Tallerico,+Robert

Personally, I don't think that judges should have a philosophy - it shouldn't be up to the judge to decide what they will vote on or won't vote on. I like to let the debaters set the parameters of the round, and as long as they are following the rules of their particular event, it should be up to the debaters to frame voting issues (within the context of their speeches) and convince me they did a better job winning those arguments.

So, as long as you frame your arguments, tie them concretely to the resolution you're debating, and provide me evidence and impact, I will consider your arguments.

My one stipulation - and it's more a practical thing than a philosophy - if I can't understand you, I won't vote on your arguments. I usually judge LD or PF (I also coach LD), so I will not say 'clear' and typically will not review evidence, unless there is a charge of falsification. It's the debaters' job to make sure their judge understands their arguments.