As a judge in debate, I value clear and concise arguments that are well-supported by evidence. For all events, including Lincoln-Douglas (LD) and policy debates, speakers should prioritize logical reasoning and impactful communication.

In LD, I look for debaters to engage with the philosophical underpinnings of the resolution and expect a thorough examination of values and criterion. Clarity in value structure is crucial as it serves as the foundation of your case. In cross-examinations, I appreciate respectful questioning that seeks to clarify and challenge assumptions.

For policy debates, the focus should be on the policy framework and its implications. I expect debaters to articulate a clear plan with solvency mechanisms and to engage in-depth with the consequences of adopting or negating the proposed policy. Don't neglect the importance of disadvantages, counterplans, and kritiks but ensure your arguments are accessible and not overly reliant on jargon.

In both forms of debate, speaking style should enhance, not obscure content. Speed is acceptable as long as arguments remain clear and understandable. Spreading is permissible but not at the expense of argument integrity.

Crossfire or cross-examination periods should be used effectively to highlight weaknesses in your opponent's case or to further your own position without resorting to hostile or dismissive tactics.

Ultimately, I reward debaters who can adapt their strategies mid-round based on opponents' arguments and who can crystallize why their side prevails. Courtesy, preparation, and engagement during the round are decisive for a positive impression and successful adjudication