I based my decisions on the overall effectiveness of the debater. I usually determine effectiveness by the quality of the arguments made. Quality arguments are those that state a coherent claim that is clearly linked to the resolution at hand. Further, the claim is supported by quality evidence and quality warrants with analysis and commentary. In a very close debate, I will also consider backing, response to rebuttal, and other aspects of good argument. I find the Toulmin model of argumentation to be a persuasive model of argumentation. I favor logical appeals over appeals of ethos and pathos. However, in PF and LD, I will give weight to appeals of ethos and pathos when the argument is well-made. I will consider appeals of ethos when determining the credibility of evidence used to support a claim. I will discount the importance of a claim in which the evidence supporting the claim is shown by the opponent to be faulty because of the qualifications of the author, the context of the evidence, or other qualitative factors in the evidence. I like for contestants in debate to clash with the other contestant and explain to me when they choose not to clash for strategic reasons so that I can understand their reasoning and prioritization of their arguments. I try really hard to let the contestants tell me what is important in the round, and I try not to let my personal reflections on logic or political views influence my decisions unless the debaters provide little more than superlatives for me to base my decision on. I do not enjoy spreading and find that I loose track of the depth of arguments being made. If my flow is shallow for one side but deep for another, I may give a decision to the side with the deeper argument is the impact of that argument is sufficient when compared with any arguments on the flow that were dropped by that team. In other words, I prefer quality over quantity. When both teams give high quality arguments with clash and have similar impacts, I may base a decision on the overall clarity and effectiveness of the speaker. But, I generally reward quality of argument much more than quality of speaking. I will punish a speaker who does not conduct themselves professionally during a round, as I feel this is detrimental to the educational quality and purpose of the contest. 

With respect to topicality and other issues outside of debate on the resolution, I will give weight to those issues when supported. I will decide them much like I would any other claim. I will not grant a round based on topicality or a like voting issue if stated without warrants backing them, as I feel this would be making a decision based upon my own opinion. I feel the debaters should be rewarded for explaining their reasoning for arguments, and I look harder at arguments that are more than just  the statement of a claim without more. 

I look for rational, linear argumentation. Please do not advance contentions/make arguments without providing adequate warrant/evidence. Please avoid negating your own argument(s) with circular or incomplete warrants/reasoning. Please do not abuse your opponent. Civility will gain much more than overly agressive pursuit. Spreading is perhaps fine, but it had better consist of completed arguments (claim AND warrant) rather than scatter gun approaches designed as insurmountable "gotcha" gimmicks to merely trap your opponents into "dropping" arguments. If your claims and warrants don't actually WORK, then I'm highly unlikely to count them as actual arguments, and your opponent cannot drop arguments that weren't completed on your part. Also, if your speed is so rapid that I cannot flow it, then those are arguments you didn't successfully make, and which your opponent cannot actually "drop." Please do not present me with "theater of the absurd" contentions that are off topic or so bizzarely twisted that they are abusive to your opponent. Such tactics will not be rewarded as voters. Off time road mapping is, to me, highly suspect, as it can quickly appear to be an attempt to abuse the time constraints and thus abuse one's opponent, and leaves an overall bad taste in my mouth (not to mention in the mouth/mouths of your opponent/opponents). If you just MUST off time road map, then, of course, you will want to keep it to a minimum, .... but be aware that really ANY of it appears to me to be suspect/abusive. Please contain your claims and warrants to terms and phrases whose definitions you FULLY understand, and with which you are comfortable and fluent in pronouncing. Just because it is on the card doesn't mean it can't seriously break up your flow if you mis pronounce it or wholly or partially misunderstand all the implications it has. DO flow your opponents' arguments carefully, and feel free to turn claims that aren't warranted, or that are poorly warranted. Being able to so do with terms used by an opponent who clearly doesn't understand ALL implications, without being a wiseacre about it are often rewarded in voting.