I will judge based the clarity of your argument, your ability to speak to your audience, and how you outline and structure your argument throughout the debate. The last point is most crucial, as it will help guide me through your way of thinking and tell me why I should be persuaded. This is also aided by specific compelling evidence. Be sure to use your time wisely; I will not regard new arguments made during final statements. 

I was a traditional debater, and I continue that trend in my judging. I specifically look for solid value/criterion framework debate, with good clash. Don't try to make any limits or grounds arguments. Telling me to drop a contention, argument, or card from the flow will not make it so. Prove the argument is null and void first. Though I'm a traditional judge, if you want to run a kritik, go for it! I love a good k, despite its non-traditional nature. For the value/criterion framework, philosophers and political theorists are phenomenal resources for finding a framework. If you're going to use such a theory in your framework (e.g. Social Contract Theory) give some credit to the people who invented it. If I don't know who's theory you're using, it becomes much harder for me to judge how you apply your framework as a whole.

Aff:

I do not want to see any plans or solvency. This is LD, not PF or Policy. Don't bring them up yourself, and don't let Neg try and pressure you into offering one. You are under no requirement or obligation to offer any form of plan or solvency on the resolution.

Neg:

You have a seven minute 1NC - I expect you to start your offense in that speech. Your 2NR is not enough time to cover everything the Aff will be able to pile on against you. If you don't cover it in 1NC, and don't tell me you'll discuss it in your next speech, I will extend it through the flow.

I value quality over quantity, I would much rather hear 2-3 well thought out/clearly presented points then pages of material blurted out at high speed. Be engaging and sell your point of view, be confidant and resolute. Present factual ideas and have data to back them up. Personalize the topic to yourself using available data on subject(s) such that you can better relate (pro or con) to the topic. Have fun!

I'm a traditional judge. Overall, I look for professionalism and that as you debate you defend your case while working to defeat your opponents' case. If an opponent offers arguments/counter-arguments/evidence, you need to recognize and address it. Don't just ignore it or act as if it doesn't affect your case, otherwise it might end up doing just that.

LD: I want to see how your arguments tie into your Value and Value Criterion. Also make sure you're explaining why your Value should be the held above others in the round.

If you choose to use plans/counterplans, both parties need to accept them in the round, otherwise you'll have to argue as to whether it fits under the resolution.

Make sure your points are logical, tie into your evidence or value, and can show a clear path to the argument you're making.

PF: Make sure your arguments are logical. If you have a Framework, make sure your points tie to the Framework and that the philosophy strengthens your side of the resolution. If there is a contest of evidence, I may ask to view it.