When judging an LD round there are a few things that I like to see. The first would be clash, to me clash is an important part of the debate and if you are not clashing then you probably are not winning. The second thing is road maps. You need to say where you are when making or addressing an argument. If I cannot tell where you are then what you say will not make it on my flow. Lastly, impacting everything is very important. Impacts are the most important part of the last few speeches in an LD round and usually the person that does impacts and impact analysis better is going to win that round. 

I did Lincoln Douglas all four years of high school and am accustomed to both traditional and progressive debate. I currently compete in both American Parliamentary and British Parliamentary debate in college. In terms of debate styles I am open to most every form but I specifically look for very clear and solid warranting of arguments and am big on weighing of the debate round. That is to say regardless of if you want to focus on values or value criterion, or focus on the weight of individual arguments, just tell me why it matters and highlight points of clash within the round. In terms of speed I am fairly comfortable with speed, but spreading is not of my highest preference, although I can flow it, just make sure to tag your arguments well.

I'm a flow judge so I'm going to vote based on what was said in the round. This means be explicitly clear as to why you are winning the round, not just the individual arguments (WEIGH). How should I be viewing the round and what is the most important ballot issues.

If an argument is dropped, I'll flow it for you, but just saying it was dropped is not a winning voter. You need to tell me why that argument is explicitly winning relative to whats happening in the rest of the round (true for any argument really).

Feel free to ask any specific questions you may have.

I debated public forum for 4 years at Gonzaga Prep. I currently coach Public Forum and have judged Public Forum and LD.

Please cover the flow and dropping a significant contention will make it hard for you to win. If your opponent dropped an argument don't say, "they dropped it" emphasize why it matters and why that alone should allow you to win. With that being said in your own case if a contention is not working leave it alone and do not waste your time on it.

Anything short of spreading I should be ok with. If you go too fast I will yell at you to go slower and simply adjust and you will be fine.

I appreciate good plans and counter plans when done effective. In Public Forum I will rarely vote against someone's use of a "Point of advocacy" unless it is clearly over the top. Put simply saying something is a counter plan and leaving at that will almost never win that point for you.

Do not be afraid to use other tricky framework or tricky arguments because I love those when done effectively. It is not enough to simply say your opponents framework is abusive but rather explain why. I like both statistical and the use of logic in a case. When these are put together effectively that to me is the best case.

Aggression in CX will never hurt you as long as you're not over the top and rude.

Debate should have emotion and nothing is worst than having to sit through bland speech after bland speech. Debate like you believe what you are talking about.

Voters: Voters will almost always decide the round for me. I love debaters who crystalize the round throughout. The last speech should be primarily focused on giving good voters. THE BIGGEST THING I LOOK FOR IS ROUND CRYSTALLIZATION!

Please do not ask me if you can time yourselves. You are welcome to and I do not care.

Speaker points are stupid and arbitrary but typically I stick to the following scale. Most good debates will fall into the 27-29 category.

30: Best Speaker at tourney

28-29: Very Good

27: Good

24-26 Decent

Below 24: Major things to work on for the level of competition you are in