Judge Intervention: Solutions to an Age Old Dilemma

Intervention by judges in CEDA (Cross Examination Debate Association) debates is inappropriate: critics should not strive to impose their views on debates. It is important to consider the ramifications of judge intervention due to the recent increase in critics who impose their paradigm on the debate participants. Two very recent trends are particularly disturbing: language use intervention; and judges who allow debaters to converse with them and add arguments that the critic may not have followed or does not remember. One possible alternative is ballot or oral criticism that does not affect speaker points. A second solution is an increase in the use of mutual preference judge assignments. A more radical solution is that of participant consensus. Even if these solutions do not appeal to a majority of coaches, judges, and debaters, it would seem obvious that judge intervention needs to be stopped to increase the educational value of competitive debate. (RS)