Confronting the Adjudicator

Like it or not, there has to be winners and losers in debates. We don't give out draws.
So if you don't like my decision, I still very well expect you to respect it.

Most of my debating days (about 7 of them, since I never made any teams) were probably spent trying to improve my performance. I didn't spend them whittling away at the adjudicators for their justifications (I was probably too busy trying to understand the oral adjudication and what the adjudicators have to say about the entire debate)

If I lose, I just try to find someway to do better the next time.
I don't tell adjudicators what to do or how to judge, and I expect them to do their job properly. If you are asking me to judge debates on facts, that simply goes against the grain of being an adjudicator because we are breaking the code of neutrality (& impartiality) for many reasons.

One, for us to judge on facts, we must know the facts and that means we should know more than the debaters to decide whether or not their fact is right or wrong.
Secondly, by passsing judgement on facts, we are tantamount to entering the debate, because we cannot refute facts and such unless the debaters point it out themselves and we are doing it for them.
Thirdly, do we decide based on quantity of facts, or the quality of facts, or a combination of both? (Someone is rewriting the bloody criteria, for christ sake)

The correct thing to do in this case is to blame the debaters for not being accurate about their facts and not make adjudicators judge to your criteria.