I have been judging debates on-and -off for several years. However, I have never been a competitor so consider me a lay judge.

I am a traditional judge. I do not like progressive techniques such as spreading. If I cannot understand what you are saying, how can I decide the merits of your arguments? And I do evaluate the round solely on the merits of the arguments presented.

I look for good conflict and clash, but prefer this to be done in a civil manner. When countering an opponent’s arguments, try to close as many of their points as you can.

Your framework should directly relate to the resolution topic, rather than for example, requesting that the entire debate be decided by theory. I don't like voting on technicalities. I want you to prove your case well and focus on the big picture.

While statistical evidence supporting your contentions are always appreciated, I tend to be an analytical person. Therefore, attempting to prove your point by making logical assertions is more important to me than simply quoting statistics. It is not that I consider statistic evidence unimportant - but I view such evidence as a starting point. It is your job to connect your evidence with logical consistencies. Therefore, make it easy for me to judge: Tell me why your arguments are good and/or important, and then why your opponents arguments are not. Tell me how to weigh your arguments. Tell me reasons to prefer your evidence and arguments.