I graduated last year, but before then I had competed in debate for 7 years. I'm not going to be the person to list all my awards and accomplishments, but I am well-experienced across a variety of events. My primary events were Policy, Informative Speaking, and Congress

Policy: Despite my experience in policy, I try to remain unbiased. I would say I tend to prefer a more traditional debate argument, that being said I will vote for a K-argument if it is done properly and backed by logic.

• speed: I am fine with spreading, but I will be listening, and if I can't understand what your saying I will not consider it, even if it's on the provided document, it must be spoken and understood, overall quality over quantity when it comes to speaking
• stock issues are very important to me in my consideration

The number one thing I look for is that both teams are respectful, policy debate can get heated, but directly attacking your opponent is never appropriate. (this goes for passive-aggressive remarks too)