I have done forensics since my sophomore year in high school. Most of my high school forensics career focused around me competing in debate, specifically in LD. During my years participating in LD, I was also honored for my hard work through participating in multiple final rounds at tournaments.

Since high school I have been an active member of Ripon College's forensics team and currently serve as its President. I have competed in Parliamentary Debate and qualified for collegiate Nationals and competed in Extemporaneous Speaking.

I strongly believe that LD is a value style of debate, so it should have a value and value criterion as its framework. In my opinion, the affirmative has the responsibility to convince me that their value is relevant and effectively proves that the resolution is correct. On the other hand, I believe that the negative should effectively counter that argument by debating the legitimacy of the value and criterion the affirmative presented, while also presenting their arguments. I am open to any argument as long as the debater proves that which they assert.

Overall, I think LD should have a true difference of ideas (clash) in order for there to be good debate. The competitors who win will have to maintain a strong argument throughout, effectively negate the opposition’s claims, and exude a level of professionalism and confidence in their delivery.