Welcome to my angry rant!....I mean, my paradigm!
 (don’t worry, I am nicer in my RFD).
 I have 5 years experience in World Schools and Public Forum Debate. Flay for policy.
  I hold debaters accountable for Public Forum’s original purpose- which is to communicate to the public*. I am not a lay judge, but if a layman couldn't at least understand you, you are defeating the purpose of public forum and you should be in policy instead.
 tabula rasa, but don't overdo it. You don't need to define "the" for me :P.
  I love kritiks when used sincerely, but not when they are used frivolously.
 Substance over theory, forever and always. I despise theory (except topicality). If you use theory, you better have a GOOD reason and address a REAL issue, because it will not impress me as a default strategy. Theory was designed to keep debate fair...so don't be like rain on your wedding day (ironic...Alanis Morissette...no one?) and use it abusively.
  There is nothing I hate more than a petty theory debate with no substance....but spreading is a close second. If a teacher assigned you a 2 page paper and you used 1pt font to get as much info in as possible while also hoping the teacher didn't catch your mistakes, you wouldn't get away with it. Spreading is no different. The assignment is to convey your message to the public as persuasively as you can in 4 minutes. I consider spreading to be like using 1pt font: cheating. Not to mention that spreading is SUPER elitist to ESL debaters.
 Truth over tech, sorry not sorry. It’s not because I am lay, its because I am allergic to kool-aid and won’t drink it. I still hold you accountable to technical aspects of debate, but not if tech isn't supporting truth. I don't care if you memorize more jargon than your opponent, I care if you have better arguments. Impressive impacts with strong links win.
 Framework should not be neglected!!!!
 ---------------Advice for my victims....I mean, competitors--------------------------------------------
 I have a tendency to favor global impacts over domestic, and I am a sucker for strong logic based on economics. Please remember- the United States is NOT the world, and the values of the United States are NOT universal. If your opponents make assumptions, point them out to me.
 Don't assume I am a liberal- if you want to argue that republicans are inherently bad, you need to prove it.
 Don't collapse on a good argument for the sake of collapsing. It might take 5 seconds out of your summary speech to keep a contention in play that could save your whole round.
 Don't focus on niche issues when your opponents' impact effects the whole world.
 Real world impacts are more impressive to me than theoretical ones. Don't tell me something is going to lead to nuclear war unless you really can prove it. -_- Links or its fake. 
 If you are going to use climate change as your impact, you better be able to prove uniqueness.
 I have a pet peeve for arguments that falsely equate correlation with causation. If your opponent calls you out on this correctly....-_-
 Don't give me a false dilemma. Don't strawman. Don't be dumb. Don't be tricky. Just do your research.
 FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, WEIGH YOUR IMPACTS.