Laricchia,+Celia

Laricchia, Celia Experience – Head Coach of American History High School since 2008 Philosophy: I am relatively new to the activity, so I am not as comfortable with speed and some of the jargon as many of the more experienced judges. I do, however, have a strong background in teaching History and debate and being involved in political action. I am well versed in literature about government, policy, ethics, and philosophy. If you make your arguments very clear, impact them, and compare them to your opponent’s arguments, you can win my ballot. Please speak clearly – clarity is way more important to me than speed if you want me to flow. I will default to a policy-making paradigm but I am open to hear new communication styles. I would prefer that Kritik arguments are firmly grounded in some discourse or methodology that is being presented by the aff – that is, make specific link arguments. I have a high threshold for K and T. The negative team needs to prove abuse in order to win on T. The negative team needs to tell me what happens post-alternative when debating K.  Otherwise, be clear about how your DAs or CPs weigh against the plan or against the perm. I do not have too many predispositions about arguments. I would prefer that you avoid the blippy, jargon-heavy theory debates. I have trouble evaluating arguments that lack substance and that are not well-explained. This is especially true of many theory debates in which each side is churning out multiple blips about abuse, fairness, and education, with no real explanation. I would prefer a more well-explained debate with warrants and reasoning. Otherwise, I will be as open-minded as possible and evaluate issues the best I can. I have experience with the topic already, having spent some time instructing at a debate camp and preparing research for teams. I believe proper presentation is important and therefore expect all debaters to stand when speaking and always face the judge. It is important the round remain friendly and respectable.