I have been involved in forensics since 2019, first as a competitor and now as a coach. My main focus has always been public forum but I am well experienced in judging and overall consuming all forms of debate. Put simply even with that said I prefer to be treated as a lay judge; I like explanations, I like consumable argumentation, and I hate spreading. With that said one thing I will accept is very "techy" approaches that the average lay judge may not pick up on, most notably Ks. With that said in each form of debate I expect you to be able to relate your arguments to the natural conditions of a win within your round that being a frame work, value, or simple Cost/Benefit analysis. Over all I'm here for the spirit of debate and only have 3 rules: be respectful, try your hardest, and do not spread.

As a second-year forensics coach, I am still very much a lay judge. I have judged all forms of debate at the local level as well as Congress at Nationals.

I am looking for solid argumentation, clear impacts, and effective clash.

Please no theory or spreading.