Policy Debate: I'm a policy preference judge but will vote how the round takes me. Argument clarity is more important than speed but I am ok with spreading provided the team is clear and enunciates enough to hear the evidence. Logic and analysis are also heavily considered but evidence is the foundation of argumentation.

Lincoln Douglas: I'm looking for clash. If there are conflicting definitions, give me reasons to prefer. I view Criterion as a way to uphold/measure the value.

Email : chris.larcade@staff.muldrowps.org

BASIC NEED TO KNOW:

Spreading: Need taglines to be clear. If I can't flow it, I can't use it to vote for you

Argumentation | Rhetoric: I look for debate speaking. I love to see debate falsies being used to disprove arguments.

Topicality: I will vote on it if I feel the NEG proved it to be abusive.

K Arguments- I will vote on "K" if you break it down to an understandable level. The LINK must be clear and offset the impacts of the AFF.

Inherency: If the NEG proves it is already being done, I will vote on it

Things I DON'T like

• Framework: I am not a fan of heavy framework arguments. Your impact should provide the voters for me to make my decision.
• Abuse Arguments: I have heard a lot of these arguments this season. I can determine what is and is not abuse for myself throughout a round. If your entire case is based on abuse, it appears that your case is not solid on its own merit.
• Ignoring your opponent's argument just to extend your own arguments and hope that their argument goes away.

Things I DO like

• Confidence: Don't give me a reason to vote you down. If you show me that you lost an argument with your non-verbals, then you will lose the argument.
• CLASH: I love it! Especially in cross-examination.
• TAGLINES: Once again, if I can't flow it then I will not vote for it.
• Sportsmanship: Don't make personal attacks, be professional and HAVE FUN.

Debated CX and LD in high school, 2006-2010. Debated Parli 2011-2015. Had some success in both spheres. Am a bit rusty with higher levels of debate but can probably keep up in most rounds.

I'm a lazy judge and want to vote on the easiest way to pull the trigger at the end of the round. The best way to get there is with obvious offense and impact calc/cost benefit/some sort of weighing at the end of the round.

I'm open to any kinds of arguments including K and procedurals.

I do my best to judge based on what happened on the flow, but that is with the expectation that arguments have substance.

Please differentiate between cards and tags! Use AND or NEXT or something like that.

As for CX, I lean in the traditional direction of favoring well-researched and crafted AFFs that link to the topic, solve genuine harms and produce plausible advantages. NEGs need to produce offense and defense arguments, looking for clear on-case attax and Off-case flows with specific links and significant impacts and CPs that are competitive. T args are usually a waste of time with me unless NEG can prove serious abuse of the topic. I'll vote on the K if I can buy the Alt. I ask to see cards on regularly. As for speed, if it is clear, I can flow it, and if I can flow it I can weigh/judge it. I'll yell "Clear" once, and after that, if the speaker is unintelligible, I put down my G2.

In LD, I flow everything--even CX. I look for good Framework clash/comparison and weighing which V/C will carry the round. Contentions must clearly link to the FW, backed up by solid evidence. I'm looking for debaters who can cover both flows thoroughly and offer a clear, concise pathway to getting my ballot. Try to stay steady and organized. Present good voters and weigh them against your opponent. I will listen to progressive strategies if they make sense to me.

With PF, I flow it all, but I in all honesty, I am looking for the team that can articulate the best scenario, back it up with stellar evidence, speak with authority and avoid making CX a barking fest.