Clear, concise, and respectful. Establish and deliver a road map I can follow. Words are powerful. You are powerful.

I like logical arguments that make sense and are easy to follow. Originality is great as well. Please do not spew, I cannot follow it. You can still talk fast, just make sure I can understand what you are saying. Try to avoid filler words as much as possible .Eye contact is also important. Voters/impacts are also great. Tell me why you win the round. For LD, I enjoy a good traditional round, don't lose the framework (value/criterion).

I come from a Lincoln Douglas debate background and I apply a "classic" LD paradigm to most events. Speech and Debate are communication events. The better communicators of ideas will win rounds. In debate that means making, substantiating (with credible evidence), and defending rational claims.

I believe value - criteria cases make for a good framework of debate, and if you fail to present a specific value and related criteria, I will 'assume' one for you and flow voting points around how well you defended the (possibly assumed or inferred) value/criteria. Even for things like Policy Debate, Congress, and of course Public Forum, I can't help but apply a 'value - criteria' mindset to why I'll give a win. The debater who shows supremacy in defending WHY their argument 'matters more' (offers value), and offers HOW their case fulfills specific value(s) better than the alternative position will win the debate (or spar or public forum or name the event).

I believe good communication is the ultimate goal of all speaking and debate events. If you bring spreading to a level that is incoherent, you lose. If you fail to support logical claims with credible evidence, you lose. If you intentionally seek to offend the judge, your opponents, or others with overt and malicious attacks on belief structures, cultures, preferences, or other demographic or psychographic factors, you lose and are reported to authorities for recommended censure.

While NSDA guidelines allow for 'critique' cases, per MY paradigm I maintain that they are pronouncedly lame. I've never seen one executed properly. Per NSDA guidelines I see only ONE viable approach for a successful critique case. It must:

1. represent a demonstrable ethical concern with the assigned topic of the debate from the perspective of the specific position (aff. or neg.) represented by the individual offering the case.
2. limit the arguments to a distinctive critique of the specific topic at hand. I will not consider or evaluate any conversation about the viability of 'debate in general' or other non-resolution-related 'critiques'. Without a demonstration of absolutely pristine logic and unquestionable ethical interest in why the critique is more important than the resolution, the critique case will receive an automatic loss from me every time. It would be a very rare situation where, in order to win, the opponent of the critique case would need to say anything more about the critique than "my opponent has failed to address any of my arguments about the resolution, I therefore win the debate on the resolution."

Once a round begins, I do not afford time for "off-time roadmaps" or anything, really. If you're standing there speaking, then you're presenting and except for very brief checks to confirm your audience is ready, you should be logging time (either towards your speech or your prep time). If you're desperate to squeeze every second of time for your arguments, the classy way to sneak the "extra" speaking time would be to say something like, "please deduct the following off-time roadmap from my prep. time".