I've judged over 14 tournaments since 2014 but I still consider myself a novice judge. Most of my knowledge of judging debate comes from trolling the internet for material that pops up from search terms like, "how to judge high school debate". In real life I'm a research scientist (evolutionary biologist), so I'm well-practiced at evaluating evidence and whether or not conclusions logically follow from the analyzed data. I'm more persuaded by logos than ethos, and even less so, pathos. I like to think that I can set aside my biases, but I am honest enough to say that this is difficult, especially if presented with evidence that is factually incorrect. Thus, try as I might, I cannot bring myself to approach each debate completely tabula rasa. Just because you can make a claim and state it as fact doesn't make it so. So I'm big on cited evidence/sources. Primary sources are superior to secondary, and tertiary sources are more like non-authoratitive opinions than evidence.

Flow: I may have a PhD in biology, but I also played college football and underwent plenty of brain trauma. Use your flow to help me keep mine straight. The harder you make me work to keep my own flow, the less likely it is that I'll pick up points in your favor.

Speed: I'm totally fine with spewing, but I'll call for clarification if it gets too fast.

Articulation: Wins out over speed any day. I minored in philosophy and English in college and appreciate points that are made and justified economically versus wind bagging and circumlocution.

Timing: I’ll set my timer and when it beeps, you’re done. I have ADHD and can’t multi-task. I’m either flowing or playing with the timer. So I flow. If you see me counting down and giving hand signals and all that stuff, it might be because you’ve lost me. Try hard to keep me engaged. I love this stuff, but I’m easily distracted. Stay on point, and I will too.

Flow judge, preference to impacts and real world application.

Debates:Convince me with facts - back it up with cards from well-respected sources. Please assume I know nothing about the topic, regardless of whether that might be true or not.  I am a flow judge. I prefer a debate on the topic not a 

Do not spread! I will judge on clarity of communication which is diminished by spreading. Quantity DOES NOT equal quality and if I get the sense you are trying to just overwhelm me and the competition with information it will most likely work against you.  

There is a subjective aspect to most debates and I value agility and responsiveness to the opponents case. I also prioritize preparation, specific vocabulary and decorum. Show polish, professionalism and respect.

I will reward eloquent/articulate speakers appropriately with speaker points, but it also isn't unheard of for me to award low point wins. Focus on your contentions and counters to your opponents' points

Be respectful of your opponents during the heat of battle and in particular during cross-ex!  Remain professional and level-headed.  I have been known to penalize a team if I feel they were excessively rude, interrupted unnecessarilyy and/or are condescending.   

Debate is a two-way street: prove why you're right and your opponent is wrong. Less rhetoric, more substance.