Looking for clear, organized arguments that effectively support your value.  I prefer your criterion to be an objective measurement or at least try to demonstrate that is is a quantifiable measure.  I am ok with speed but if I can't understand you, I can't vote for you. I like voter issues - tell me why you won the debate.  Clash is good in a debate but always maintain respect for all those in the room.  

So. First a couple of things about my judging experience-
I'm a parent judge affiliated with Los Alamos High School in New Mexico. My daughter does LD on the national circuit, so I've seen national circuit rounds.  I have LD events out of state.

Now about what I look for in a round-
I am of the opinion that debate should be a persuasive activity and thus I would like to see slower style.
I'm also pretty traditionalist- values and criteria are really important to how I weigh a round and I'm not fluent enough in critical or policy style argumentation to give you a fair decision.
So if you run those arguments, don't rank me very highly.

I will always be looking for impact.

I do not look favoribly on abusive strategies.

My daughter tells me I am a point stickler. I average 28 or 29. If you run arguments I've told you not to, those points will drop quickly. The same is true if I can't understand you when you speak- either too quickly or into your computers.

I will not ask you to speak slower. If I can't understand you, you are wasting our time.
I will not tolerate rude, racist, or sexist behavior in the round. If I see any of these, I will give you a loss 20.

Debate experience:  10 years Speech & Debate competitor (Junior High - College); 7 years as a judge & 4 years coach (Policy, Public Forum & LD) in a local lay circuit.   Judging philosophy: Policy Maker   Most experience judging traditional stock issues style of policy debate with counter-plans and comparative analysis. Being a more traditional judge, I am uncomfortable judging performance or discourse-based debates (from either the aff or the negative). On the neg I like DA's, any CP's, and T. I am also willing to vote on K's, although I am less familiar with the literature, so explain your cards and contextualize them to the round. I am listening for specific links from the negative, running a lot of generic links is less persuasive. On the aff I want to see a topical plan implemented by the USFG. I am willing to vote for affirmatives that use the USFG but have K-like advantages describing the effects of the plan; however, those should be post-fiat. I am unlikely to vote on theory unless there is pretty reasonable in-round abuse (such as 4 conditional positions).     I strongly prefer depth over breadth, and the specificity of your evidence should play a large role in your impact calculus--lots of generic evidence is less persuasive than a few specific cards.  I am looking for the traditional "link-brink-impact" analysis and direct clash.  I am a flow judge who can understand very moderate speed, but I have not judged many debates on this policy topic, so explaining acronyms and topic-jargon will be important. If I can't understand you I will say clear.    Signposting and clear organization helps comprehension, for your competitors and judges, and improves clash in the debate. Arguments should have a logical flow to them.   Have fun.  Be polite. Persuade me. 

This paradigm was written for POLICY and the thing to understand is that I see clear differences between the items needed in each format. To see how I view PF or LD find them towards the end of the flow. Following are the things that matter in terms of how I judge policy. At the end, I will provide some guidance when you see me as a Public Forum judge and add some Lincoln Douglas comments as well.

Speed- I will tolerate reasonable speed but if it is so fast that I cannot flow it, the argument did not happen and you lose speaker points and perhaps the debate. Be clear, enunciate all syllables, and do not attempt to use extreme speed to intimidate an opponent because if your opponent cannot flow it then it is likely I cannot either. If you do not see me flowing, you lost me and this is not a good thing. In the vernacular of my generation, Speed kills.

Performatives- I have yet to see one that convinced me that it should win a debate round. If that is your only offense then it indicates to me that you may not have adequately considered the myriad of arguments that could win on this very multi faceted debate topic. I have taught Debate, English Language Arts, US History, Asian History and European History, Government, Economics, and World Mythology. All of these areas provide adequate forays into the current topic.

K Affs- I love a good one. You MUST convince me that your K is not only a valid premise in terms of the topic area but well considered and researched . This being said, I am unlikely to entertain current feminist or racially based K affs that I have seen as they appear to be lacking in a wide range of scholarship and stick to a very few popular sources. If you want to run a feminist arguments, foundations in Sanger, Friedan, Brown, Paul, Anthony, Catt, Wollenstonecraft, Pankhurst, Adams, Addams, Steinem, et al would be a start and beneficial and help to sell me your case. Racial arguments, like the ones I have heard on feminism, should be based in documented materials with a wide range of authors including people like Malcolm X, King, Evers, Mandela, Gandhi, Chavez, Truth, Marshall,Davis, Innis, Hamer, Randolph, Parks, Douglas, Wilkins, and Williams. I am old enough and was active enough in the 1960's and 1970's that many of the arguments appear lacking in historical perspective and scholarship. So you have to give me a really good well researched case for me to buy it . However, all of this being said, human rights issues still generate a myriad of offense and become far more applicable for me to buy IF they are well done.

Language K's and claims- Like the K's above they have to be substantive and real world impacted. The PC culture tends to be poorly received in the real world that the middle class and lower middles class inhabit. Having my background steeped in this, unless I can see that you have real world examples and solvency, it is a tough sell. Real world environments tend to mirror Hobbs more than anyone else....cold, brutish and dark. Just beware that I am unlikely to entertain a case that has little real relationship to the real world. Academia is fun but business and government where policy lives in the real world exhibits far less esoteric concerns. I have inhabited both worlds thus will err on the side of reality more than anything else.

T arguments can be fun but beware of overly specific definitions such that you leave your opposition with no area in which to maneuver as it might be considered abuse. Mr. Webster and Mr. Thorndyke as well as Mr. Black ought to be sufficient and there is no need to nitpick. It is topical because or non-topical because without grinding the argument into vanilla and soporific areas requiring caffeine to solve.

Civility is a KEY element for me. No rudeness or your speaker points could drop to the very low 20's. I will not tolerate rude, abusive or mean behavior. This is debate and it should be civil and respectful. We are not being broadcast nationally so there is no need to be reflective of what passes for debate in the media.

I do consider recency as this topic lends itself well to a wealth of more current data.

Slow for tag lines...please!

One last word on policy....and this is related to speed. I see no way without speeding beyond anything I will accept to even try to present over 9 off case or on case positions. I have seen people present 12 at which point my pen fell to the floor as there was no way I could reasonably flow it. So, please, be reasonable. Overwhelming a judge is not a good idea. Your opponents will get additional credit if they claim abuse over this. I will give them credit for recognizing reasonability. It is here where your analytical skill can win you the debate. I do not care who you quote to try to justify throwing out this many arguments, they are not me .

Most of all, learn something from your opponents, expand the base of your knowledge and skills and when the serious part of the debate is over, have fun. This is a great activity for everyone and shows our common ground despite the multitude of backgrounds in our population. We can all share ideas, experiences and advance the activity to its highest levels.

I will disclose wins, losses and winning arguments but not speaker points if permitted by the tournament.

PUBLIC FORUM GUIDANCE

As this IS Public Forum I will tell you that I do not want to see K's (aff or neg), Plans, CP's or Performatives. Racism arguments will only work when you do not limit the commentary to racism for ONLY one group when in reality the racism is applicable to multiple ethnicities or minorities. You need to really be making sure that your commentary is civil for everyone. Dirty looks and negative commentary during Cross will certainly not earn you my vote. I happen to favor the Father of our Country in this regard and consider civility to be not just important in this activity but one of the lessons you are supposed to model. Foaming at the mouth and spewing specious rhetoric is not going to be tolerated. No quarter on these things. I also EXPECT to see clash and if there is none then we are not really debating as the definition of debate includes clash always. Have fun and make new friends of your opponents as this is one of the only activities where you can clash and argue in round and be besties out of round. Enjoy!

Lincoln Douglas-ERR on the side of traditional Lincoln Douglas formats. Always tie to your value and value criteria. I do not favor bringing policy argumentation into LD debate. When you run a K you ignore the scope of LD debating which is meant to be more universal and not applicable to any single system of governance or economics. If you run a CP, you must show me where the affirmative is running a plan text. LD does not ask for plans and this should be left to policy debate. No plan, no counter plan..it is basically that simple.

Again civility is a key ingredient to a good debate. I just finished another book on Abraham Lincoln and the development of his speaking style via the experience as a courtroom attorney. As a result, I am not a big fan of progressive debate although I have coached students who did use this successfully and crafted their arguments to be exceptionally cogent. Beware of speed and see above comments on policy to understand how I feel about speed.

One last comment regarding venues where background noise is an issue. Please, please, please be considerate of your judges and your opponents and speak loud enough and clear enough that your arguments can be followed, flowed and examined. This might require that you slow down a bit and project to be heard. If we cannot hear your argument, it cannot get you the credit you obviously deserve.

Good luck, have fun, learn something, and always, make new friends!