Reason for decision

The reason for decision (RFD) is the section of a debate ballot that allows the judge to write out his or her reason for voting for the selected team. It may also include things the judge caught on their own that do not necessarily relate to the decision, but which they think the team(s) should know.

Typical RFDs
Deciding who won a round can take some time. Many rounds are so close that the judge has to carefully study his or her notes to decide the winner. In other rounds, it is fairly obvious to the judge which team won before he or she walks out of the competition room. Once a judge has chosen a winner, they will usually write out their reasoning on the Reason for Decision section of the ballot.

RFDs vary by the judge's background and judging philosophy. A typical RFD will include discussion of the major arguments in the round, who won each point, and how this supported each team's overall position.

In a close outround, it is common for the judges to disagree on the winner. This is known as a split decision. Because judge panels always contain an odd number of judges, however, a split decision will never result in a tie.

Unusual RFDs
While most judges base their RFDs on an objective evaluation of each team's arguments, some do not:


 * Judges may allow personal biases to sway their RFD, or include arguments of their own invention that were never brought up in the round.
 * Judges may vote entirely on personal opinion, without even looking at the arguments; or they may selectively use the arguments to justify a pre-determined decision.
 * Judges may vote entirely upon speaking ability, rather than the arguments themselves (main article: Speaker judge).
 * Judges may simply leave the Reason for Decision section blank.

Debaters are almost universally frustrated by RFDs that do not objectively evaluate their arguments, especially if the outcome of the round was unexpected. The effect of unusual judging is mitigated in outrounds with multiple-judge panels, as a single judge's irregularities have less of an effect on the overall outcome.