Games judge

A games judge adheres to a judging philosophy that views debate as a game, rather than a simulation of real-world policymaking. Games judges generally have no problem voting for arguments that would be completely absurd in real life. As long as an argument is logically complete, it's a fair voting issue. (For some games judges, it is not necessary for an argument to even be logically complete, so long as it is dropped or not refuted properly. For example, if the Negative runs a disadvantage without a logical link, but the Affirmative never addresses it, a games judge is likely to vote Negative on the disadvantage.)

Games judges are also open to teams using "tricks" in order to win. Any way to win is considered valid (so long as it is ethical.) Therefore, Reverse Voting Issues, spikes, and other crafty argumentation is rewarded.