Debate has always been corrupted by the practice of last winners driving the contest to ridiculousness, such as the focus on talking quickly over quality content.
But why are the organizers choosing judges who refuse to judge?
But why are the organizers choosing judges who refuse to judge?
> For the last 13 years, the University of Montevallo in Alabama has held an event called "The Life Raft Debate," where several professors take the stage and each tries to convince the students that his or her discipline—chemistry, say, or communications—is the most essential field of study. But in 2007, a professor named Jon Smith decided that the debate itself needed saving. Producer Nancy Updike tells the story. (14 minutes)
https://www.thisamericanlife.org/402/save-the-day/act-two-22
This is not correct; for an argument to be valid, the conclusion must follow from the premises.
That judge is saying he will vote based on the conclusion regardless of the premises.
Debate tournaments happen after school or on weekends.
So you need about one adult volunteer for every two to four students. The adult needs to be willing to show up to a school for an entire evening or an entire weekend and listen to 5+ hours of high schoolers debating one another.
You can sometimes make do with fewer volunteers by using coaches as judges. But coaches also need to run the tournament, help organize volunteers, not burn out, and... well... coach.
By and large, outside of the most elite tournaments, organizers don't have the luxury of choosing judges. It's far more common to have 7 judges for 10 rounds than to have 10 judges for 7 rounds.