Clear and articulate speeches

Please be respectful and courteous

Hello! I am the Pittsburgh Central Catholic Head Speech Coach with 5 years of experience judging all speech events. If you have any questions about your ballot, my email is pjb82@pitt.edu

If you want some feedback after round, just ask!

If you're an Extemper and you just so happen to have found my paradigm and I'm judging you, this is what you should do:

Make sure you include context in your introduction - don't waste our limited time by making irrelevant connections to pop culture. Explain the context of the question (why are we talking about it today?) and any definitions, technical terms, and historical information I may need to fully understand your answer to the question.

Diversify your sources. Use reputable sources only - if I don't know what it is I'll probably look it up after round. Avoid think tanks. Warrant your claims (remind me why your evidence matters in light of the question itself, not just that particular point).

Email chain, please! jkk34@pitt.edu

he/him

Pittsburgh Central Catholic '21 (currently coaching)

If I am judging you in debate, please keep in mind that I am not trained in any style of debate. Please go slow, please warrant your arguments, and please refrain from using jargon.

Lincoln Douglas Debate -

I generally prefer a more conversational style. If I miss something because you're talking fast, that's on you.

I evaluate the importance of your value and value criterion depending on how its used in the round. Several times, I've found that the winner of the framework debate isn't necessarily the winner of the round.

I strongly prefer when students give explicit voting issues at the end of the round. Tell me how you want me to evaluate the round.

I don't love jargon but cross-apply, extend, turn, etc are fine

I generally decide the winner based on who won the key argument of the round

Evidence is great. I strongly prefer it, but if you have a strong logical argument a lack of evidence won't hurt you.

I'm a flow judge, and I prefer traditional debate and am not a fan of K or theory.

Public Forum -

I am a traditional flow judge and former extemper and public forum debater who prefers clear analysis, well-cited arguments and clearly outlined voting issues in summary and final focus.

I look extremely unfavorably upon theory arguments in public forum. I believe they undermine the educational value of the activity. I still vote off the flow, but import the worst aspects of policy debate into public forum at your own risk.

I try and balance my final decision between who had persuaded me more of their position overall and who won the key arguments of the round. I find that the winning team almost always is stronger in both regards, but if it is close I typically award the win to the team who has persuaded me more of their position overall.

Along those lines, I don't score the rounds based on a strict win-loss basis for each contention. For example, if the affirmative had the better argument on several contentions, but negative had the stronger argument on the main contention at issue in the round, I typically would award the win to negation.

Teams that clearly outline their reasons for decision/voting issues in the third and fourth speeches tend to do better than those that do not. I like it when teams clearly tell me what issues they believe defined the round and why I should vote for them.

I will not hold the speed of your delivery against you, but spread at your own risk. I can only judge based on the arguments I hear. I prefer a more conversational style but am fine with some faster reading - but if I miss points because you read too fast, that's on you.

I am here to listen to the best arguments you've brought to defend your side. I tend not to rate highly teams that get lost in PF-jargon or who try and score technical points in lieu of making a strong argument.

If you are asked to provide a source and you are unable to provide it, I follow PHSSL rules and consider that an automatic loss. Providing analytical and empirical evidence is always necessary. Citing sources is essential for you to formulate your argument, for your opponents to accept the statistics you provide, and to give me the judge a basis to judge the data both teams are using to convince me their argument is superior. Technology or wifi issues are not an excuse - you should be prepared and have downloaded your case and cards so they're accessible offline before the tournament - as we all know, wifi can be spotty at debate tournaments.

My background: I am a public forum coach. I have judged more public forum rounds than any other event combined over the last three school years. I have an educational background in international affairs and a professional background in public policy and education. I do my best to not allow my prior knowledge to influence my decision-making and strive to decide every round by the arguments brought to bear within the four walls of competition room.

Policy -

No spreading. It's poor communication and a sign of an inability to deliver your argument competently, concisely and persuasively. Is it standard in policy? Yes. Do I care? No.

No K's or identity arguments. I love substantive debate - it's why we're here, right? To debate policy?

Limit theory only to topicality. Need to have proper warrants, links, and impacts. Proper use of impacts is essential to policy formation.

Interp/Speech Events:

Interpretation and Speech events are judged on the criteria of engagement, character development, and fluency. An excellent performance engages the audience and brings them into the world that the speaker is creating; the speaker maintains the audience's attention through clear diction, eye contact, and gesticulations (etc.) when appropriate. The speaker's development of their characters should be distinct and crisp; it should not be difficult to identify when another character is speaking based on their voice and body language. The fluency with which a speaker performs is aided by great engagement and character development; a fluent performance helps the audience suspend their disbelief that the performance is not real and helps to immerse them into the world of the piece.

Original Oratory/Extemp:

Original Oratory and Extemporaneous events are judged on the criteria of organization, credibility, engagement, and fluency. Good organization in a speaker's performance includes a clear outline of the speaker's topic, position on the topic, and main speaking points. A speaker also uses their physical space effectively to further punctuate their point changes and transitions. A credible performance is constituted by the identification of at least one source per main speaking point. An engaging performance involves the speaker's use of diction, eye contact, gesticulations, and intonation to appropriately stress and emphasize different important aspects of their performance. A fluent performance is free from filler words and unintended pauses.

In all events:

Regardless of the event, the manner in which the speaker conveys their speech is the most important element. As long as the information and subjects of the speech are not overtly offensive or derogatory, they do not influence rankings.

I am a lay judge who prefers clear analysis, well-cited arguments and clearly outlined reasons for decision in the third and fourth speeches. Teams that clearly outline their reasons for decision/voting issues in the third and fourth speeches tend to do better than those that do not. I like it when teams clearly tell me what issues they believe defined the round and why I should vote for them.

I prefer a more conversational style debate with no spreading - if I miss points because you read too fast, that's on you. I am here to listen to the best arguments you've brought to defend your side. I tend not to rate highly teams that rely heavily on PF-jargon or who try and score technical points. If you are asked to provide a source and you are unable to provide it, I follow PHSSL rules and consider that an automatic loss.

- Gloria