Due to technical/scientific background I would appreciate from debaters the points highlighted first and detailed afterwards. While I am not a flow judge will do my best to follow you, please help me with highlighting the points by voice, emotion or just a number. 

The missing POI from opponent is more critical than its insufficient response; please try to address all what came from opponent side. 

I will try my best to stay on debate line but appreciate the actual facts you use to be realistic or at least pointed that those are "assumed". 

Looking forward for a battle of facts, opinions, unforgiving competition. Add the charm of emotion to your arguments but not make an emotion to be the one.

I am “old school” when it comes to parliamentary debate. I like to see very well-organized speeches, with numbered arguments, solid logic and a sprinkling of good evidence. A rapid fire delivery does not impress me; in fact, I prefer a slower delivery style where the speaker exhibits passion for their side of the topic. As the debate progresses, I do not want to see the same arguments repeated; instead, I want direct clash with the arguments and reasoning presented by previous speakers. I do not appreciate heated or sarcastic responses or rudeness — if a team needs to do this, they don’t deserve to win. When a speaker’s time is up, I expect that they will quickly finish up — I stop listening to arguments 15 seconds into overtime.

I have judged for Public Forum for years now, judging at the highest level in nationally regarded tournaments like Berkeley, Stanford, and the Tournament Of Champions.

Despite all of this, I strongly dislike spreading, value criterion arguments and the like. I believe in the good old Crossfire debate style that made Public Forum famous in the first place. Speak clear, loud, and well. Enunciate your words. Explain clearly why I should care about what you are saying. The better speaker you come across as, the more likely I will vote for you.

I have strong distaste for preposterous arguments. Your arguments should be backed up by evidence. The more evidence, the better.