I have been judging for 3 years now. I judge pretty traditionally, meaning I judge based off quality of evidence, ones ability to precisely analyze that evidence, as well as persuasion and overall speaker quality. At the end of debate, I like to take into consideration how both speakers responded to one another, as well as the quality of questions asked and how they used those answers to strengthen their own case. Similarly, I judge cross fire based on quality and relevance of questions, as well as ability to answer given questions. As a judge I take a decent amount of notes during debate, but most of my notes will come from after I have heard all of the debate.