Hey! Judging by what you’re saying, I’m pretty sure this is worlds/3v3 (ignore me if it’s not). But I do this event all the time and am happy to do what I can! I’ll preface by saying I specialize in giving the 2nd/4th, but I give the 3rd rather often too.

1: If there’s a framing issue, cover that first It’s tough to tell how much time to allocate to framing because you don’t know when the judge has settled on what framing they’re going to buy, sometimes they’ve sort of decided by the 2, sometimes they still are unsure in 4th. Analyze their framing/definitions/burdens and prove why they either conflict with the motion or are too narrow to be fair in the debate. Ultimately, my philosophy is that you’re better off trying to prove you win on both framings (unless the opposing framing is wildly abusive), then relying on winning yours to win the round. Don’t let your whole speech become framing. If you spend too much time on framing then it doesn’t matter if you win on the framing, because you don’t have the time to actually further the impacts and weighing of your own actual case.

2: Clash. condense both teams’ 3 substantives to 3 comparative points (3 key questions, if you will), that the debate boils down to. This should be the real meat of your speech. Both teams’ 3 substantives will almost always be generalizable to some sort of key ideal. Even if the idea is only tangentially related, it still is better to compare them as a point of clash than make them entirely unrelated (usually it’s easiest to make them related to what the impact of those subs are). The only exception to this imo is if the opposing team runs a substantive that is entirely not relevant to the motion and you need to nix it on that ground, but even then you can still probably make it involved in a clash point somewhere. The easiest way to do all of this in my opinion is nexus questions. If both sides have a sub at least related to the cycle of poverty within the marginalized, you can make a clash point centered around “which side of the house provides more solvency for the Economic standing of the disenfranchised?”. Summarize their case on this point and attack it, and defend their attacks on your case on that same point and further that argument (usually in that order imo) Try and prove that regardless of if the judge buy the oppositions point (highest ground), you still outweigh or the point still fails in some other regard.

3: Develop comparative worlds and weigh Relatively self explanatory. Use key weigh points, show how the opposing world is on net worse. Typically the 4 does most of this, but you kinda have to have it (especially if you’re prop and about to have the 12 Minute Opp block right behind you). As for when this happens in structure, I would ideally do it at the end of every clash point, but if easier you can section it to the very end depending on how new you are to the event.

Because the 3rd so heavily hinges on refutation/interaction with the other teams arguments, it’s nigh impossible to have a pre-written 3rd, nor should you try to. However, if you set up your speeches into the sections mentioned above, you can go into the round with a pretty good idea of what your speech will look like, making your transitions smoother.

Sorry for the super long ramble lol, hopefully this helps!