I have judged and coached a long time and can handle just about any style of debate.

Clash is very important in all forms of debate, and one trend I have seen in some events is ostensible refutation which consists of repetition of a previous point rather than responding to arguments from the opponents. I notice this most often in LD voters and 2AR speeches and in PF Summary and Final Focus speeches. I appreciate a little review, but if you aren't giving any new arguments, then I'm not writing anything down and it's not doing a lot to help you.

I should mention that I can handle speed but I don't particularly like it: I'm not sure I've ever seen a round where a speeding debater gained any advantage from speed that judicious selection of words and careful choice of cards wouldn't have done just as well. I also don't judge based on winning a number of arguments - it's how the arguments impact the overall debate that counts.

Head Coach of speech and debate team for 11 years.

I am a former college LD'er and also really enjoyed speech doing Extemp in high school and college.

LD Paradigm
My paradigm reflects a somewhat older traditional LD judge who believes in topicality and strong argumentation with contention clash and strong crystallization. I am not impressed with debate lingo being thrown about and expected to finish the argument for you. Make it simple and argue on the framework and contentions.
Do not spread. I need to hear and flow your arguments in order to score. If I can't understand you, then I can't score you. Do not heavily rely on esoteric counterplans or kritques. Please do not do theory unless its absolutely required.

Beyond this, I am pretty simple. Argue well, follow basic decorum of the debate and make sure I can follow you. Sign posting is your friend and mine.

PF Paradigm

All that applies in LD applies here as well except I dislike partner imbalance in grand cross and counter coverage in later speeches. I believe PF should also be even MORE open to anyone to judge so less reliant on debate lingo to summarily dismiss opposition argumentation.

Congress Paradigm
Congress is the perfect combination of extemp speech and debate. I pay attention very closely during cross. First speeches are high risk and high reward. If you are giving the first pro or con speech it's basically an oratory and should be delivered as such. Later speeches should crystallize if extending the debate and counter often or taking a new angle and approach. Not that into chamber games, but at the national level I am ok with it.

TL;DR for all- directly CLASH with your opponent and make it easy for me to flow and understand you.

I've been coaching speech for 25 years.  In that time, my debate experience and exposure has been very limited. 

I have to be able to understand and keep up with you in order to be able to follow your argument. 

Speaking fast will earn you no points with me. 

Tone and delivery are likely to carry almost as much weight as the logic and facts of your case. 

I do pay attention to the quality and reliability of your sources.  

Be polite.  Rudeness in a round is unforgiveable.  You can make your case without belittling or condescending to the other side.