I must reconsider about "judging" itself.

I know I can teach what was wrong and how they shold've spoken.

But as a judge making decisions,

the problem came up once again.

How should I evaluate the arguments.

I know it must be the things made from the debater's speech.

But, what if no conclusion was supported by debaters.

what if debaters cannot make logical overview.

I don't know what to do, although I've seen many cases like that.

Also, I doubt last rebuttal tabula rasa judging.

why judge can neglect the constructive speech which stands alone and un-touched.


I really have to think, may be my judging philosophy change.

But it's not a big problem, judge is only a judge.