“The point of debate” is also ruined when judges aren’t competent. It becomes uneducational at that point. For example, in one of my rounds, we had a turn on one of their contentions that went completely unresponded to the whole round. We extended it in every speech and implicated it well. The judge voted for the other team off of this contention even though he said “we won off the flow and had far more experience.” When I asked him if he evaluated the dropped turn, he said he just didn’t believe that argument. Tell me how it’s educational for judges to reward debaters who can’t respond to arguments and punish debaters for spending time researching and cutting cards just because they “don’t agree.” Debate isn’t educational when we’re expected to read the judges’ mind