Dahl,+Alix

Former Policy debater/Current coach for Roseville HS.

You can run pretty much anything in front of me and I'll at least entertain the notion of voting for it, but please //please// know what your cards are saying and argue it well. I love weird/entertaining arguments, however, it pisses me off to see weird/entertaining arguments that the team running them clearly does not understand.

I love a good kritik debate. Regardless, I am still interested in straight laced policy debating and would **much prefer you debate what you're comfortable with and what you feel you're most skilled at**. This is especially true at the higher levels of debate- I find that often, really good Varsity teams read my judging philosophy and assume things about the way I will vote in a kritik-centered round. Please cater your round very little to what you think I will vote for; debate how you debate, it's more fun for all of us.

If you are running a kritik...please understand it! I want to be able to tell that you actually know the literature behind what you are talking about. Don't run a Baudrillard K in front of me because you see I'm a K judge if you don't understand the arguments behind it. Also, even though I know a good deal about many of the more mainstream Ks, the burden is on **you** to explain yourself- I'm not doing the work for you.

Please understand how your kritik interacts with the affirmative arguments. I have definitely seen badly run Nietzsche against too many "POC/women silenced in debate" narrative affirmatives too many times to not mention this.

I love kritikal affirmatives and I love debate that talks about the way we function within the debate space; e.g. alternative forms of knowledge production, debate-specific narrative affirmatives, etc. As far as topicality/resolutionality goes- there has to be really good analysis on why T matters in the context of these rounds for it to factor into my final decision.

This goes for any argument- pretend like I would have no prior knowledge of your case, explain everything! And never run anything you are clueless about, it won't help you.

Big issues: - I care way more if you dig into the cards they read than if you read a dozen cards at them in response, with 0 warrants or explanations. - On that note, I love smart analytics! Don’t just extend cards in response, explain to me why your cards/arguments are better than theirs. - Please impact weigh; in my opinion the final rebuttal is all about telling me what to do :) You need to be more big picture than previous speeches.

Theory: Medium to high threshold. I'll vote for it, but it has to be clearly articulated throughout the round and you have to explain to me how there is actual abuse. I don't vote on potential abuse.

Topicality: Please focus enough on your standards and what they actually mean. I want to scream whenever I hear someone spread "a. brightline b. limits c. education" with no explanation. I have a pretty high threshold for voting here, and I would always prefer you talk about the actual arguments they make than tell me why it's unfair that they made them in the first place (not to say that no abuse happens, it definitely does, I just often find that many topicality debates are unnecessary filler. Also, with the debate climate the way it is, you **should** be prepared for critical arguments on the aff. I give more leeway at national tournaments than local ones, here, because many circuits don't favor the K. In Minnesota, however, it is very commonplace.)

Framework: That leads me in to my feelings on Framework. I would always rather have you answer their arguments rather than trying to squirrel out of them with "This type of debate bad" framework. If you run framework, make it good framework- specific, and more about why viewing the debate in a specific way matters. Framework is about telling me what to do as a judge- what to look at when I am writing out my ballot. That said, I have a fairly low threshold here. If the affirmative team says "Our framework is that ethics come first; if we are the most ethical team, and we are, we win." and you don't challenge that, the affirmative team will win.

Speed: I'm fine with it, if you're unclear I'll say "Clear!" but if I have to do it more than a few times, I'll dock speaks. For analytics and theory blocks, at least try to make it flow-able. I know a lot of folks write out that stuff and flash it over, but not everyone does, and the judge can't see those flashed speeches- which makes it hard to properly flow your undoubtedly brilliant arguments. **Please slow down or change tone for tags**. And SIGNPOST.

I pay vague attention to cross-x, but it's not a huge deal. It irritates me seeing someone constantly override their partner, but I'm cool with tag team. On that note, if I spot crappy partner relations, I will ask what's up. It's never fun debating with someone who yells at you, and it makes me angry seeing partner-partner abuse. Don't be mean to me or your opponents, either. No one likes a jerk.

If you are intentionally racist, sexist, etc., or run "racism/sexism/etc. good", not only will I give you pathetically low speaks, I will probably get really mad and tweet about it. Don't do it, bad idea, if you're particularly offensive you are writing your own losing ballot. There are exceptions in cases where a team clearly does not understand or realize they are being offensive, but those are fairly easy to distinguish from one another. In those cases, there will still be a discussion at the end of the round about what was problematic, but not necessarily an active penalty on my ballot.

At the end of the day, I love debate, I love judging, and I love being a coach. I have my preferences but am fairly flexible. Have fun and don't be a dick and the round will work out for both of us.

Questions? Email me at alix.dahl@gmail.com