Eight speeches, disads and counterplans stacking on top of case arguments, a Neg block that runs two speakers deep — Policy is the format where a messy flow actually costs you rounds. RoundFlow lays out all eight columns and lets you link every argument straight to what it's answering.
This is the exact column layout RoundFlow builds the moment you pick Policy/CX — nothing to configure by hand.
Prep time: 8:00 per side, shared across the whole round — RoundFlow's timer tracks it separately from speech time.
Set up a card for each off-case position — a disad, a counterplan, a kritik, topicality — before you get to case-specific arguments, so there's already a home for 1NC answers as they land.
The Neg's block runs across two speakers back to back. Treat it as a continuous set of answers rather than two separate speeches, so it's easy to see everything the 1AR has to cover in one glance.
The 1AR is the shortest constructive-style speech in the round and has to answer the entire block. Use Respond → to link extensions back to the original 1AC/2AC card instead of writing the argument out from scratch again.
A good 2NR collapses to one or two winning positions. Mark which off-case and case arguments the Neg is actually going for so the 2AR isn't wasting time answering things that were effectively dropped.
By the 2AR nothing new should be entering the round. Reference the flow's own extensions and links directly rather than re-litigating the debate from memory.
Every card can be tagged with the term it actually is — Theory, Topicality, Kritik, Counterplan, and Disad all auto-generate the labeled sub-point cards that go with them.
An argument that the Aff plan causes a bad outcome that outweighs its own advantages.
A competing policy the Neg proposes instead of the Aff's plan, usually paired with a net-benefit disad.
An argument challenging the assumptions or framework behind the Aff's plan, not just its policy effects.
An argument that the Aff's plan doesn't fall within the resolution as worded.
An argument about whether a debate practice itself (a shifted advocacy, an abusive CP) is fair or should be allowed.
Using an argument made against one position to answer a different one elsewhere on the flow.
Free, no account, and it saves straight to your browser. Auto-generated sub-points for every off-case position, and one shared Preflow if you're running the same case all tournament.