A study reported on two experiments which addressed the question of whether debate judges do as they say they will with regard to the advent of judge philosophy statements. The larger goal of the combined experiments was to discover whether: (1) judging paradigms operate meaningfully in Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA) debate and (2) what elements these paradigms contain. The first experiment analyzed the correspondence among critic preferences expressed through 23 judge philosophy statements, responses to a survey instrument, and comments/decision criteria expressed on debate ballots. The second experiment analyzed the consistency between 39 critics' responses to a questionnaire and their evaluations on the template portion of ballots. Three research questions and nine hypotheses were studied in these two experiments. Results showed little reliability for the questionnaire as a predictor of critics' ballot behavior. Paradigm preferences showed limited association between professed paradigms and subsequent ballot behavior. Results also indicated that traditional paradigms largely overlap each other, reducing paradigm distinctiveness. The nine hypotheses showed limited, insignificant differences between critics grouped by metaparadigm categories. (One figure and five tables of data are included. Appendixes include: Syracuse debate union judging criteria questionnaire, coding categories for ballot comments, and judge philosophy coding categories. Seventeen references are attached.) (MG)