DeBois,+Danny

Harrison High School '14, Harvard College '18

Conflicts: Harrison, Harvard-Westlake

I debated for Harrison High School in NY for four years, and coached the Harvard-Westlake School in CA for two years. I have experience on the national circuit and on more traditional circuits.

2018 Updates:
 * I don't judge enough to be able to keep up with bad, blippy arguments and incomprehensible spreading, and I don't care enough about my high school LD rep to pretend that I can understand what you're saying. I don't really have any paradigmatic biases against arguments (although smart arguments > bad arguments); just be clear and engage your opponent.

2017 Updates:
 * I judge very infrequently and barely coach now, so just make sure you explain things well and try to be clear.
 * No one actually answers arguments anymore. Direct engagement and comparative analysis (as opposed to up-layering and spreads of bad arguments) will make you much likelier to get high speaks and the win.
 * I will say clear/slower up to five times for you in a round. After that, it's unfair to your opponent because they have to answer everything you said since they won't know what I wasn't able to flow. Therefore, if I have to say clear/slow a 6th time, I will automatically drop you (with low speaks).
 * I am not a "tab" judge. I will try to evaluate the round doing as little independent work as possible, but in a debate where both of you are making reasonably developed arguments, embedded clash is inevitable. I will default to viewing the round the way you tell me to, but in general it is a better use of your time to explain how to evaluate embedded clash than to make bad arguments like "don't evaluate embedded clash" or "default to aff arguments if the neg doesn't explicitly answer them."

GENERAL: Good debate is better than bad debate--I'd much rather see you debate well running arguments I never ran, rather than debate badly running arguments I liked as a debater. I have stronger paradigmatic opinions on style than on substance. Please ensure that you do the following: If you do those things, you should hypothetically be able to pick up my ballot running nearly any position, other than explicitly racist/sexist/homophobic/etc. ones.
 * Be CLEAR. No, that does not mean go slow for 5 seconds and then go back to being incomprehensible. It means remembering that real human beings speak with inflection and pauses. And to be completely honest, it means acknowledging that certain speeds are physically impossible to flow. I don't care if you think I'm "illegit." I will NOT vote on arguments that I did not understand in the first speech. I'll say clear until you get clear, but don't expect high speaks after the second time I call it.
 * Explain, weigh, and crystallize. In any type of debate. Arguments and evidence are only good insofar as they're actually debated well, not just read well.
 * Remember that persuasion matters. Obviously I will not decide the round based on who was "more persuasive," but know that being perceptually dominant will have a direct effect on the speaker points I give, and a possible subconscious effect on the decision I make.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">THEORY/TOPICALITY <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">Feel free to run it in order to check abuse. I don't think bad, frivolous theory is good from a strategic perspective, but it's up to you to take that risk. I like debaters who a) have unique shells that are very specific to the in-round abuse, b) consistently refer to and weigh in terms of real abuse, c) have strong evidence, when applicable, and d) focus on giving a good decision calculus in these types of debates. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">I will accept any response to theory, and don't have a "default." It's your job to tell me how to evaluate arguments. The more shells introduced in a given round, the less likely you are to be happy with my decision. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">It seems that "don't vote on 1AR theory" arguments are becoming more common. I will almost never vote on these, and will have a very low threshold for what counts as a sufficient response to beat them back.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">POLICY <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">Slow down a lot on card names, tags, and texts (in general, but especially in these types of debates). I understand the basic vocabulary of policy arguments, but you'll be safer explaining what your jargon means, especially when there's a lot of clash. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">I think most extinction scenarios are silly and a smart debater can put serious mitigation on them with just smart analytics, but I'll evaluate the scenarios. I really like debaters who can defend low-magnitude, more realistic util impacts.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">TRICKS <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">I think these arguments are usually dumb. If an argument's function is clear in the first speech, I'm much likelier to consider voting on it. If I think an implication of an argument is new (or I couldn't flow the original argument), I will intervene against it. If you're debating a tricky case and you think the arguments your opponent is "extending" are totally new, feel free to make new responses. If I agree that the argument is new, I'll evaluate the responses. I won't penalize you if I flowed the argument originally; I just won't evaluate your responses. I like debaters who can beat tricky cases with smart theory shells, and debaters who can beat these tricky cases substantively.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">PHILOSOPHY/FRAMEWORK <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">It's fine. Please explain your arguments well. Even if I understand the argument because of prior knowledge, I will still hold you to a high burden of explanation. You can run whatever philosophical theory you want, but be prepared to defend its implications, especially in terms of how it relates to issues of privilege and oppression. That doesn't mean I'll ignore every framework argument, but that you need to be careful when using framework as a strategy against certain types of positions.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">CRITICAL ARGUMENTS <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">They're fine--like everything else, explain them. Also, just because you're reading a "k" and have a "role of the ballot," it does not mean your arguments always come first. You need to explicitly explain how other arguments on the flow contain the assumption you indict, and why that is the most important issue in the round. I need a clear description of your advocacy. Even if it's not what's traditionally considered topical, or it doesn't defend anything, being upfront about it is to your advantage.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">K VS. THEORY/FRAMEWORK <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">I tend to end up judging a lot of these debates. I don't have a bias either way, though if I had to guess I would say I end up voting slightly more for the K side than the theory/framework side. If this debate is absolutely necessary, my advice would be to try not to assume your conclusion, but instead, be comparative and acknowledge the benefits to the other side as well. No, not all moral philosophy is racist, and no, not all critical theory is unjustified without a moral framework. Being clear, slow, and positional in these debates will help you.

SPEAKS Speaks will be adjusted based on the difficulty of the tournament I'm judging at. For TOC, a 28 is average, a 28.5 signals that I think you have a chance of going 4-3 or making it to the runoff, and a 29 signals that I think you'll capable of breaking straight to octos based on your performance. A 29.5 or higher requires doing specific things I like--nuanced topical argumentation, perceptual dominance, a good CX, and positional debating.

MISCELLANEOUS __**<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">Arguments I'll Intervene Against **__ <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">I'm proudly interventionist when I think it's justified. Please keep in mind the following:
 * <span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">I'm generally skeptical of any theory shell (or kritik) relating to an out-of-round violation or a violation not directly based on something a debater said in their speech. These include some disclosure theory objections, arguments about a debater's dress, arguments about a coach's behavior, arguments about prefs, etc. If you're thinking of running something along these lines, it's best to ask me before the round if I'll evaluate the argument. I will indicate if I plan on intervening against an argument by not flowing it.
 * <span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">I will evaluate simple disclosure theory (and probably personally agree that plans/specific advocacies should be disclosed as well). I most likely won't evaluate any disclosure theory arguments beyond that though (e.g. can't disclose on a teammate's wiki, must disclose full text of cards, etc.)
 * <span style="color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif;">Anything blatantly offensive or that makes the debate a hostile space for someone else in the room. If this vagueness worries you, you're probably a terrible person.


 * __Flashing/Prep/Speech Docs__**
 * If you're flight b, please try to flash the aff before the round starts.
 * I'll penalize you in speaks if you take excessively long to flash. Learn how to make a speech doc please: http://paperlessdebate.com/verbatim/SitePages/Home.aspx
 * I won't read along your speech doc for the entire round, but I may randomly read along for parts of it to check against clipping. If I catch you clipping cards, I will automatically drop you with a 25.


 * __Lastly:__**