Examining the role of the debate judge reveals many differences between the Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA) and National Debate Tournament (NDT). One area in which CEDA differs is that of judge qualifications. At present CEDA is moving towards using more lay judges, while NDT has more strict requirements. It would be interesting to use two judges in a tournament, one lay and one professional, keeping a separate tab for each and comparing their results. Another way in which CEDA differs from NDT is the fact that certain regions of the United States are doing a kind of debate that does not even resemble CEDA as it appears in other regions. Furthermore, directors are selecting tournaments based on the kind of debating they support. Because of this, many CEDA debaters are beginning to request the judges' preference or paradigm before beginning the tournament. The problem with this approach is that some teams do the opposite of what the judge likes and offend the judge. If both teams ignore the judge's preference, the judge is caught in a bind according to the current rules, as he or she must select a winner. A tournament philosophy page which accompanies the invitation is a better way to help debaters and judges better understand the expected environment of the specific tournament. Since the judge is the main agent for controlling abuse in debates, they should be more involved in policing the debates. The critic holds the future of debate in his or her hands, and should not take the responsibility lightly. (PRA)