Fitzgerald,+Michael

Michael Fitzgerald Kamiak High School '07 University of WA BA Political Science '11

I debated for Kamiak High School (WA) for four years. I did LD for 3 years, policy debate for one. I was State Champion in LD (WA) in 2006 and a Semi-finalist at State 2007. I've been judging since October 2007, and I've judged (at this point) around 20-25 ToC bid rounds around WA State (Mostly @ Auburn when it as a bid tournament and at Federal Way), 20-25 outrounds post bid round @ ToC bid tournaments in WA. I like judging debate and I judge a lot of it.

Summary of my paradigm:

Speed is fine- I will say clear. Theory is fine- I err reasonability over competing interps. Unique frameworks and cases are fine (policy maker, etc), debate is your game- you make the rules. I err Aff. framework for establishing quality ground, I err Kritiks if there are clear pre-fiat/post-fiat justifications for a K debate over on-case deabte. CX IS important, and I do reward concessions made in CX as arguments that a debater can't just kick. I disclose if the tournament says I have to, or if both debaters are fine with disclosure. I think that debaters should know what their records are going into outrounds so that they can prepare. I'll disclose speaks and my reasons for speaks if you want to know them. The key to my paradigm is that the more specific your questions the better my answers.

The long version:

Speaking: Clarity over quantity. Quality over quantity. Speed is just fine if you are clear, but I reward debaters who aim at persuasive styles of speaking over debaters who speak at the same tone, pitch, etc the entire debate. In addition to doing debate I sang in choir and I play the piano and tenor sax. I like lyrical speaking/quality speaking over harsh, bitter tones. Pitch matters, if I can't hear you I can't flow you. Excessive swearing or any type of inappropriate physical gesturing will result in lower speaks.

Theory debate: Reasonability. I believe that theory is intervention and my threshold for voting on theory is pretty high. If I feel like a negative has spread an Aff out of the round, or a Neg runs 3 independent disads that are impossible for a team of people with PhD's to answer in a 4 minute 1AR, and the Aff runs abuse theory on it, I'll probably vote Aff.

Cross Examination: I'm fine with flex prep. I think debaters should stand and actually make an effort to be respectful and polite, and to not look at each other. CX should be fair- don't intentionally lie, or somehow try to play games that in ways hinder or impair a debaters ability to understand your case or responses to their case. Cross examination concessions are binding, so own what you say in CX and play the game fairly.

--- Speaking: The same rules for clarity always apply- if I don’t understand what you are saying, don’t expect to receive anything higher than a 28. You will lose speaker points if you: 1. Refuse to answer questions in Cross-Examination. That's a no-go. IF a question is asked, give some kind of answer. 2. Use an excess of swearing. If swearing is in a card, that’s allowed within reason. I understand some kritiks require its use as a matter of discourse, but outside of carded evidence I absolutely do not condone the use of language that would be considered offensive speaking in public considering debate is an academic and public speaking competition. 3. Are found to be generally disrespectful to either myself as the judge or to your opponent. This will be very obvious, as I will tell you that you were extremely disrespectful after round. You can run any type of argument you want in front of me. It is not my job to do the work for you. However, I am in the firm belief that all affirmatives should have some kind of standard that they try to win (value/criterion), and that the negative is not necessarily tied to the same obligation- the burden on either side is different. The affirmative must take a position that in some way affirms the resolution, and the negative can take whatever route they want to show how the affirmative is not doing that sufficiently. I’ll listen to a Kritik. The worse the Kritik, the more susceptible I’ll be to good theory on why K’s are bad for debate. Kritiks that in some way are related to the resolution (instead of a kritik you could run on any topic) are definitely the kind I would be more sympathetic to listening to and potentially voting for.

This is not policy debate. I’m very pleased when I see a good standards debate that clashes on fundamental issues involving framework, impacts, and what either side thinks really matters in my adjudication of the round. I don’t like blippy debate. I like debate that gets to the substantive heart of whatever the issue is. In terms of priorities, there are very few arguments I would actually consider a priori. The one that almost always is would be theory dealing with abuse, but be warned that I need a very thorough explanation on what the brink on abuse is- the more persuaded I am either way, the better your chances of winning theory on abuse. My favorite debates are the kind where one side clearly wins standards (whichever one they decide to go for), and has a compelling round story. Voters are crucial in rebuttals, and a clear link story, replete with warrants and weighted impacts, is the best route to take for my ballot. I approach judging like a job, and to that end I am very thorough in how I will judge your debate. I will flow everything that goes on in round, I make notations on my flows and I keep a very good record of rounds. If something is just straight up factually untrue, and your opponent points it out, don’t expect to win it as an argument.