I based my decisions on the overall effectiveness of the debater. I usually determine effectiveness by the quality of the arguments made. Quality arguments are those that state a coherent claim that is clearly linked to the resolution at hand. Further, the claim is supported by quality evidence and quality warrants with analysis and commentary. In a very close debate, I will also consider backing, response to rebuttal, and other aspects of good argument. I find the Toulmin model of argumentation to be a persuasive model of argumentation. I favor logical appeals over appeals of ethos and pathos. However, in PF and LD, I will give weight to appeals of ethos and pathos when the argument is well-made. I will consider appeals of ethos when determining the credibility of evidence used to support a claim. I will discount the importance of a claim in which the evidence supporting the claim is shown by the opponent to be faulty because of the qualifications of the author, the context of the evidence, or other qualitative factors in the evidence. I like for contestants in debate to clash with the other contestant and explain to me when they choose not to clash for strategic reasons so that I can understand their reasoning and prioritization of their arguments. I try really hard to let the contestants tell me what is important in the round, and I try not to let my personal reflections on logic or political views influence my decisions unless the debaters provide little more than superlatives for me to base my decision on. I do not enjoy spreading and find that I loose track of the depth of arguments being made. If my flow is shallow for one side but deep for another, I may give a decision to the side with the deeper argument is the impact of that argument is sufficient when compared with any arguments on the flow that were dropped by that team. In other words, I prefer quality over quantity. When both teams give high quality arguments with clash and have similar impacts, I may base a decision on the overall clarity and effectiveness of the speaker. But, I generally reward quality of argument much more than quality of speaking. I will punish a speaker who does not conduct themselves professionally during a round, as I feel this is detrimental to the educational quality and purpose of the contest. 

With respect to topicality and other issues outside of debate on the resolution, I will give weight to those issues when supported. I will decide them much like I would any other claim. I will not grant a round based on topicality or a like voting issue if stated without warrants backing them, as I feel this would be making a decision based upon my own opinion. I feel the debaters should be rewarded for explaining their reasoning for arguments, and I look harder at arguments that are more than just  the statement of a claim without more. 

Ancient, "old school" judge not interested in judgement nor opinion. Words like 'bad' or 'good' will leave me unimpressed.

I rely on you to tell me people's names, keep time so I can enjoy the debate and wait for me to get ready before you start.

You win valuable points with me if you:
Craft an opening statement that leaves the opposing side dumbfounded or at least momentarily stunned, and is so reasonable and logical that constituents can hardly keep from yelling,"Amen!" Anyone who checkmates the opposing resolve with their opening statement gets a standing ovation.
Are mindful of your audience and use creative expression in combination with a confident argument, keep your point simple - you needn't quickly rattle off 20 cards for just one of your points. We needn't beat a dead horse to death.
Don't just answer the questions..address questioners concerns quickly, with facts (not your opinion) that we all expect you to use..then surprise us by taking every opportunity to shoot down the opposing resolve. Yes, I know rebuttals are not really graded as part of the debate, but shouldn't you take all the air time you can to support your side?

How I Grade the Debate

Everyone starts with 27.5. I expect everyone to meet each others arguments tit for tat. If you actually don't address a point (which is pretty rare) - you lose half a point for each unaddressed issue. If you miss an opportunity to use an opponent's own argument against them you drop .5 point. If you use an opponents argument against them --well I love that -- you get a whole point added. If you resort to making statements like "good", "bad" or "well it just makes sense" - without a card pointing to just how much sense it makes.. you lose .5.

I am a former high school debater that has dabbled in everything. I’ve been judging for the past six years and have judged everything, but policy. I recently graduated with a degree in Anthropology, with a focus on cultural anthropology. I’m a pretty typical PF judge and will vote for the team with the most compelling argument, however, I do like a solid framework. As far as cross goes, I don’t care if you sit or stand—whatever is most comfortable for you works for me. I don’t like when you address me during cross because I feel like you should be focused on your opponents instead. My BIGGIE is DO NOT SPREAD. If you are going too fast, I will not flow the round and drop you. This is PF, not policy. I have an extensive speech background and will be pretty merciless when it comes to speaker points. Other than that, remember to be respectful during the debate. Things can get pretty heated sometimes, but that is no excuse for rudeness. If you say things during the round that that are sexist, racist, homophobic, etc., I will drop you immediately. Let’s be kind to one another and remember to have fun! I look forward to hearing some good debates!

Speed: Do not lose clarity for quantity.

Substantive arguments should be well supported, organization helps the flow. My background is a history/philosophy/psychology/forensics teacher and debate coach. It is important to stay on topic, be concise and to directly address the resolution/topic.