Typically when I judge (usually PF), I look for:

-How students argue evidence in a proper and effective manner.

-The evidence must be coherent and viable for the situation and deliver evidence in a distinguishable manner.

-Delivery of the evidence must fit the argument properly for the side argued.

-Philosophy argued must be known to the student and not used simply for popular reason or preference.

-Crossfire and cross-analysis of the opponent need to uphold your position and impact your reasoning to further the cause.

-Respect among students no matter what side is argued. When asked a question, give your opponent proper time to argue/defend themselves.

I am a purist when it comes to Public Forum.  It is not policy.  Therefore, policy tactics should not be used.

I am interested in solid clash - logical argumentation.  Teams that move to the level of logic based/evidence based debate will always come out on top. 

I appreciated teams avoiding rudeness.  Do not roll your eyes, raise your voice, or become combative or hostile.  Focus on the argumentation - reinforcing the strength of that - and sticking to the RESOLUTION.