Debate originated from the idea that truth was built based on the debunking of colliding hardy arguments: not the decree of one monarch. Greek democracy utilized this. The Athenian courts and assembly revolved around oral argument. The Enlightenment further refined it. Yet, somewhere between Greek society and modern-day America, where nerdy high schoolers dress in blazers on early Saturdays, the spirit of debate has become competitive. Today, two teams will argue opposing sides and are judged, ostensibly, by a seemingly "neutral" judge. The key word here is "ostensibly," since the modern debate judge has become the all-knowing authority debate attempted to circumvent.

This problem manifests into two separate but pernicious forms. Experienced coaches or debaters that have graduated to the ballot, also known as flow judges, have carried their experience into their judging. Many of these judges will create paradigms to articulate their judging preferences: lines such as "If you mention Greek politics as your examples, I'll give you a 30."

Here, debate becomes less about who can make the better arguments when questioned, and more about who can spew the most Greek political references or some other irrelevant . Through these paradigms, we end up losing the goal of debate: who can make the best argument and defend it against opposition. Debaters become consumed with code-switching their case to best please their judge during prep time.

Inexperienced judges, popularly known as lay judges, are the average parent or public civilian. They often have preconceived, specific biases about what they believe a good debate is. Some prefer emotional aphorisms and anecdotes, while others prefer substantial evidence. Some prefer humor, while others believe it detracts from the crux of the debate. Lay judges having these preferences leads them to look for a specific debate style and to penalize those who do not follow their unvoiced principles, as lay judges often do not have paradigms on Tabroom or similar sites.

Oftentimes, this judge adaptation is more accessible to well-established or wealthier debate teams. Affluent debate teams that can afford to attend more prestigious tournaments can better understand regional judging preferences. Newer teams or independent entries to the circuit often have less knowledge about regional preferences due to their lack of experience or less extensive coaching accessibility.

An example of this is West Coast debate, as West Coast parli allows for internet preparation, yet East Coast debate does not. This disconnect is not regularly voiced and has led to many culture shocks, as newcomers are not used to the distinctive styles.

Debate was founded on being meritocratic and enfranchising those previously disenfranchised, but judges' likings end up favoring debate teams with more resources and familiarity, rather than the competitors' rudimentary logic. This ultimately reinforces the existing inequities in debate based on socioeconomic status, contradicting its foundational principles.

The solution to these judging-related grievances is tabula rasa. Tabula rasa, disseminated by John Locke, is a Latin phrase translating to "blank slate." Its application in debate is that judges should approach all debates with impartiality on all stances and styles. Currently, a judge may drop someone's speaker points because they used timeframe, probability, and magnitude weighing, rather than ballot weighing, due to their personal preference. Under tabula rasa, a judge's weighing preference and regional styles are trivial if the weighing ends up helping the team's case.

A variation of tabula rasa is "tech over truth," where judges will not evaluate arguments based on their truth, but on the arguments on the judge's flow, and the debater's warranting and implications of it. If the argument remains uncontested, regardless of its accuracy, the judge has no choice but to flow the argument through.

Opponents of tabula rasa may claim that it proliferates unwarranted, illogical arguments being run, as judges cannot utilize prior knowledge when evaluating arguments. Arguments such as "Vote gov because the sky is green" possibly can be flowed through in tech over truth judging despite minimal warranting. However, this argument undermines the entire layout of typical debates. In debate, subsequent speeches will refute the arguments preceding them. This means debaters are deterred from making poor arguments because their opponents will seamlessly rebut them due to poor linking. Instead, it is more productive to make arguments with logic and real-world examples to win points of clash easily.

Without tabula rasa judging, debate fails to live up to its democratizing and educational elements. Richer debate teams typically end up dominating the circuit, while others hold less power due to preconceived ideals. This directly contradicts the original purpose of debate, which was to ensure all voices were civically participating, rather than an oligarchy ensuing. Oftentimes, debate teaches students to think critically and communicate clearly, but truth over tech prioritizes intellectual conformity, detracting from the skills that can be reaped.

A ballot should reflect what was heard, said, and repudiated during the round. It should not be influenced by a judge's personal opinions formed before the round commenced.