CAMERON MATHEWS

JUDGING PHILOSOPHY

General Comments:

Typically, I tend to see debate from a relatively open perspective. I am not sure I know anyone who would place themselves too much in one category or another, but I tend to try to let the debate happen and stay out of it as much as possible. While I know this is not entirely possible in any situation, I try very hard to view the debate as an outside spectator and not to bring too many rules with me into the round.

Topicality:

I do think that topicality is a voting issue. I do not think that topicality is a reverse voting issue. I think that it serves a purpose of creating a fair atmosphere in the debate for competition and clash. However, I don’t consider myself a T "hack" in that while I do view it as a solid rule, I think that the negative has a level of proof that is necessary to win my vote here.

Counterplans:

While I typically wouldn’t think of any types of counterplans as abusive, I do think that there can be persuasive arguments made for why dispositionality/conditionality can be a voting issue (though they need to prove some clear abuse). I also think that the same can be said for plan inclusive counterplans. While at first glance, I tend not to find much of these theory arguments as damaging as straight turns/disads to the counterplan, I think that good intellectual arguments here can be just as much a reason to reject the counterplan. One thing to make sure, though, is to give a clear explanation of the status of the negative if the theory arguments are valid, i.e. does the counterplan go away, and the negative reverts to the status quo? or does the negative automatically lose? Either way, there needs to be an explanation and reasons why this is true. In general any theoretical objections to a counterplan (agent, etc.) can be justified, but I tend to find substantive argumentation more persuasive, and tend not to vote on theory issues as often as they are made.

Kritiks/Critiques:

While I have somewhat been accused of being somewhat of a hack for kritiks, as time goes on, I find myself losing more and more interest in them. Not that I dislike them, but I dislike it when the negative fails to explain the implications of the kritik in a reasonable fashion. I also find it relatively annoying when the negative cannot explain the purpose or point of the kritik without finding themselves trapped in the language of the kritik itself. I find it much more helpful when the negative is able to explain the kritik without all of the philosophical jargon.

Other notes: