Flow judge

A flow judge is a judge who flows carefully and makes their decision solely on the arguments presented, with little regard for speaking ability. Coaches and alumni judges are most often flow judges, but many parent judges and some community judges are as well.

Most debaters prefer flow judges, as the outcome of the round may be more predictable and winning "on the flow" feels more fair and decisive.

Differences in style
While generally predictable, not all flow judges evaluate arguments in the same way. Differences often include:


 * How dropped arguments are handled. Some flow judges will make note of a drop and disregard later arguments on it, but will still pay attention to what was said before it was dropped; others will basically pretend the argument never existed. In extreme cases, flow judges will consciously refuse to base their decision on anything that wasn't carried all the way through to the last two speeches (e.g. the 2NR and 2AR.)


 * The degree of tabula rasa. Most flow judges understand standard debate theory and protocols, and can evaluate issues like topicality presses and dropped arguments without much explanation, but others consciously put aside pre-existing knowledge and expect the debaters to tell them how to evaluate their arguments. (For example, they might not flow an argument as a drop unless the opposing team actually points it out and tells them why it matters.)


 * Opinions on theory. More so than other judging styles, flow judges often have well-developed opinions on debate theory; they may dislike counterplans, for example, or like kritiks.