them because before the debate starts other teams going to debate with the mindset of these people are so good everything they say is so correct I cannot say anything to this

59:32 and then they forget to listen to what is being said and find the team's make mistakes I mean this may be a harsh thing to say but you do not have that words they had team they have team codes and stuff like this we were very often surprised that about regarding the actual strength of the team but ran an argument it's really bad because when we saw what which institution they were from and we saw their names we knew that when we saw

60:04 that the team name right-wing quit when we saw where they were from we knew that it was a strong institution we knew these people broke like majors and there are very good debaters in that one debate so we had a bad argue and this happens to everyone every excellent debater will run a bad argument sometimes and they will never run a perfect art so this is something that I think I have to remember and lastly of the weighing

60:28 thing I think this just like boils down into what I said about different ways in which you can so sure why aren't even is important I think that when you're running an analysis extension you need to explain why the specific that not just like find the gap find something that didn't do but try to come up with a reason regardless of whether you truly believe in it are but try to come up with a metric that you can try to sell

60:50 to the judge as this is the reason why this one specific thing they didn't do is the most important one try to find a measure that suits you there are many different metrics in debates and maybe it'll work maybe it won't but try to find a metric that suits you and that you think may win you the debate if you think that you really really really really don't have any such I don't think that's ever really happened but if you

61:15 think you truly don't have an extension be strategically of we're aware of what you can do it in the world so the winning strategy then becomes the let's take the max amount of point strategy so if you think you truly to have nothing over og and let's it's an out run the og surely true let's find a way how to beat both ups and go through a second but this is also we have to communicate to

61:37 your partner okay partner what do we do do we try do sell this as the next something very new as an extension and hope that it works or do we focus primarily on responsiveness and try to take down both teams from the opposite bench which is also a legitimate strategy right because in doing so you can probably take a second if you do it well and there is a chance the judge may conclude that your rebuttal is better

62:03 than opening through box and the opening is remarkable and may just consider this as a reason to put you first however they was very important even when you're choosing that strategy when you're choosing to be responsive to the opposite bench to take a second you still want to flag what you're doing as an extension because one it's actually is you're giving new rebuttal but two you still want to have some comparisons you're opening for that small chance

62:30 that you take the first you want to say my rebuttal is new and better because it responds to these important things Mauri bother is new as it takes the best case of the other side so even if you're running the respond to everything take the second strategy you still want to frame this as being an important addition and I mean there are a couple of stock strategies that you will see how people weigh up their extensions I mean one of the

62:57 things you very often see is the everything is uncompetitive accept my argument strategy so that's what I whatever closing opposition won for example in the Zagreb open euros final in 2014 there was this motion on whether or not feminists should support interventions that claim to further women's rights closing up came and said look pretty much everything that this debate talked about is on comparative feminism as a movement has very small amount of influence on whether or not an

63:28 intervention happened nobody will ask the feminist movement what they think about this intervention and whether and whether or not they want it happen the feminist movement probably cannot impact foreign policy and all of this is on comparative the only comparative thing is the thing we think them listen do you have capital these are issues related to the everyday lives and experienced women things like maternity leave things like the pay gap things like abortion rights and the freedom of choice for women the

63:57 only comparative in this debate is how choosing the side in this intervention supporting it or opposing it is going to affect the perception of the feminist movement and how it's going to thank their capital to act in spaces where they actually have the capital track the intervention exam comparative the only thing that's comparative is the perception that's one strategy rah rah and trying to explain that all the other contributions are marginal far from yours people sometimes run I think this

64:24 is a good way to compare your principles people sometimes run the comparative off I have this principal arguments here and the reason why I think it's the most important one because this principle stands regardless of the practical this is a very good generic way to compare your principles and that is to say I mean a grant that you have truly proven it and granted that it is not actually contingent on the practical you say the reason why I think this principle is

64:49 important is because regardless of who wins the practical clash and regardless of whether impacts happen or not this principle will always stand so it stands regardless of how you judge the other clashes sometimes team will say we win because we give the correct characterization so again it comes down to just like they're not being a correct formula for winning but to rather that you need to identify the specific context of the debate and do what you have to wait or what you think

65:16 should win the last two things I would add just like small suggestions or or things I want to point out that do not fit well into the other heads I talked about so one is what do you do if you think you're knifing so very often opening government or opening ball goes haywire you're on a rope case they run a strategy which is not necessarily prudent and then they even say explicitly AHA closing has to follow

65:44 this everyone to not knifeless when you do that so think a very easy way for you to get out of this it's just doing even if analysis or we are taking the framework of the opposite side analysis so you can say is we agree with opening up this is probably how the debate looks but even if this were not how the debate looks let's take a characterization that is more charitable to walk even if this is not how the

66:14 debate works we will give you an extension that is valid even in a different world so your frame it doesn't even if or if obviously so Okochi o goes rogue or response to og what you can say is we will take the framework of oh oh we think Oh G is correct and they have the best framework in the world but what we're going to do in our strategy of winning is that we will take the

66:38 framework of opening opposition we will assume that the opposition framework is correct and we will then win within their framework by doing that you have not just framed yourself out of nightly you have also given a very valid reason why our extension to maybe win because you're taking the world of the Opposition you're being charitable to the off you're taking their best case and you are including your extension within that world so raise it as an even if even if the world

67:08 look differently even if we assume a position is correct even if were more charitable block I will give a case that is valid even in that situation I think that's a good wake up wake and lastly in terms of how to be more time efficient to be delivering your extension very often people want to deliver every single new bit of analysis that they have like they have for sub-points under an argument like for sabah mechanisms three of them are very new the fourth is

67:37 like partially new it was mentioned by OG cg will expand on that and that's a contribution it's less important than the first three in those situations cut the marginally new things so if you have a lot of content it have a bunch of stock we have the same seven minutes and you know that a lot of it is very relevant very new and you know that if done well it will bring the debate cut the marginal additions you don't have to

68:08 run everything that is new if running something would take 20 seconds of your lives for you to add a margin which was a point from og and those 20 seconds would have been spent on running one stop pointless but explaining a more new and more important stuff going better cut do less things more efficiently and that would be my advice let cool this is generally the end of what I want to say I will now look at the questions the

68:37 organizers have been kind very kind and are transmitting the questions from YouTube to me here so let me just see what's going on okay so the first question if what do you do it opening explains most of your arguments with learned with analysis and

69:07 you're left with less important material well there are two things you can do one is you can still try to win by outweighing their positive contributions debate you can try and frame the things that you have in a let's say important way you try to find a reason why the things you are left with are more important how they are what I think is probably the more prudent thing to do is trying to see what you can do in terms

69:38 of responding to the other side because in doing so worst case scenario if you respond very efficiently you will take a second but best case scenario if you if you add a new rebuttal and you probably will be adding at least some lyric bottle and if you remember to try to frame this new rebuttal as also being the reason why you extend over your opening things I talked about why your a bottle matters more why your a bottle answers the

70:04 stronger case from the other side why your a bottle tackles the more important premises you may even think up first so this boils down to one s at the beginning of the talk about looking at the entire debate as a whole so it's not just about comparing yourself to your opening and crossing noting that your opening has said there are two themes opposite you there are probably ways in which you can react to those two things

70:28 and at least try to take a second but also frame your reaction to those themes as being a reason why you may also take a first so I would say choose the response its strategy and you can try to integrate the so you said that you are left with some material but lesser quality material let's say you can try to integrate this material that you are left with into your responses so you can deliver both the nura bottle and

70:52 everything that you're left with you will worse case scenario be responsive to the themes on the office bench hopefully not like a fourth probably take a second if you're good enough to responding but if you also and this is you should never forget this even if you think you're taking the fourth always still try to explicitly wear self against other teams and try to give some reason as to why you are more info than that if you do not forget to wait

71:15 especially because in many debate debates other things won't forget to play you may even have a chance of taking a first with a kind of strategy see what else so how do we how do we know what other things did wrong okay here I guess the answer is there is no clear way there is no quickly or formula freitas that are in the drawing I would say just rely on your intuition so

71:48 obviously when you're judging what you're doing is trying to assess what other teams did wrong and you do this through the application of you know the same logic you would apply very efficient in real life just debates are very stressful and then it's harder for you to do that I think it's just the basic logic off they're saying this will happen let's see if they really gave us reasons why that would happen they're saying the world looks like this hmm

72:16 does it really let's try to examine this or there's this argument from all they responded to it but I feel like they did that very flippantly like just like 15 seconds burns it off let's see this argument from off has merit and actually warrants a better response so I think you would do the same thing that you usually do as a judge just like look at arguments assess what could have been done better so but when you are judging

72:42 you ranked teams based on who did something better than oddity and you give comparative reasons this argument took down that argument because it explains something better than that argument I think the same process happens here but also think the application of logic that you would usually apply very efficiently we have a point with your friends when you were just like listen to your friend blabbering about some and be like dude I really don't buy that I just nothing the

73:07 world works that way I think you should apply the same type of scrutiny to arguments you're hearing debates just like look at what they've said and ask yourself the question is this really true did they give me reasons why this is true did they ignore things they have to respond to I think that's what you should focus on I think the reason why I'm using the dodging analogy so much is because you can phrase you can you can phrase and

73:32 frame the way you're doing this in a very simple sentence and that is even had to give feedback to this theme what would I tell them what do I think they could have done better if I would have to if like obviously in in debates not everyone is first so the teams could not take first in this room so you obviously so you're closing off and you're looking at opening half and you think oh I always beat emoji why is the ho beating

73:56 oh gee probably because we made some mistakes then you can use those mistakes to respond Poggi yourself I think this is the way in which evaluating debates can work for you more free okay let's see what else okay so the easier question one question is how do you select regular extension

74:26 speaker a regular wave speaker I again there is no clear pattern for you to do that depends on a couple of things one it depends on practice so if you're a novice speaker you will probably want to do more tournaments try out different roles you want to try to be an extension you want to try to be a whip seaweed roll suits you better which role you're more comfortable in the second thing which widget depends on

74:50 is who your partner is so if you have a slight preference for being an extension but you're also fine with with and your partner has an extremely strong preference for being extension because they speak extension for speaker points better than speaking the whip then they should be the extension you should be the whip but this depends on the communication with your partner and communicating what's comfortable to each of you and what's role you want to be

75:15 fulfilling and what role you want to be if you want to be having in the team I think it also depends on whether or not you want to have a regular role some people just are comfortable with both and then they switch based on the debate and they will speak extension twice speak whip twice in a tournament and stuff like this so there is no clear rule what I would say as advice is try to experiment especially like training

75:44 debates or at your society's weekly weekly sessions try to debate with different partners try yourself out in different roles see what suits you better and communicate with your pardon but what suits them better and then make a strategic decision as to which layout is going to maximize the value of you both in which type of strategic positioning are you likely to exude the largest amount of strategic usage for your team and where you're most likely

76:15 to think that you are doing win anyway and lastly we have a question how do I avoid nuances from closing half in order to win a debate I'm not sure exactly what was meant by avoid nuances I will so that the logic behind his question was noticing nuances so finding out the specific nuances parts of the debate that are very important for you in order

76:47 to win finding out the specific like gaps the specific niches into which you can insert your extension in order to make the winning one I think the answer to this is listen to the debate and this is something I've said a lot of times during this talk listen to the debate and evaluate what you are hearing critically because no speech is going to do everything perfectly and I know I've said this a hundred times but I think

77:16 it's very important to stress and it's also something can reduce the amount of fear and anxiety we have going into the room no speech does everything perfectly and speakers make mistakes therefore the way to notice new ones is to one be very attentive while listening and two to have a mindset that you can win and this is something goes far beyond just the logic of extension speakers miss is like a small pep talk I can maybe end with this is look all good

77:48 things even the most legendary things were worlds yours eternal Alisa they're excellent debaters but none of you is intellectually disadvantaged compared to them you are just as smart you are just as capable and you are just as good the only advantage they have over you is experience they know the format better they've been in this game very long they have learned how to phrase their ideas in strategically couldn't wait they have

78:18 seen many motions many times may have stopped and template cases which shortens their prep time but believe me nothing magical happens in the prep time of a good team and you will probably as someone debating other second or third tournament come up with the same ideas of what the general clashes in the debate and with the same ideas of which arguments should win the debate is proven as the top team in your room that you are very afraid of the differences

78:46 in experience but not in in time but then the way to beat good teams is to remind yourself of this is to remind yourself but they have off days very often that even if you don't have an off day they will not do their speech perfectly they will say something that is illogical something will remain on the level of an assertion something will be able to be criticized because they have 14 minutes and cannot do everything

79:13 perfectly but if you enter the room thinking that you're necessarily going to lose have anxiety because I'm debating against these people then you are likely to lose but not because you're bad but because you lost before we enter the room do not take the fourth mentally going into room you always want to take the first your logic should be what can I do to be these people let's listen to them attentively let's find out what they're doing wrong

79:37 let's find out where they're making mistakes and lastly everything a good way for you to phrase this because I know a lot of people have this fear what would you think is which I'm sorry to hear cause I don't think people should be afraid of that and I don't think anyone will judge me in that way the people fear are you being by getting embarrassed in a good room or running a bad case and what people will think of

80:00 them if you run within a framework of you know oh my god I'm debating against this good team they have such reputation they stand to lose a lot more than you do because if you're an obviously you lose against this famous team no but it's going to be like why did you lose to this famous team but if you if you are approaching this from the perspective of oh my god they have a huge reputation and we have a lot more to lose than you

80:28 do because if they lose to you haha they have to justify themselves now right whereas if you lose to them if there are reputable team from reputable institution you can just say go I'll try again next time but I think that's what you have to keep in mind and I think a lot of the answer to your question but how do you notice nuances in closing half is listen but also listen while truly believing that you can win because

80:51 people very often miss things end up not having extensions not explaining stuff because they go into they make thinking that they have nothing or will have nothing then in feedback when I tell them look this thing made this obvious mistake but you're gonna exploit that they were like oh yeah we didn't notice that so I think that's a very important piece of advice I would leave everyone with believing yourselves more and know that there is no such thing as a famous

81:18 theme which is necessarily better and smarter than you more experienced yes not smarter they make mistakes find those mistakes you can take a first and have a favorite memory of the bait never memorable debate actual very gladly marry that will remember I think that's it engines the question such as goes it in one more time to see if I've mentioned everything yeah cool so that should be all the questions if there are no other questions now then thanks

81:50 everyone was listening for coming to this workshop I really do hope that you found it useful I hope that this is something that's going to help you to have any questions or if anything was left unclear I would sincerely ask you to message me on Facebook so my name is the one you can see on zoom' apart from the CA part I stupidly forgot to remove it after class tournament but yeah so tink pool which is my is my name of it

82:19 as well you can contact me on facebook messenger I will be very glad to answer any of your questions at any point in time so that'll be all for me thank you all for being here and see you here you sometime hopefully at euros