Supporters of a policy of intervention on the part of debate judges argue that nonintervention (1) reduces consensus on objectives of the activity, (2) limits theoretical innovation, (3) creates confusion, (4) inhibits "real world" skills, and (5) promotes irrational behavior. On the other hand, a policy of nonintervention can be justified on two grounds: intervention is counter to the educational ends that it seeks to promote, and intervention interferes with the competitive aspect of debate, which is fully as important as the educational goals. The distinction between the judge and the critic embodies the dual ends of debate. Representing the educational ends, the critic functions as an educator, concerned with the overall quality of debate, in relation to other debates. The judge, representing the competitive ends, determines which team has done the better job of debating. Taken together, these roles embody the judge's proper role. This duality requires the judge to moderate his or her involvement in adjudicating the debate, treating all participants in a fair and equitable manner. In the final analysis, the case for judge intervention fails because such intervention does not further the goals of debate. (HTH)