i win

j/k   proceed

I remember once trying to set something up like this!  Except that I failed miserably due to real life issues creeping up on me at the time!  (stupid real life!)

Oh, that's good... we should write judging philosophies!  I knew I was forgetting something:

1: Remember how I was rambling about discussion as an analysis of ideas, not a fight amongst people?  Yeah, that's because such is how I judge.  Anything you even think might be within the Politics forum Constitution I'm drafting, probably also something to consider here (ask away if you have questions).
2: Sorry, but appeals to emotion don't work with me.  In addition, unless you can show differently (a good argument can possibly be made against such a stance, and I'm more than willing to hear, and even accept your view, if you can effectively win the argument), I tend to follow a utilitarian approach to ethics debates ("rights," "morals," and "ethics" are constructed because, at the time of their creation, the action had a useful utilitarian purpose).  Thus, asserting that there is a "right" to something does not really work.  Rather, the more effective approach would be to explain what happens to society if said "rights" were not recognized, and thus why, as a result, those rights should be recognized.

This method makes it much easier to evaluate any discussion, as it allows us to look at concrete effects (such as body counts), rather than comparing abstract morals against one another.
3: Some of you might like this, but I'm in no way opposed to voting for what would otherwise be considered "the crazy" argument.  There are hundreds of different ways you can be creative with your argumentation, stepping outside the mainstream in terms of what your argument will be.  I'm 100% for this, and I've often seen that these debates can be the most awesome debates ever!

A good example: One of my favorite arguments to hear in debates (though I'm not saying everyone should argue this every time... that will just get obnoxious) was when, after one team would say that their side of the debate prevents disease, a massive war, etc., the other side stands up and says "Yeah, we'll cause a bunch of nuclear wars... but humanity will survive, and we need to reduce the population!  Bring on them wars!"   [Note: This is probably why it was a terrible idea to have both Justinian and myself judging in the same group... haha!]