Dalton Preseason Tournament
2020 — Online, US
Public Forum Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
i debated natcircuit pf for dalton from 2017–2020.
email: zaramchapple (at) uchicago.edu
i'll do everything i can to make this an accessible and enjoyable experience. have fun and i'll adapt to whatever round you give me :)
unless y'all want me to act otherwise i'm tech. i evaluate rounds by looking at framework > weighing > links into that weighing > floating offense > default first.
non negotiable things: don't make bigoted arguments/use bigoted rhetoric, don't misgender people, don't otherwise be rude, and read content warnings.
─── ･ ｡ﾟ☆: *.☽ .* :☆ﾟ. ───
the feedback that i give to nearly every team is to collapse on fewer arguments, especially on weighing and defense. apologies for the gruesome analogy, but a shot to the heart is way more dangerous than five shots to the foot.
running list of things i have been asked/feel free to ask questions that aren't answered here:
what does a perfect speech look like to you? well explained analytical responses (i dislike card dumps and prepouts. i want to hear how you're answering the case your opponents read, not just how your team prepped out the tagline for the contention), weighing that actually compares both worlds, prioritize your weighing mechanisms, defense/frontlines should address the reasoning behind their arguments not just the tagline, organized speeches, implicated defense in every speech—why does this take out their case?, and bonus points if it's still accessible to someone who hasn't debated before. here's an example of a 30 speaks speech on the NATO/Baltics topic.
kritiks: progressive args are cool with the caveat that i think pf isn't structured to handle ks well. i don't make any assumptions about anyone's identities nor do i expect anyone to disclose this information to read a debate argument. if you're reading a k about a marginalized group as someone who isn't part of that group i just ask that you don't do it to win/to be a savior and i hope that your advocacy for said group can go beyond the debate round.
evidence standards: i like paraphrasing when it's done right. i urge you to also have the direct quote (summarizing a sentence or two is fine but a page or more is iffy). it's better to read weaker evidence than to misconstrue it. i'll only look at evidence if you ask me to and i'll drop the argument if the evidence is misrepresented.
paraphrasing/disclosure theory: i'll evaluate it but i won't be happy.
other theory: read it if you want to and the other team is comfortable with it. it doesn't have to be in a shell or anything for me to evaluate it. theory is not a rvi (just because you beat back theory doesn't mean you automatically win the round.)
new arguments: no new offense in summary or final focus. nothing new in second final focus. weigh sooner rather than later.
speed: i cannot process what you are saying over 225ish WPM.
zodiac sign: cancer sun, scorpio rising, pisces moon.
if i ask you a question can you add it to your paradigm: maybe :)
I'm a senior at Poly Prep and I having been debating on the national circuit since freshman year. I use she/her/hers pronouns.
~PLEASE let me know before the round if there is anything I can do to make the round more accessible to you. you can either message me on facebook or talk to me before the round and I will 100% do my best to give you the best experience possible.~
anything racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, etc. is an auto L25
FOR NOVICE AND MS:
Have fun! I do a lot of debate so I will evaluate the round based exclusively on the arguments made by both teams. Let me know if you have any questions!
email is firstname.lastname@example.org - please add me to the email chain
tldr; typical flow judge, tech > truth, be nice people, etc.
Speed is fine, pls send a speech doc if you are going over ~300 wpm
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE CUT CARDS evidence ethics in this activity are actual ass, if you hand me a highlighted section of a 400 page pdf I'm handing it back to you, but with that said I think calling for evidence is pretty interventionist and will only do it if you tell me to
Extensions are of the utmost importance to me - i will not vote on an argument that does not have uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact extended in all necessary speeches (ie. backhalf) and sufficient warrant extension is well. Without all of these parts, you are not making an argument. I will not do work for you. Especially when it comes to lower level varsity/JV and novice rounds, 95% of the time I vote for the team with the best extended argument. Other than that, I look to the best weighed impact first
Second rebuttal must frontline turns, defense doesn't have to be frontlined but I highly recommend responding to all defense on whatever you are going for
Defense that was frontlined MUST be in first sum, defense that wasn't frontlined in 2nd rebuttal doesn't need to be but I recommend it
I really like weighing start weighing early (this does not just mean "we outweigh on scope bc we affect more ppl" - prereqs, short circuits, and comparative and metaweighing etc. are where its at)
K's and theory are fun and cool, I haven't read very much K lit and don't have a ton of experience with progressive args but I have hit some and read some and like probably know how to evaluate things kind of? but like explain everything to me like I'm dumb bc I'm prob really tired and also I am dumb. also pls pls pls do not read progressive args if ur opponents are not comfortable with it - thats mean and exclusionary which is no bueno - My threshold for responses to progressive args is prob pretty low, esp if you are reading a shell and your opponents don't necessarily respond in like the technically correct way but like if they say things that are responsive I'll flow it
New in the 2
offtime roadmaps are dumb just tell me which flow you are starting on and then signpost
i did pf for dalton.
debate however you like (as long as you do not make it an unsafe environment for anyone in the room), and i'll adapt to you
please collapse and weigh
facebook message me or email me email@example.com for any questions or concerns before or after the round. im happy to discuss!!
1. Speaking style
A. Speak slowly. I cannot emphasize this enough. Many, many debaters have wasted their time by talking too fast in front of me. If you do it, everything you say will go in one ear and out the other.
B. Don’t use debater jargon. I don’t know what it means.
C. Explain points clearly and fully from start to finish. Many debaters hope to save time by saying something like “Delink this argument because of our Rando evidence.” But that doesn’t mean anything to me.
A. There are limits to what sort of evidence is credible, or how much I will trust it. For example, evidence claiming to predict the future is always uncertain.
B. Logical analysis can beat evidence if the logical analysis explains away the observation.
C. Evidence should really be about what’s observable, and then you supply the analysis to draw a conclusion. So it would be good to cite evidence that X/Y countries did better after IMF intervention, and infer that the IMF is helpful. It would be bad to read a card which merely asserts that the IMF is helpful.
A. I don’t care much about quantification. Sometimes it is helpful to have impacts be quantified, but I’m not going to throw out your opponents’ impacts simply because they aren’t quantified, so don’t ask me to. Outweigh them instead.
B. “Make them prove” is silly. Instead of artificially raising the burden of proof on your opponents’ arguments, just explain why they are wrong.
C. I am also not a fan of arguments about why it’s against the rules to listen to an argument. “They didn’t mention this in rebuttal so it would be really abusive to let them answer it in summary!”. NSDA rules say no new speeches in final focus.
This paradigm has mostly focused on what you shouldn’t do. So what should you do? You should pick a small number of issues, and show you prevail on those issues using a combination of empirical evidence (as opposed to opinion evidence) and deep analysis, then weigh them thoroughly.
"All judging is comparative."
I'll evaluate anything if you're respectful, you follow rules, and engage well. Oakton '20 (four years PF, some LD/policy/congress), JHU '24 (APDA, BP). Contact facebook, firstname.lastname@example.org (for chains, email@example.com). I bolded the parts most people miss.
1. Respect others, be equitable, use anonymous opt-in content warnings before any speech where they might be necessary.
2. For prep, if nobody's timer is running, stay unmuted. Verbally or visually signal your start and stop.
3. I won't flow off docs, I won't flow overtime (I'll hold up my hands to signal time's up), don't skip anything (including grand cross).
4. Arguments are dropped if no responsive argument is in the next speech (applications are fine if late by one speech). This applies to conceding opposing arguments or linking from theory violations.
5. Arguments only exist in the back half if they're extended, but only for arguments/warrants that matter, i.e. are specifically contested or weighed.
6. I won't evaluate "strength of link weighing" to prioritize dropped arguments for being dropped.
7. I won't evaluate examples/precedent/empirics of a warrant happening as a reason to prefer it over another, unless you explain why those two are relevant to resolving clash.
8. I won't evaluate claims that an opposing argument is "missing a warrant/reason/contextualization" unless followed up with a counter-argument for why your side's right on that point (or if that content is there already).
9. I (rarely) flip a coin to presume. I'll disclose and will disclose speaks on request. Average in-division 28, 29.5+ impressed me. No speaks theory.
The best way to improve is asking questions. Right after the round, after the tournament, or any other time - I am always open to help.
hello debate how u want :D
i *will* auto-drop you for being mean, and i will auto-drop you for making the round less safe/comfortable (eg i will drop u for misgendering anyone in the round)
I'm currently a high school senior and I've debated in PF for four years.
I'll be flowing, probably on Google Sheets, so there's a good chance I won't be looking at you when you make your speech. I might also have my video turned off, but rest assured that I'm paying attention. Whether or not I can see you, I don't care how you dress or whether you make eye contact, just make sure I can see your face. Don't be actively mean towards your opponents, don't be racist or sexist, etc.
As a rule, I don't have any particular things that I think you're absolutely required to do besides extending your offense and defense.
I'll enjoy wacky strategy like dropping case to go for a turn, but it won't necessarily benefit your speaker points or probability of winning if you don't do it well.
While responding to arguments by saying they don't have a card is fine, that definitely cannot be your only rebuttal. In general, in a scenario where your opponents use a mostly logical argument, I'd prefer that you respond with at least some logic of your own. Not having a card will count against them, but that doesn't excuse you from using your brain.
Card indicts, on the other hand, are great. Do that.
If your card just appears to be a journalist or pundit saying something without evidence, I'm just going to treat it like you said it yourself. Examples of this include vague theories about the behavior of a country/group/person without any past examples of said behavior or explanations of what incentives they have.
Limit the amount of debate jargon please. In fact, I'll add extra speaker points if you can avoid using it at all.
I also really enjoy it when debaters come up with new arguments on the spot using information not directly related to the topic, so extra speaker points for that I guess. Generally displaying a good understanding of what is happening in the world and why beyond the direct scope of the topic will get you brownie points.
I'm personally a ruthless utilitarian and thus my go-to weighing mechanism is just to more or less just tallying up the number of people impacted/killed in whatever contentions are left and voting for who has the bigger number. If you also choose to weigh on magnitude, even though I'm already implicitly weighing on that already, do mention it and explain what exactly your impacts are, because I'll like you more if you don't make me do math. Alternative weighing mechanisms are extremely encouraged - you should not emulate my lack of creativity.
Weighing on "probability," "strength of link," or anything like that is not weighing.
For turns, you have to extend whatever parts of the contention are necessary for the turn in addition to the turn itself, so keep that in mind if you decide to make a turn a voter.
I hate having to come to my own judgements about anything. Do anything to avoid making me doubt whether what you're saying it actually true. You can do this by basing explanations off of obvious/well carded things.
Fast talking is fine, but please don't spread. I can handle wacky arguments and theory as long as you explain it.
I won't be flowing, but I'll be listening and feel free to reference whatever you or your opponents say in cross in your other speeches. Interrupting is fine if you're not being super annoying about it, but don't talk over each other/launch into parallel monologues. Definitely don't spend reread your case at length in a condescending way in response to a question.
Turns are great and all, and I fully encourage first rebuttal especially to use them frequently, but I'd prefer if you actually run at least some defense on all of the opposing contentions before starting with those. It's also never too early to begin weighing, so if you can do that in rebuttal that's great.
Drop please, running everything makes the round super confusing to both flow and actually evaluate at the end. Preferably you would find some way to connect all of the extant arguments into some kind of comprehensible narrative or at the very least track the state of each contention while extending instead of going line-by-line. Everything in Final Focus except responses to anything new or responses to dropped arguments have to be in Summary, so actually communicate with your partner about what you want to do in this speech.
Pretty much do the same thing you do in Summary: go through whichever arguments are left and tell me why yours are unrefuted and important while theirs aren't.