Dahle,+Travis

**__Travis Dahle Judge Paradigm__**
In essence, I am a tabula rosa judge, meaning that I will pretty much listen to anything and will evaluate it based on the arguments in the round. That doesn't mean I don't have things I prefer or things I think are bad arguments (which I will go over) - but for the most part, I will listen to anything in the round. However, unless you tell me how you want me to evaluate the round, I will default to a Policy Making paradigm. I have been the head coach at Washington HS since 2009.


 * __Speed__**: I've gotten old - which means I just can't do speed much anymore. Put me down as a 5 - I'd much rather listen to a slower debate that I can actually hear the evidence then have to be a part of an e-mail chain and read through the evidence myself. You won't lose automatically for going to fast, but I'll tell you to slow down and you'll annoy me...


 * __Tag-Team CX__** - Not a huge fan of this. One thing I like about policy is that you should know what you are talking about. I don't mind the occasional help, but if you keep answering every question, it makes your partner look like a tool. And even if they are, you probably don't want to show that they are in front of judges.


 * __Arguments I like__**: I have always felt that the more you know about what a judge likes and dosn't like is essential to winning debate rounds, so to make it easier on you, these are the type of arguments that I prefer to be seen run.

__Case Debate__ - this is a lost art in the debate community. Why as a negative are you granting them their harms and their solvency? If you can have some solid arguments against their case and point out the serious flaws in them, that will help you weight your DA's, K's and CP's over them.

__Economic DA's__ - I have an economic background and like Econ DA's as long as they are run correctly. Generic spending DA's are usually not run correctly.

There are other DA's, but those usually vary by each year, but as long as you have a solid link to the case, you should be good to go.


 * __Arguments I'm not wild about__**: Again, the more you know, the better off you will be. Once you read this list does it mean to absolutely not run these arguments - no. What it means is that you better run them better than most teams who run the crappy versions of them. I'll vote for these arguments (and have lots of times) - I'm just not wild about them.

__Politics DA's__ - I've changed a lot on these and used to hate them but realize the strategic advantage of them. That being said, not my biggest fan, but have voted for a lot of them over the years

__K's Read at blazing speed__ - I don't mind some K's, but most of the authors that debaters cite go so beyond the realm of what is possible to discuss in a debate round that they end up bastardizing the entire theory they are supposidly trying to use. Also, if I haven't researched and read the material, how can I evaluate it if you are reading it at a blazzingly fast speed. I don't mind K's, but I'd like to understand them, so please, assume I haven't read the theory - because I probably haven't.

__Performance__ - this is just my inexperience with performance. The biggest thing is make sure that you've explained the role of the ballot for me. That doesn't mean you can't win, it's just I don't have the background in that style to say I like it or how to evaluate it. I have voted for Performance affs and discourse affs - again, more inexperience than anything makes me put this in the category of things I'm not wild about.

===As always, I'm open to questions before the round if you have any other specifics. __**All in all, I like good debates - if you can argue well and clash with each other, I really don't care what is argued - as long as it is argued well!**__===

Travis Dahle Washington High School Sioux Falls, SD