How Judges Ruin Debate
I used to debate public forum for the Lovett School in Atlanta, GA. Did the whole state and national circuit thing blah blah blah. I'm in law school at Georgia State now. Please don't ask as I hate talking about work. Let's begin...
Crossfire is the most important part of a PF round. I don't know why other judges don't flow it. I will say that other judges not flowing harms the activity itself and harms you. For some reason, PF culture has evolved to where debaters don’t need to pay attention to the crossfire. The point is to allow impromptu questioning to gain concessions and provoke logical holes. Instead, I typically get a "can you restate/explain your argument" question which I deduct speaker points for. It’s one of the many skills you should learn from participating in this activity. It's my favorite part and I love a feisty crossfire. It's what makes debate, well debate. I find concessions in crossfire binding to the rest of the round even if it is not referenced by any side. Imagine debating on a public stage where someone makes a big oopsy. Do you think people listening will forget about a major concession? This means that should there be any uncertainty in my mind about an argument from a crossfire Q&A, you better believe you should address it ASAP. Therefore, be on your toes.
I do time you but I'll let you go over about 10 seconds before I cut you off. Please do not time each other. It comes off as standoff and rude every time. 
I do not run prep time for evidence exchange and reading. The reason is because I have seen way too many kids ask for a card, become afraid of using valuable prep to scan evidence that has way too much information on it, then not use it because they really did not get to read it. I would rather we all stop, understand and appreciate the evidence, and have valuable discourse on it than stick with antiquated rules. This is a privilege which means that while the opponent is reading the evidence, no one can do any work during that time. If I see you writing something down during an evidence exchange, I will penalize the offending team. This rule does not apply to break rounds.
I also have no reservations on calling for a piece of evidence that I think is being used for "nefarious" purposes.
I debated and judge public forum (most of the time). PF to me is a persuasive debate meaning how can I use certain pieces of evidence to convince the general public that my side is the correct side. It’s also a way to create public discourse in an open atmosphere. That means I’m not gonna flow a 4-minute speech past 800 words because, in all likelihood, you’re speaking faster than what an average person can understand to retain your argument. Remember, the skills PF teaches is primarily public speaking to the average public. This is not Lincoln Douglas and it certainly is not policy.
Buzz Words that annoy me: weighing, dropped, flow, extend, card, impact, tech, truth etc. Literally anything you hear on the national circuit or on other judge paradigms will annoy me. At one tournament, I was told to turn different arguments for an entire 4 minute speech. I will throw up turning so many times. In all seriousness, please try to use words that are not technical in nature. Teams who typically cannot do so have attended way too many debate summer camps that do not prioritize accessibility. For example, A jury will have no idea what it means to prefer tech over truth. I will allow you to use these words sparingly. Keep in mind the more you use it, the less speaker points I will give you.
I am a very different judge despite all my debate experience. I am terse, strict, and very specific on why PF is the most important activity. I am known to default to 25 speaker points as a starting base. I do not know why tournaments insist on starting at 28. That was not the case when I was debating and the range input is 25-30. You need to work your way up to a 30 not me subtracting points for bad debating.
I do however usually give out 30s during a tournament. I like recognizing good debating and I will give praises in round for skills I think are useful. I generally never agree with how other judges judge rounds which makes me an outlier. Whether you decide or not to change your strategy to me or keep it for every other judge out there makes zero difference to me. I have given many losses to nationally ranked teams and given wins to teams that would otherwise not get wins. I will always disclose and will give heavy feedback in round and also in tabroom. I will not answer questions after a round.
DO NOT ASK IF EVERYONE IS READY THEN GIVE AN OFF TIME ROADMAP. ALSO, NO OFFTIME ROADMAPS
I WILL ASK HOW MANY WORDS YOUR SPEECH IS. IT BETTER NOT BE OVER 800 WORDS. IF IT IS, THEN YOU DID NOT READ MY PARADIGM
DO NOT START CROSS AND THEN WASTE TIME BY ASKING IF YOU HAVE THE FIRST QUESTION. IF YOU GO FIRST, YOU GET FIRST QUESTION. THOSE ARE THE RULES.
SECOND SPEAKERS DO NOT GET A PASS FROM GRAND CROSS JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE ANOTHER SPEECH. I DEDUCT HEAVILY IF A TEAMMATE STAYS SILENT DURING GCF
PLEASE DO YOUR PREFLOWS BEFORE THE ROUND. I DO NOT WANT TO SIT THERE FOR 5 MINUTES WHILE YOU FLOW OUT YOUR CASE.
ANY ARGUMENT THAT LEADS TO NUKE WAR IS OUT UNLESS LINKS ARE AIR TIGHT.
FOR LD:
I am a strict traditionalist. VC is important (duh) but it is also paramount. Regardless of the phrasing of the resolution, I believe the burden of proof rests equally. This is relevant when VC is agreed on by both sides. It is especially relevant when two different VCs are present. If there is a VC clash, do not just give me a laundry list of why I should prefer your VC. Instead, show me how your advocacy solves for the VC you give. I would rather vote for solvency under a VC without good reasons than the opposite.
I love seeing more philosophy. Instead, I get a weird hybrid of policy and PF. I do expect you to go down the flow in order not to jump around. If you need to address a specific piece of evidence please do so alongside rebuttals on the contention level.
DO NOT RUN ANY WEIRD STUFF. Strike me if you need. I don't like policy debate. In fact, I hate the activity. I had a brother who did policy at Westminster which is a very good policy school. He is a horrible debater despite winning national tournaments. No K's, no theory shells. I don't know what they are. I will not flow it. If it is disguised as logic, then I may feel inclined to do so provided that there is warranting.