Matt Fisher -- Northwestern
Use the back button on your browser to return to the pref entry page or tournament entry list. The judge philosophy appears in a different format at the bottom of the page.
Judging philosophy:
Matt Fisher Northwestern University Updated: September, 2011 Background: I debated for four years at GBN, and then for four years at Northwestern. I was a 1a/2n for 5 of those years, and a 2a/1n for 3 of them. I'm currently coaching for Greenhill and Northwestern. This will be my first year judging college debate, and fifth year judging high school debate. Meta: - To quote Calum, (http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Matheson%2C+Calum) "An argument consists of a claim and a warrant. A useful argument has a claim, a warrant, and an implication." If you haven't already, you should read all of Calum's philosophy (along with Dave Strauss', Tristan Morales', and Josh Branson's). Seriously, if you haven't read those, it's probably more valuable to just read those than continue reading. - Clarity is underrated/undervalued - Talking fast is not the same as true speed; true speed is measured by the number of arguments that the judge thinks the opponent has to answer. - Debaters should combine technical proficiency with big-picture argumentation - Extension of evidence/arguments must include an extension of the warrants - not just the taglines - Specificity of arguments matter - no matter what the argument (links for a K, topicality violations/standards, theory interpretations, etc.) - Impact comparison is essential - especially in the final rebuttals - Evidence quality matters - a lot. Logical, intelligent analytics can beat bad, unwarranted evidence. Evidence comparison is a must. - I'm not a good judge for 'cheap-shot' theory arguments or specification arguments because I think they detract from the educational merit of this activity - I like well-researched, case specific strategies - I support the concept of Alternate Use Time --- and, if both sides agree/the tournament allows, I will definitely allow this - If you consider an argument to be "new," you must identify it as such (providing a warrant for why it's new) and then identify the proper remedy Topicality: Topicality is a voting issue. I think both sides should strive to prove why their interpretation could sustain a yearlong debate topic - more than a self-serving/tricky violation (or counter-interpretation). Teams should back-up their interpretations and standards with evidence. Disads: - Specificity of the link matters. - Disads should be intrinsic to the plan Counterplans: Theory defaults... - Reading evidence to defend the theoretical legitimacy/value of the CP helps - Conditionality is probably good…but it's been getting reckless -- I could certainly be persuaded that multiple (esp. if contradictory) conditional positions are bad/a voting issue - PICs are probably good - Consult CPs are probably good - if there is specific evidence about the aff/a clear disad to not consulting - Competition is up-for-debate -- default is that it should be based off of the mandates of the affirmative plan - Fiating private actors is suspect - Severance is probably bad - Intrinsic perms are probably bad Critiques: - the viability of the alt seems to frequently be under-debated - 'no value to life,' 'extinction inevitable,' 'ethical d-rule,' etc. are all meaningless phrases by themselves --- they must be explained/compared to the other side's impact framing - specificity of link matters - historical comparisons are useful (*please* don't take this to mean that I want to hear how every aff replicates the logic of the Holocaust or Vietnam) - specificity of the impact matters Framework: Non-policy affs... Affs should probably have plans; those plans should probably be related to the topic/USFG action. I could (obviously) be persuaded otherwise, but that is certainly my default. I'm not an 'auto-win' for 'policy' teams vs. 'non-policy' teams --- if you (policy team) cannot persuasively argue why the (non-policy) aff should engage in policy debate, you will probably lose my ballot. When debating critiques... Make sure that the resolution of the framework debate - if it's in your favor - actually helps you win the debate. Far too often, framework debates seem like useless distractions that don't really advance the ball for either side (that is, if you win FW, how does that affect the other side's arguments?). If you have further questions, feel free to ask
Seasonal voting record:
Judge Philosophy Alternate Format: