For Debate:

I'm a traditional judge. Some speed is OK but talk TO me and not AT me. Don't ask for paradigms if you have no intention of following them. Cards are only evidence, but not the analysis, so be sure to make the link between the card and what it means for the argument. Keep all your debates separated; I like policy terminology in its lane, LD to have its value/criteria without plans, and PF to be for the common person. Fewer, better arguments win; smart questions and analysis do best. Clash is fun but should never be rude, mean, or at the expense of another debater. Treat everyone, including me as your judge, with the respect we deserve by coming into the round prepared, poised, and planning to do your best.

For Congress:

Please be prepared with speeches! It is important to me that debate not drag out while contestants "prep" during our time together. If you have nothing new to add, don't give a speech for the sake of giving a speech. Listening and reacting to each speaker is something I love to see. Pay attention; call on and call out those who you agree or disagree with in respectful ways. Clash is fun; mean-spirited debate is unappreciated. Show goodwill and your fierce competitive nature at the same time. Be sincere. Be organized and complete in your speaking. Be involved in the chamber's activities as much as possible, but do not dominate. Be absolutely correct with parliamentary procedure. Have a good time. Sources are a must, but a few good ones explained well are better than too many that muddy the speech.

For IE's:

Duo/Duet: I love a good story told well. I want you to follow the rules but show me your creative side. Take risks, but keep the author's intent in mind, i.e. Edgar Allen Poe is not meant as comedy. I want to feel something and be able when you finish to have nothing to say because what I have seen is entertaining, whether I laugh or cry. I don't need any warnings up front, but if you intend to shock me for shocking's sake, I will call you on it. In OO and Info, be sure to give examples, have great visuals, and tell the story in a clever and engaging manner. Be yourself! In extemp I want to be able to easily follow your organization. Justify by telling me why this 7 minutes matters to me. 5 sources or more; I don't care as much about the exact dates as you being able to synthesize the material. Don't make me do all the linking of ideas; I want to know that YOU are the one who knows and are excited to share. I look for clever and unique introductions and not canned AGD's. Whether you're a beginner or a 4-year veteran, keep it to yourself. Be humble and impress me with your stunning delivery and smart thinking on your feet.

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.

Last updated: September 28, 2023

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.