I have a more complete paradigm on tabroom.com which I encourage you to read. Here are some highlights from that: I prefer a more traditional style of LD, but I don't have any huge objections to progressive debate. I strongly prefer that clash focus on points of significance (not on points that are unlikely to sway my ballot) and that speeches be organized. Roadmaps should be off-time and accurate; signposting is essential. I can follow about 275 words per minute maximum (assuming you speak clearly). Start slower and build up to max speed. Be polite. I try to minimize judge intervention in the round, but I am not (and no one is) a completely blank slate. I prefer to evaluate a round by identifying who is winning offense in the round, and, if both debaters have votable offense, weighing the various pieces of offense aginst each other. Weighing can happen through arguments on the flow (e.g. magnitude analyses) and/or through a standard (e.g. criterion, role of ballot). Winning the standard is not in itself a reason for you to win; you must also outweigh under said standard. You don't need a value or crition necessarily (though I would prefer you did), but you do need an identifiable and clear standard/weighing mechanism of some description. Values are usually much less important to me than criteria--occasionally they are relevant, but generally it is the criterion, as the weighing mechanism, that is most impactful on my decision. Finally, I go into each round with a set of basic presumptions. I do not retreat *to* my presumptions, rather, I am willing to retreat *from* them if you can provide sufficiently strong argumentation that I should. These presumption are: (1) Arguments in LD should be topical, (2) It is the Affirmative's burden to defend the whole resolution as a general principle, (3) Theory is a reason to drop the argument, not the debater.