Carlson,+Dave

I am 17-year coach at Wenatchee High School previously competing in Policy debate. I am a huge proponent of stock issues and direct clash. I now primarily judge LD.

Though I appreciate policy for what it was and now has become, I also see a division between it and LD. I generally look at stock arguments which include the philosophical angle, empirical development of the philosophies, and analytics which further these ideas. I don't mind DA, plan, or other "game playing" approaches as long as they are on point with the topic and extend out of the value side of the debate. Unique approaches are always appreciated, and I will weigh all major arguments presented and extended throughout the debate. In LD, this is critical to a winning ballot. Arguments which only skim the surface and fail to establish the why fail to impress my voting.


 * Theory and Frameworks:** These strategies provide a deeper level to the debate, and I favor the debater who not only uses them effectively as a guide but develops them holistically throughout the debate. I detest the dropping of these if they are a critical component of the overall strategy. Once established, I need explanation of how they guide the meaning, how they apply to both aff. and neg. arguments, and where they fit in a weighing system at the end of the debate. Clarity and crystallization are key to them being considered an issue.


 * Delivery:** I am not a huge supporter of speed, though a spread-type offense can work to a debater's advantage if they pull arguments throughout a round. I favor oratorical style and salemanship; speed often compromises the message being effectively delivered, a factor I have used in voting before. If you say it, and I am able to flow it, it will be a consideration. I look at professionalism, clash of ideas, and impact of arguments as stressed by the debaters.


 * RFD:** I look to established ideas held throughout the round, put weight on voting issues put on the table, and overall topic approach. I also look at the clash between ideas and weigh the stress each debater puts on their key arguments.