In 2 years of competing in intercollegiate forensics I participated in both Loncoln-Douglass and parlimentary debates and have won awards in platform events such as improptu and persuasive speeches. Beyond competing as a student, I have been judging a wide variety of events regularly since 2011. As a judge I prefer cases that can provide solvency and present the most logical evidence ethically and convincingly. I also prefer that the speakers communicate clearly and avoid speed reading. 

I am a debate coach, so I have experience being around debaters, but I do not have a background in formal competitive debate. I generally do not understand debate jargon, hyper-specialized vocabulary, and acronyms that are often associated with circuit and higher-level debate. Please make sure you clarify terms and definitions early if you intend to use them.

I believe a judge has a duty to write down the most important points of your argument in order to assess its logic after the round. Because of this, I appreciate arguments that are clearly laid out and organized so I can flow them.

(IN PROGRESS)