2026 Gabel GabFest
McHenry County College - Oct 10 | Status: Accepting Entries | 9:54 AM Central
Tournament Time: 9:54 AM Central
Judge Philosophies
Alexandra Walthes - McK
n/a
Andres Huerta - Tourn Judges
n/a
Bill Lucio - Harper College
DEBATE
To me, a good debater can adapt to any style of debate and is aware of the differing styles each form of debate utilizes. For instance, I believe debate jargon has value in rounds of Parli and LD, as those are specific styles of debate that include a unique type of rhetoric and vernacular in which all speakers have learned and been coached on. On the flip side, it is my belief that a more common style of debate, like IPDA, should focus on the bare bones structure of argumentation.
IPDA should be accessible to anyone, anywhere, regardless of their experience. In face, public is in the name. The second speakers start using debate jargon in IPDA, they have already lost me as a judge. I think that one of the reasons why debate is dying, is because its getting too niche focused IPDA is an amazing gateway event that should welcome newer, first-time debaters into the family, and bringing in styles reserved for other forms of debate can be hard on beginners.
I value humanity and humility. I much prefer speakers refer to each other by their names, rather than, my opponent. I dont like aggressive questioning, passive aggressiveness, and boastful or cocky presentations. I dont appreciate speakers telling me how I will vote give me all the tools I need to make an informed decision, but dont tell me what I am going to do or not do. Remember that there is a fine line between enthusiasm and volume. Remember that there is a difference between passion and pace. Make sure you find that happy medium of ethos, pathos, and logos, as speakers who priorities one heavily over the other two will not be rewarded.
At the end of the day, I value debaters who treat the round like three friends having a conversation over coffee. Lets remain friends by the end of this thing, yea?
PLATFORM EVENTSRegarding individual events, speakers should engage in appropriate delivery strategies when performing Platform events, such as proper pronunciation and clarity of words, a wide range of vocal variety, and natural use of gestures. While the overall delivery of a speech weighs heavily in my decision, I also tend to prioritize organization and flow, as well as creativity in topic choice. I'm a firm believer in creative content, but also respect solid and identifiable transitions. Do not go overtime. INTERP EVENTS In other individual events, such as Interp, I expect the speaker to fully embody their characters. Take risks, think outside of the box, and use your body and movement in ways that aren't necessarily obvious or overdone. While the argument articulated in an introduction does play a major role in my overall decision, I value a performance that takes me out of this world and puts me into a new one, so really become your character and "own" the world in which they live in. Do not go overtime. Lastly, regarding Limited Prep events, I really respect a good, clean delivery, that utilizes all the tools of basic public speaking (organization, variety of examples/sources, confidence in speaking voice, engagement with the audience, etc.). I do not want to hear a "canned" speech, challenge yourself! If I feel like I have heard your speech before, or that the interpretation of your quotation is too much of a stretch, I will most likely reward the other speakers who placed a more creative emphasis on their speech. Students competing in LP events should be constantly reading the news and searching for examples, so i want to see some interesting things I haven't seen before. Do not go overtime, ESPECIALLY if I am giving you time signals throughout the entire speech.
Bob Chikos - Tourn Judges
n/a
Carolyn Clarke - Highland
Individual Events (not debate) paradigm: I appreciate when there are content warnings for events (especially interp) that need them. I understand that what "need" means can get subjective...but I would say if you are on the fence about it, it is better to have one if I am judging than not to. For example, if an interp is graphic, involves acting out something that can be considered traumatic.... (such as abuse, etc.), no matter how good the performance is, a lack of a content warning will likely effect your rank because folks need to be able to consent to seeing it. This does influence my judging unless a tournament explicitly states (either in rules or generally by their staff) that it should not influence my judging.
~*Debate Paradigm*~
*Please take my directness in this paradigm only as my opinion-- there is no "wrong" way of debating! This paradigm just describes stylistically/behaviorally, what I prefer in a debate.:)*
IMy debate paradigm prefers debate styles that produce educational rounds and logical argumentation (not just talking the fastest, or prettiest, or listing the most sources). That said, I genuinely love debate and I enjoy watching/judging rounds and providing feedback. Watching an amazing debate is like, eating a decadent slice of cake for me. So just know, I am genuinely happy to be there and excited to see you learn and grow as a debater.
When judging all forms of debate, I consider myself a "mostly" tabula rasa (blank slate) judge-- but I also understand that some arguments are inherently stronger than others. I would like to be directly told why one argument should be valued over the other. I like being blatantly told, reminded, and shown how and why you are winning over your opponents-- probably more than most judges. Tell me what to do. I also like when you compare the quantity and quality of your impacts to your opponents' (impact calculus).
I am a "use all of your tools" judge. If I notice you have an opportunity to run a type of argument available to you, I hope you run it and get disappointed when you don't. This includes critiquing in-round behaviors, resolutional analysis, whatever. You should really want it, and if you do, use all of your tools.
I can enjoy almost any debate, but I am particularly fond of directness. I think in regard to norms, this is what largely separates Parli from IPDA. Parli norms favor directness, while IPDA norms favor implicity and relational context. I don't like this. I prefer the IPDA rounds I judge to carry the same directness that you would see in a typical parli round, just without the jargon. I do not like implicity. When I am your judge, please say exactly what you mean, say exactly why it matters, and say exactly what I should do about it.
I love pathos (the debate rounds I get chills from are so cool!), but poetic and flowery langauge / delivery is less engaging to me than directness and being real about what is happening in-round. I want the debate round to be acknowledged as such and for there to be direct clash of arguments. Essentially, I want to hear "voter issue"- type reasoning that the (aff/gov/opp/neg) won the round throughout the debate and not just in rebuttals/summaries. I do not want to see two competing extemps. I want to know why you are winning. Show me and sell it to me directly, please. (**Voter issue - summarized reason of why you won the round).
I firmly believe that everything in debate is up for debate and there are very few "rules". The rules are the timeframes in which you speak, if there is flex time or cross examination, using internet within rounds, etc. When it comes to arguments, to me, there are no rules. So any "that's against the rules!" claims are unlikely to move me.
I think debate should be accessible. Thus, I hate speed (talking really fast). Do not speed. If you are gasping, you are speeding. If your opponent or I say "clear", slow down or it will really effect your speaker points. Like I will cut them in half. Speed = inaccessable to many people and thus, makes for crappy debate. It also hinders genuine persuasion. If your idea of winning means putting the most on the flow and hoping the other team drops arguments due to your speed----What does that say about your confidence in your logical argumentation and engagement with your opponents? Just don't speed. It's cringe. I also have a very hard time understanding speed and can't flow it so you risk me dropping all of your arguments. It's a risk you don't want to take.
Continuing on accessiblity: Jargon - I know pretty much all debate jargon but feel it should always be explained before using it in a round, no matter what format of debate. This makes it more accessible to your audience and competitors who may not know the term you are using. I feel this about any form of debate I am judging. Don't just say "Perm the counterplan", first explain what a perm is. Don't just say "the weighing mechanism is more true than false", first explain what a weighing mechanism is, and then how "more true than false" works as a weighing mechanism. If your opponent has never heard of a term, your built-in description of what it is should still give them the opportunity to understand and argue against it. I feel like debate should be won by good logic and argumentation, not "I know this term and you don't.".
On General Argumentation: As a judge, I want to hear all of the "hows" and "whys". I vote on arguments, not claims. I love good links. Show me how you got to your claim. I will not make links for you. Also, I really love fully fledged out impacts. How does your argument impact back to the weighing mechanism? The resolution? The debate? Debate as a whole? Outside the realm of debate? I generally don't consider arguments without links or impacts on the flow. If your opponent lacks links or impacts bring that up to me (**Flow - documentation of debate arguments and responses throughout the round...).
On evidence: I believe, a form of debate that allows/encourages citing sources means sources along with their credibility can be up for debate. Cite your dates because that is also up for debate. Sources are not evidence-- they are used to validate your evidence. Evidence is an example supporting your claim or link. I firmly believe that, at least in IPDA & NPDA, sources are not necessary to win a round. However, evidence, is.... but if your opponent has no sources that should still be brought up (use all your tools).
On organization: I prefer clear hierarchical structure. Give me your 1's, 2's, A's and B's. Example:
Contention II.
___A.
________1.
____________a.
____________b.
________2.
____________a.
____________b.
____B. ....... get it?
Or, you can label your parts of arguments -- Claim, evidence, warrant, impact.
Either way, label your structure so it can be easily found on the flow. I expect this in Parli. I know it may not always be realistic in IPDA. Try to also label your responses and refer directly to where they are on the flow: "On the Government's Contention 1, Big A, little 1, little b: They stated x, y, and z. I have 3 responses to this. First,..... second,.... third,... This type of structure makes for such a clean debate.
On Resolutional Analysis: I expect clear, concrete, definitions. Don't leave room for questions. Put it all on the table and own it. Neg - if something feels fishy or unfair, it probably is. Figure it out and call it out. Be direct and again, own it.
On definitions: I care a lot about aff rights... especially in a format like IPDA where the rebuttal & summary are only 3 minutes. Neg does not just get to bring up definitions because they decide to, and they don't win on spontaneous definitions with no warrant. "My definitions are preferable because xyz" is not good enough. Aff needs to commit a violation in order for neg to change the definitions. I don't care if the definitions are better, I don't care if the source is better, I don't care if the definitions allow for world peace, puppies and kittens, or make me rich. If the affirmative has not committed a violation OR the negative does not call out this violation, then the aff is who gets to frame the round. Period. However, the affirmative NEEDS to call out any attempt at newly established definitions by neg. Even if neg doesn't have warrants. Otherwise the neg gets away with it. I see this too often in IPDA. There needs to be a justification as to why the definitions have to change. It's aff's burden and right to define the round and set the parameters on it. Unless aff has 1. caused ground loss in the way they have set up the round, 2. are flat out wrong and are framing the round in a way that is not in line with the resolution or grammatical integrity, 3. are so vague that clarification needs to occur or 4. The choices were so offensive that it becomes something that cannot be debated, then AFF is who gets to define the round. Neg, if you are dying to change the definitions, you need to explain which of those four violations aff has committed and why it matters. Aff, even if neg doesn't provide those links and impacts, you still need to combat the claim by proving you aren't doing whatever the violation is. It cannot go unresponded to.
On Trichotomy in Parli and IPDA: I am used to and expect cases to be fact, value, or policy ("metaphor" can just be sorted into one of those 3). While policy rounds are my favorite of the 3, I do not come from the mindset that all rounds are or should be policy. There are multiple formats of debate dedicated to that, and they aren't IPDA or NPDA. Parli was created to expand the resolution types into fact, value, and policy instead of ONLY policy... and you can consider IPDA Parli's younger, also-trichotomous cousin. Thus, I tend to sympathize with opp/neg teams facing unpredictably defined rounds on the basis of trichotomy, but it needs to be brought up and called out directly. I will not make that argument for the negative. (***Trichotomy - a debate framework that allows for 3 types of resolutions: fact, value, and policy).
On Policy in IPDA: To me, IPDA norms are the wild west and we are still seeing and doing weird things... including not having plans in policy rounds. In order to have a "policy" round, there has to be a plan. I expect teams defining the round as a policy to have at least one mandate. Without at least a formal mandate, it just becomes a value round. If neg calls aff out on this (either not upholding their burden of providing a plan for a policy round OR defining what is clearly a policy resolution as a value round) I will vote on it. I think it's important to "play" policy-maker in debate because whose to say you won't be one someday? Debating with specific plans help you understand "real world" policies. I also think debaters should be able to form plan-specific disadvantages -- not just disadvantages to a world without the harms described by aff... which is what we usually see in IPDA.
On Topicality in IPDA - Necessary. Just don't call it a topicality argument or use jargon. Explain it like you are talking to a 6 year old. (**Topicality - when the neg team asserts the aff's case does not fall within the scope of the resolution, or violates what is considered to be a foundational standard in defining a round).
On Topicality in general -It's one of your tools and you should use it if it is available to you. HOWEVER. I have really, really high standards for the work that needs to be done to make topicality arguments. I need to know EXACTLY what was done incorrectly, how exactly it is influencing the round, why that matters in round, why that matters out of round, what the aff burden is, what my burden as a judge is, and why I should VOTE on this. If you are missing any number of those pieces, I might just ignore your topicality. I do not vote on claims, even if I agree that the aff committed a violation. Just remember to answer the following questions: 1. How? and 2. why should I care?
On Performative Debate: If you can justify it, can defend it, and are direct about it, I'm open. Tell me what is going on though. Like, if you want to bring out a guitar for a debate round...or play pretend with the room... OK, but warrant it.
On Abuse: I accept all forms of abuse arguments. However, I expect to be walked through HOW the abuse occurs and I need to know why it matters 1. To the round but 2. More importantly, out of this round. Why should we care about abuse in debate? What are the implications of letting your opponents do what they are doing? Tell. me. Like topicality, I have high standards for abuse arguments).
Kritiks: I accept K's in all formats of debate, I just prefer for them to be on the shorter side and genuine. I don't have any philisophical qualms against K's, they are just another tool, and I feel you should use all of your tools. That said, I find resolutional K's to be incredibly frustrating. If your resolution is wildly offensive, ok, sure. Otherwise? avoid. I feel they are often used as a tactic to just catch opponents off guard as opposed to making a genuine, contextual, and appropriate critique on what is happening in the round. Please do the latter if you are going to run a K. (***Kritik/K - a critique of something rhetorical in the round that then becomes a voter issue. Some examples of what a kritik could be called on are: someone saying something incredibly offensive in-round, a resolution that is problematic or definitions that force the negative to be problematic, speeding and thus making your arguments inaccessible to various types of folk, etc.).
Counterplans: Ew. I'm allergic to counterplans. I will accept counterplans but I strongly dislike them. *Especially in IPDA*. The only time I think a counterplan is necessary is when the harms are so valid (and probably identity-related) that refuting them would be offensive (in which case, you should also run a K. See above). If you are running a counterplan, it NEEDS to be nontopical (as in, I still expect neg to uphold the burden of refutation and oppose the resolution. Aff needs to be upholding the resolution, not neg.). I also expect the plan to meet all of the solvency and advantages that the original plan does, plus more. AND, it needs to be mutually exclusive to the original plan. Whenever it's not, I always hope that the affirmative perms the counterplan. I accept perms with little justification. To me, if neg decides to run a counterplan that does not directly conflict with the original plan, Aff can say "ok, we will do both plans, and claim all of the advantages!"-- in that case, I'd give the round to an affirmative team, because both teams met the affirmative burden: upholding the resolution.... while neg did not uphold their burden because they did not negate the resolution. So. Long story short, I don't like counterplans and I don't think they are as an effective approach as disads. I think running a counterplan is less competitive. In my experience, it reduces clash, which makes for worse debates. It's like throwing two plates of spaghetti at a wall and seeing which one sticks. At least to me. Ick. (***Perm - short for permutation - an argument made by the affirmative team to show that their plan and the negative's counterplan are not mutually exclusive and can be done at the same time...usually winning aff the round. In order to overcome a perm, the negative must prove that their counterplan alone without the affirmative plan is superior to a case where both plans are run).
Illegal Should Would Arguments: The affirmative has fiat power. The plan passes. Period. It doesn't get bogged down in congress, there is no "well so and so will veto this". Nope. As far as I am concerned, the plan passes the moment the aff is done announcing it. (Illegal should would arguments*** - when the negative (unless it's in response to a counterplan) argues that the affirmative can't pass their plan for any reason. Nope. the plan passes. By any and all means necessary, the plan passes. Feel free to say that whenever announcing your plan!).
Weighing Mechanism - P of E: I do not like "preponderance of evidence" as a WM because it used to be more commonly abused and used to cherry pick wins based on more closely alligned philosophies of what that weighing mechanism (P of E) actually means as opposed to genuine argumentation, logic, etc. On one hand, it rhetorically values the evidence part of the argument over the arguments as a whole. When you run that as a WM, you open the door to the other team citing more sources than you and then arguing "well, we had more evidence, our evidence was of higher quality, etc. and thus we win the round." that to me is incredibly frustrating. I want clash, logic, and direct refutation. Not inherant wins because of "I had more/better evidence". Some teams just say this as their weighing mechanism when really they mean "More true than false" -- some run P of E as a WM just because they are told to or see others doing it and don't think about the potentially negative implications of doing so.
Weighing Mechanisms in general - Ask yourself what you are doing with your case and how you would like to be judged-- use an accurate weighing mechanism to that. I really dislike "judge, however you feel personally" as a WM. More than P of E. It opens a nasty can of worms--- when this happens, I tend to vote for the team that did not establish that WM. Because I personally feel that is a bad WM. That demonstrates the problem with it. (***Weighing mechanism - a way for debaters and judges to compare or "weigh" arguments, ultimately deciding which side should win the round).
Partner to partner communication: I accept whispering and quietly communicating with your partner during the round (although, not verbally DURING your partner's speech). Flashing / passing notes is fine by me, but if you speak during your partner's speech it will negatively affect your speaker points. A lot.
Shaming or hissing - will negatively effect your speaker points. Like, I will cut them in half. If your opponent offends you or says something offensive it is so much more competitive and persuasive to bring it up in the round as a K or a voter. That said, when I have heard shaming or hissing it has never been warranted. "I am winning over my opponent because..." does not warrant that. "The affirmative team has violated the standard of education" does not warrant that. Think of a really nasty insult you would hate to hear-- that could warrant shaming or hissing, but wouldn't you rather bring it up as a K so you could win on it? (**Shaming and hissing - when opponents or audience members verbally "shame" (Like, they literally say "shame" during your speech) or hiss at a speaker, insinuating they did something "shameful" or offensive).
Questions: Love questions. Ask questions during cross examination alone in IPDA. For Parli, ask questions in flex time but ask them during speeches too. Flex time is not the same as cross examination. It's a time for clarification and preparation. I think you should use all of your tools-- and asking questions during a speech is a tool. Also - there is no set rule about how many questions a debater has to answer in parli. 3 per speech is generally the norm for Parli (and it could effect speaker points if you lower it) but it is by no means a rule. In parli I expect you to answer questions during speeches if they are asked to you. I do not want you to wait until flex time and that will influence your speaker points.
Policy Planks: I expect policies to contain at the very least, some form of CLEAR mandate statement(s), a timeline, and funding. There probably should be more and could prompt disads if there isn't. *Planks- specific components that make up a plan.
Values: Usually in value rounds there is the WM and then sometimes an additional value or value(s) applied as structural lens for the round. Sometimes teams run the WM as the value itself. If the affirmative team wants to establish a value in a value round, that value should either be fair and applicable to both teams or the affirmative should literally tell the negative that they are selecting that value, and expect the negative to select a countervalue. If the affirmative does not specify this and they apply a value that does not provide ample ground for both teams, the negative should bring up a warrant for a countervalue. By warrant, I mean, what is wrong with the original value? I don't think neg is just effortlessly granted a counter value just because. Explain why neg needs a counter value and then provide a better one. However, if aff is expecting neg to bring up their own value, they need to say that. Otherwise their aff-only value could be twisted as a framework element that also applies to neg, and is thus abusive or unfair...which could win neg a round, if they bring it up.
(***Splitting the neg - bringing up new arguments in the Member of Opp speech in Parli): I believe bringing up a ton of new arguments (or any framework arguments) in the second negative speech is incredibly abusive. If you plan on giving the gov only their last, 5-minute speech to refutue your brand new arguments, continue the old ones, and get to voters, then you have the wrong judge. That said, aff needs to call out this abuse in order for me to vote on it. Why is this abusive? What is this abuse's impact on debate? I especially love when aff preemptively calls it out and says "don't let them bring up a bunch of new arguments" when they had the chance to assert them in the first negative constructive.
On pronouns and names: I prefer for students to call each other by their roles: "the negative", "the affirmative", "The prime minister", "The opposition" etc. This is because saying names opens the door to mispronouncing them and it also makes the round so personal-- something about that layer of intimacy whilst engaging in clash makes me uncomfortable. Also, if the debate round gets heated, it feels MUCH more personal when names and pronouns are being used. Speaking of pronouns- using them makes it more likely to misgender someone. So instead, using "they" and refering to your opponent as their position as opposed to their name allows for less unneccessary risk.
On thank yous and cross ex behavior:Keep thank you's short and genuine. A "blanket" of thank yous means you are thanking everyone in one thank you. No need to go through and thank individual people after saying "blanket of thank you's". That defeats the purpose of the blanket. No need to have "How are you?" or "How is your day going?" as cross examination questions. To me it can come off disingenous and is too intimate for the context. You can be kind and polite to your opponents, even be friends with them, without making it performative for a debate. Stick to the meat.
AGDs in any form of debate: Not for me. Time is a precious resource in debate and to me, that is a waste of it--- unless it involves going straight into the topic and gives context (and even probably then), cut it if I am your only judge.
Burdens: I think it is aff's job to fulfill the burden of proof and neg's job to fulfill the burden of refutation. If I'm confused in a round as to what is going on, I will vote on who upheld their burden the best.
Joe Blasdel - McK
Section 1: General Information
I competed in parliamentary debate and individual events from 1996 to 2000 for McKendree University. After three years studying political science at Syracuse University, I returned to coach at McKendree (NPDA, LD, and IEs) and have been doing so ever since.
In a typical policy debate, I tend to evaluate arguments in a comparative advantage framework (rather than stock issues). I am unlikely to vote on inherency or purely defensive arguments.
On trichotomy, I tend to think the government has the right to run what type of case they want as long as they can defend that their interpretation is topical. While I donât see a lot of good fact/value debates, I am open to people choosing to do so. Iâm also okay with people turning fact or value resolutions into policy debates. For me, these sorts of arguments are always better handled as questions of topicality.
If there are new arguments in rebuttals, I will discount them, even if no point of order is raised. The rules permit you to raise POOs, but you should use them with discretion. If youâre calling multiple irrelevant POOs, I will probably not be pleased.
Iâm not a fan of making warrantless assertions in the LOC/MG and then explaining/warranting them in the MO/PMR. I tend to give the PMR a good deal of latitude in answering these ânewâ arguments and tend to protect the opposition from these ânewâ PMR arguments.
Section 2: Specific Inquiries
Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given).
Typically, my range of speaker points is 27-29, unless something extraordinary happens (good or bad).
How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be âcontradictoryâ? with other negative positions?
Iâm open to Ks but I probably have a higher threshold for voting for them than your average judge. I approach the K as a sort of ideological counterplan. As a result, itâs important to me that you have a clear, competitive, and solvent alternative. I think critical affirmatives are fine so long as they are topical. If they are not topical, itâs likely to be an uphill battle. As for whether Ks can contradict other arguments in the round, it depends on the context/nature of the K.
Performance based argumentsâ?¦
Same as above.
Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?
Having a specific abuse story is important to winning topicality, but not always necessary. A specific abuse story does not necessarily mean linking out of a position thatâs run; it means identifying a particular argument that the affirmative excludes AND why that argument should be negative ground. I view topicality through a competing interpretations framework â Iâm not sure what a reasonable interpretation is. On topicality, I have an âaverageâ threshold. I donât vote on RVIs. On spec/non-T theory, I have a âhighâ threshold. Unless it is seriously mishandled, Iâm probably not going to vote on these types of arguments.
Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? Functional competition?
All things being equal, I have tended to err negative in most CP theory debates (except for delay). I think CPs should be functionally competitive. Unless specified otherwise, I understand counterplans to be conditional. I donât have a particularly strong position on the legitimacy of conditionality. I think advantage CPs are smart and underutilized.
In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)?
All things being equal, I evaluate procedural issues first. After that, I evaluate everything through a comparative advantage framework.
How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")?
I tend to prefer concrete impacts over abstract impacts absent a reason to do otherwise. If there are competing stories comparing impacts (and there probably should be), I accept the more warranted story. I also have a tendency to focus more heavily on probability than magnitude.
Karl Craddock - Tourn Judges
n/a
Katarina Holecek - Tourn Judges
n/a
Kenneth Denis - Tourn Judges
n/a
Prem Ganesan - ILSTU
n/a
Reed Greger (he/they) - ILSTU
n/a
Sabrina Nardi - Tourn Judges
n/a
Sarah Michalak - Tourn Judges
n/a
Tim Anderson - ECC
I am not a debate judge, and when I do judge debate, it is usually IPDA. Because IPDA is "public debate", someone with no debate experience should be able to take part and someone with no judging experience should be able to decide the winner.
IPDA debaters in my rounds should approach the debate as a conversation. Eliminate definition of things that don't really need them (like, we all know what "the Oscar's" are or what a "hamburger" is, so you don't need to define it).
I believe that the use of jargon and debate procedurals should be non-existent. While I have limited debate experience from my time competing and coaching, trying to win a round by trying to prove "my opponent didn't do blah blah so I win" won't win me over. I don't flow your arguments...if they are clear, I should be able to follow. Overall, I view IPDA as the kind of debate I would see in a classroom setting. As opposed to one side trying to prove why the other chose the wrong weighing mechanism, an incorrect definition, etc. just talk like two students in a classroom debate would. Think about it: if you were in a classroom debate and started all in on weighing mechanisms, defining everything, and downing your opponent, you'd be the jerk in class no one wants to work with. Also, don't tell me how I need to vote a round (i.e., "my opponent didn't do x, so you HAVE TO give the round to the affirmative"...No...I don't. The final choice is mine to make, so present your best cases and let me make the final ballot.
I also find IPDA to be more fun and enjoyable when sides actually refute the other and stay "on case" the entire time. Otherwise, it's just two ships passing in the night.
Also, I don't like thank you's at the beginning of rounds. They end up sounding sarcastic. And, don't refer to your opponent as "my opponent". They have a name that is part of their identity...call them that.
I take these same ideas with me when judging any form of debate.