I have judged High School Debate for seven years now. JV and Varsity have constituted 90% of the last two years.
I have adopted an old-school PURE policy paradigm. What the does that mean? Look up the strict definition of policy paradigm from awhile back, and you will read that policy meant a judge sat in the back and voted for what he/she felt was the best policy for the United States. In other words, they pretended they were the president.

EVERYTHING you do in my round should be argued under that framework; I am the president.Here's a guide as to how I deal with different aspects of the round:

When structuring your case/arguments for a speech, outlining is IMPERATIVE. (i.e. using: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. or a. b. c. d.) This allows both me to easily know which arguments you are referencing and attempting to pull through. (i.e. "Pull my Solvency 3 Card that says...") Also, do not use 'NEXT' or 'AND' when transitioning between cards, you will lose a lot of cards in the round because I did not realize you switched to a new card. In the case of Dis-Ads, make sure your Uniqueness, Link, Impact(s) are clearly labeled as such. For Topicality, clearly state what it is. Same goes for Counterplans.

If you think that speaking fast is all there is to a good debate you would be wrong in my eyes. Often in my rounds the faster speaking team will lose because they lack any sort of clarity of speech or they don't put any substantial weight on any issues, instead focusing on filling my flow with as many issues as they can so in the end they can just rattle off a list of points the other side missed. I prefer QUALITY over QUANTITY. You would NOT go into a meeting with the president and read at 5000 words a minute. He would kick you out in a heartbeat. I will announce you’re speeding twice, telling you to slow down, if you continue to read too fast, I will stop trying to flow your speech.
Depth and analysis, not amount, is going to sway my decision.

Topicality: I don’t mind Topicality as long is it is a real argument. I hired the Aff Team to present a plan under the resolution. That being said, If you get up there and read topicality on the word “The” or “by,” chances are I won’t listen to them.
Dis-Advantages: Clearly, the president has to be concerned about nuclear war. But to suggest to him that everything leads there? You'd be quickly dismissed as a nutcase and then given an ambassadorship to someplace not so nice. This goes for both sides. I like real impacts because I am trying to (fictitiously) decide real policy.
New Arguments in the 2NC: Brand new Off-Case Arguments are not allowed in the 2NC, UNLESS, you can justify why they are in the 2NC.
Splitting the Neg Block: If you split the Neg block, as the 2NR don’t get up there and tell me they didn’t spend enough time countering your 13 minutes of arguments and evidence. To cover 13 minutes of stuff in 5 minutes and still pull your own arguments and evidence through is a challenge all in itself. So, I will tend towards 1AR leniency.
Counter-plans: Absolutely, within the framework. Tell me we should let China do it; we should consult the EU first, etc. You must keep the CP non-topical and competitive however. I hired two teams of COMPETING advisors, not lobbyists who will each sell me their own Aff plan.
Kritiks / Critics: Kritiks must function in the real world and have policy alternatives. The president absolutely should care about the moral underpinnings of the Aff case or Neg Counterplan. They don't always, but I will. On the other hand, if the American people will laugh me out of office for rejecting a good idea because of some bizarre solipsistic construction a strung-out philosopher dreamed up, I'm not voting on it.
Performance:"Performance" I'm trying to do what's best for our country ON THE RESOLUTION. If your performance makes the resolution tangential, the secret service will be asked to not-so-gently escort you from the room. Also see the comments on non-realistic K above.
Theory:I am okay with Abuse-Theory such as theory on picks. What I will not listen to is Rules-Theory such as "We can't argue the Aff plan until we fix the problems with Debate in general." I am the president, trying to vote on whether or not the Aff plan is good. I am NOT voting on how the debate round should or shouldn't be conducted.
Critical Arguments: I will listen to these, but your chances of winning are slim based on the fact that I am the president and I have to worry about the people in my country and will be unlikely to vote for a plan that will lead to the death of everyone in my country.
Cross-Examination: Tag-Team, Open C-X, Whatever you want to call it, I am okay with it to a degree. Yes, I understand that you occasionally need help answering a question, or a question slipped your mind. With that said, you should still KNOW your case/evidence that you read. If your partner asks/answers more than you in your C-X, you both will lose speaker points. I understand that you might want to make sure your partner gets to an argument.
Analysis: This is KEY for you to win arguments. Analyze your evidence. It helps me to understand what you’re saying, why you read that card, and what this does to counter other evidence. It is especially useful when you are Turning an argument... Explain how you are turning the argument.

Finally, the president is a busy man. You do your arguing and don't expect me to do it for you by calling for all your cards at the end of the round. If you didn't make it clear enough, I guess you didn't consider it a very important point for me to consider.
Lastly, enjoy this. It is a rare opportunity to debate for the president. Don't be rude and don't be lazy. Have fun within the seriousness of the fake situation.