I started out as an old-school LD debate coach & judge, and that's still pretty much my mindset no matter what I'm judging.
I love debate and view it not so much as a means for one side to beat another, but for all involved to be able to have a broader understanding of the issues that we face in current events. I also hope this event fosters a deeper understanding of the philosophical and theoretical ideas that weave their way throughout the different ways we talk to and learn from each other and that influence how we vote and otherwise act in the world.

I view all debate as a public speaking event first; speed/spreading (which I despise to the ends of the world), speaking with your face in a laptop or other device, sloppy articulation, etc., will tilt me toward voting for your opponent, and will definitely result in reduced speaker points.

I flow all speeches in debates & take notes on CX. My tech-leaning students describe me as a flow/lay/flay judge. I try to quote from my flow/notes/jumble of words to support which side I voted for and why.

I understand that no one is truly tabula rasa, but it is an ideal that I strive for. I love me a good, solid framework and clearly articulated voting issues, and a values clash is essential in LD. If you don't signpost, I promise I'll be lost 30 seconds into your speech. I look for claims supported by warrants & data, as well as clearly articulated impacts. In LD, I'll buy logic and clear analysis over stats if the analysis is logical and truly links to the resolution, claim, etc., being addressed.

In PF (and sometimes LD), I feel there is some leeway for judge "intervention" in the NCFL by-law that directs us to ask, "Were the arguments intelligent?" E.g., if a case asserts that prison rehabilitation can lead to nuclear war, I will have a ridiculously low bar for refutation.