The judge is always right

"The judge is always right" is a common phrase that refers to how "bad" decisions should be handled. In some cases, the judge doesn't vote for the team everyone expected to win, or decides the round on criteria other than an objective evaluation of the arguments (such as personal bias, speaking ability, etc.) How such decisions should be approached conceptually is controversial.

1. "The judge is always right"
This view holds that the judge's decision is always right, even if it seems illogical. If a debater fails to convince a judge, that's their own fault for not communicating well enough, not the judge's fault for failing to use the kind of analysis they expected.

Proponents of this view generally argue that debate is a communication exercise, and debaters must learn to communicate to all types of people. Holding judges to an arbitrary standard that isn't enforced in the real world lessens the educational value of debate. (This attitude is illustrated by Region IV champion and coach Brian Morgan, who famously stated that "as soon as you blame the judge for your loss, you lose the ability to fix it.")

2. "The judge is sometimes wrong"
This view holds that some decisions are simply objectively bad. Judges have a responsibility to evaluate arguments objectively, so if they make a bad decision, it's their fault, not the debaters'. For the purposes of deciding who advances, we may have to accept "bad" decisions as binding, but it's perfectly OK to get upset about them.

Opponents of this view argue that it fosters negativity and discourages debaters from learning how to communicate to non-objective judges.

3. "The judge is just the judge"
This view holds that it is pointless to argue about whether the judge was "right" or "wrong" at all. It doesn't matter who "should" have won the round; the only thing that matters is who did win, for which the judge is the final authority. It's true that some judges are less objective than others, but that's just a fact of life, and getting emotionally involved or throwing blame around is counterproductive. Just do the best you can - and maybe to find different judges next time.

In practice, this view is a modification of the "judge is always right" view. Instead of accepting that the judge actually is right, however, it emphasizes emotional detachment: the judge may be wrong, but that isn't really a helpful distinction.