I am an independent judge with over 5 years of forensics experience in competing and coaching.

EXPERIENCE:

college:

San Joaquin Delta (EXT/IMP, IPDA. DI, Prose, POI, ADS, CA) - NFA qual for all events 2016-2018, PRP IMP Bronze, NCFA Imp/Ext champ 2017-2018

CSU Chico (EXT/IMP, DI, Prose, POI, ADS, Poetry) - AFA qual for all events 2018-2020, NFA OCT ADS

I have coached on the high school level for all NSDA style individual events, parliamentary debate, public forum, and Lincoln Douglas. Having a more limited competitive debate experience (IPDA), I tend to judge primarily on the flow. That being said, I do not do the work for you when an argument/card is dropped by your opponent; you must address it. I can also often be a stickler for framework being upheld in the round. I was on a very competitive collegiate Parli & LD team so although I have not competed in those much myself, I am very familiar with all jargon and can follow spreading fairly well. However, if you spread I would like you to share your cards with me & your opponent. I’m fascinated with kritiks when done creatively and made topical. That being said, I also love to see a topicality argument properly run as many experimental cases tend to stretch the resolution a bit.

[I need to see a fully formed shell with proper standards for me to vote on T. Stating something is not topical is great and I can often acknowledge that on my own, so I need a full T shell structured to flow that into the debate.]

Most of my competitive experience is in individual events, so I focus a lot of my judgement on presentation as well. Please ask me as many questions as you have and I hope I can impart some wisdom from my experience or at least provide a perspective from my time in NFA & AFA-NIET style competition.

Experience:

I competed in and qualified all 11 AFA-NIET style events throughout college. I believe introductions are incredibly vital to the magnitude of your interp’s impact in the round, so I will gladly give notes on making that more significant. Besides that, I look for character distinction and an ability to convey a range of emotions (even in HI, comedic timing requires levels). For public address, I mainly focus on professional delivery, source recency/validity, and opportunities for writing changes. Limited prep can often be very formulaic, so I tend to have a similar judging philosophy to PA speeches delivery-wise. However, I love to see creativity in these rounds. I have competed in countless rounds of Impromptu and Extemp, so seeing someone stray from the typical format successfully is always very impressive.

Above all else, please be yourself and have fun! I hope to make the round feel like a safe space and am always available for questions about how you can improve as a forensicator!