I am a second year judge, with most of my experience being in Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas and Novice Policy debate.
In LD rounds I like to see clearly defined AND linked values and criterion. I expect clear weighing and it should happen early on in the round: give me specific reasons as to why you better uphold your value and criterion and why yours should be preferred. Explain to me the main crutches of your arguments and really weigh those impacts in the rebuttal. This way, I will not have to intervene as a judge on the flow and decide who wins the round.
I value evidence as well as analytic and analysis HOWEVER logic supersedes all. Let your arguments make sense and let the evidence support your contentions. If the debate come down to a clash between well-made yet substantiated and unsubstantiated arguments the former will be preferred.
I also enjoy definitions that allow fair ground for an equal debate.
Debaters should be and are entirely capable of being polite to one another. Cross examinations, while they are not flowed, are an opportunity for you to show this capability.
Please speak clearly and at conversational speed, speed is not always best and especially if the arguments you present hold no weight. Where ideas fall, words are many.