I am a coach (Washington) with most of my skills and training in speech. My high school events (Oregon and Montana) were oratory and interps. When it comes to debate, I am not as experienced though I have been judging it regularly at smaller local tournaments. I have been coaching for over 5 years and attended nationals 3 times. I did judge Big Questions and LD at nationals one year.

I prefer traditional LD and a conversational speaking pace. This is a values debate so you should focus on convincing me that your value is more applicable and that your criterion uphold it better than the opponents. It isn't about how many points you win, but winning the most important ones. If you can show that your side also upholds your opponents value- even better.

Coming from the speech side of things, I appreciate clear organization and speaking skills. Make me want to keep listening (or at least not want to stop). You can have a personality.

I am not a fan of tricks or trying to make it so there's nothing your opponent can really argue against. I want to see both sides being able to bring good ideas and counter things their opponents says. I want this to be a tough decision. Respect your opponents and me and have fun.

Poor sportsmanship may result in an automatic loss.
If you talk so fast I can't understand you I don't put it in the flow

I also don't like arguments that are essentially--if everyone is dead then no one suffers.

I competed in LD and PF in High school (2007-09) and then mostly parliamentary Debate 2010-14 in college. I then assistant coached /judged collegiate speech and debate from 2014-19. I've competed and judged all basic platform, limited prep, debate formats, congress, and interp events.
I am generally familiar with the more complex debate theories (topicality and framework, counterplan theory, kritiks, etc) but I am a bit rusty from not debating or judging for 5+ years now, so please give a quick /brief overview of any jargon or meta-debate that you introduce to the debate round.
In general I try to allow you to frame the structure of the debate. I usually will look first to the framework debate (how are we defining words, are you offering a criterion or value that you want me to judge the round on, is there an overall observation about the resolution that you want me to consider) and I expect both debaters to convince me to view the debate round through their proposed lens. This means often whoever wins the framework debate may win the overall debate (if both sides don't agree on the same general framework). That being said, if this is not a main clash within the debate round I will follow your lead to judge the round. In general, it is always going to be in your best interest to TELL ME how you want me to judge the round.
I tend to weigh argumentation much heavier than I do presentation skills and delivery. I am always willing to hand over a low-point-win if that is how the arguments played out.