Email Chain please!! saverabaloch85@gmail.com

I did policy debate in high school

Run the arguments that you are most comfortable with.

tech>truth

Give me an off-time road map before you begin speaking so that I know the order to flow.

PLEASE slow down when you are reading tags for new cards, this makes it easier for me to flow.

If you are disrespectful throughout the round I will weigh that into my decision

Policy/PF/LD- I have not researched the topics so please make an effort to define terms that may be unfamiliar.

I admire respectful communication; I appreciate style of delivery just as much as content; I don't prefer rapid fire facts prioritized over evidence of listening skills and active listening.

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.

Pittsburgh Central Catholic Speech Coach

Inquiries/email chain: xar150@outlook.com

Judging Criteria:

I. Extemp

a. Overview: I value effective and well-structured argumentation above pure presentational poise; to be legitimately convincing is to say something of substance and value — saying it well is the superstructure, not the foundation.

b. Hooks/AGDs: While humor can be a valuable tool of delivery, there's some cognitive dissonance in using SpongeBob for Turkish human rights violations; nihilistic or dark jokes better fit the bill, I feel.

c. Sourcing: Naming and dating sources is essential to establishing credibility; that being said, not all sources are created equal.

d. Argumentation: A clear, defensible argument is essential for me, and suborning the question entirely is a valid form of argument. Turning arguments off of logical fallacies or inaccurate data is borderline offensive; please don't do that.

After wide experience as a speaker and debater during my elementary and secondary education, I have subsequently served as a volunteer coach and judge both during my university career and beyond. After completing my graduate degree, I embarked on an international career spanning several decades and five continents, during which I not only drafted and composed speeches for senior UN officials, but also represented the United Nations myself as a speaker in a variety of fora and media.

Although debating formats have changed dramatically since I participated in the event decades ago, I have attempted through both observation and coaching to keep abreast of developments in the newer forms that have emerged more recently. Obviously, I still tend to prefer the more traditional style of debate with which I am most comfortable, but I am always open to expanding my horizons.

As someone who has broad experience in both speech and debate, I tend to value argument and style equally. While the strength of an argument can be paramount, its eloquent delivery can ensure that it is communicated effectively. In addition, even though the vigorous presentation of an argument can be more convincing, civility in the adversarial process remains something to be cultivated and cherished.

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.

Hello!

I am a former speech competitor. I am going to try my best to flow this debate, so, spreading is not appreciated. I am definitely familiar with the basics of LD and PF.

Other Notes:

Please be respectful to everyone in the room (Before, During, and After Rounds)

In addition, please label all of your main arguments, and any new arguments brought up in the final speech will not be considered. I prefer when your final speech literally is clear to write my ballot.

Have fun, work hard, and good luck.

wisniewskitori@gmail.com