RM when he says Method A he's not saying to the best of your ability.
Here are better explanations:
A: Judge arguments based on whether you think they are correct.
B: Judge arguments based on what most respected people believe are correct
C: Judge arguments based on what the debate has determined to be correct
Also note that logic is not an argument; logic is universal, but claims and explanations as to why those claims matter ARE arguments.
And it is possible to have debates about logic, like the nature of it, or about math.
But you can't necessarily debate the logic.
Maybe you kind of could, but you would essentially be explaining why your opponent thinks that, idk, things that are not true are intrinsically, therefore true, and probably will have to argue against them about the nature of logic.
To win, you ought not simply state anything that is not true is not true and therefore not true, you would have to refute you're opponent's arguments that something that is not true is true as well.
And the opponent's view would deal with the nature of logic.
So what matters is what the debate has determined to be right. Not what you think is right.
You can't vote on a debate for the guy who forfeited everything just because you think their opponent was dumb.
The guy never refuted anything!
That's all DynamicSquid's question was asking, RM, not if you should judge to the best of your ability or not.