I have been involved with speech and debate since I was a participant myself in high school. I attribute my professional success as an attorney and a professor to the foundation build with experiences from speech and debate.

As a judge, I utilize my legal background in my approach. I value the strength of argument(s) first and foremost when it comes to decision-making. Beyond that, I also put stock into the strength of evidence and structure.

I expect all participants to be respectful of one another and professional during rounds.

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).

Personal Preferences:

Affirmative/ Pro sits on the left [in relative to the front]

Negation/ Con sits on the right [in relative to the front]

Be respectful to each other***

No yelling during crossfires [not including assertion]

Use appropriate language

Treat your opponents with kindness and compassion

Speaker Preferences:

Spreading is allowed but make sure your opponents and I can understand your points

Speak loudly and concisely

If your opponent stands up, you do as well

Do not speak during your opponents speeches

Round Preferences:

I will flow the round to whichever side convinces me of it

Extend your impacts and weigh A LOT during final focus as it is the last speech of the round

SIGNPOSTING*** is greatly encouraged

OFFTIME ROADMAPS*** Highly encouraged

Long link chains that are easily delinked are frowned upon

I will be happy to give you time stamps

I will gladly keep your prep time upon request

All in All: be mature, fair, and kind people throughout the round

I coach speech, all events, with a particularly strong history coaching in the binder-based interpretive events (prose, poetry, POI) and oratory. I would consider my ideal top-of-a-round competitor to exhibit a blend of traditional and contemporary speaking styles- keeping their work clear, audible, and paced naturally, but also remaining unafraid to experiment with more bold and unconventional techniques for their events. It is important to me, above all else- in every event, that you take the time and utilize the tactics to form an authentic, natural, and profound connection with your judges and audience.

I do not like when speakers use higher volume in place of higher skill and talent. Yelling, screaming, and prolonged shouting in any interp events is an accent flavor, not the main dish.

I actively utilize PHSSL and NSDA ballots and references in rounds to ensure the feedback I provide you is clear, in line with your event's objective standards, and to be sure that whatever advice I give is helpful not just for the round but for your success throughout the season. I believe deeply that we are all on the same team- even judges- of sharing and receiving feedback to grow and strengthen our region's speech presence. Because of this, I also aim to write as many notes as I can in "real-time" for you like during paper ballot days so that you access the most accurate and honest "raw data" on your performance or speech. You know your learning style and needs best, and I hope this is helpful.

I do not tolerate harassment, intentional disruptive behavior, excessive loud talking between selections, or any behavior that is intolerant of novices in my space. Everyone paid the same entry fee, everyone is trying to be better by being up on a Saturday, and everyone gets their time period to speak and everyone gets feedback. Nothing but respect and admiration for that commitment to growth is welcome.

LD: I'm a pretty traditional judge. I like philosophy and will vote on clash first (both framework and the flow), then I'll look to see that arguments were responded to, but I care a lot more about winning the most important arguments than the most arguments. I do not want to hear theory or spreading. I'm a history teacher and I value giving historical context to arguments to prove you understand what you're talking about.

Policy: I come from the LD/PF/Parli/Speech world, so I would say I’m going to be as Trad as possible. Because of that, I’m probably going to be a little biased against K AFFs, but I’ll listen to anything with an open mind and I’ll pick whose policies are still standing at the end of the round. I will flow and I will listen.

PFD: Don't do policy. I don't really like statistical debates and I'll generally ignore any argument that you say will lead to the end of the human race or kill millions of people. Just win the round by arguing the resolution. I'm a history teacher, and I value giving historical context to arguments to prove you understand what you're talking about. I'm also an economics teacher, so if you're going to run any kind of economic argument, make sure you know what you're talking about.

This is my first time judging, please consider me a traditional judge. I will not consider high speed, and will lower speaks if you are disrespectful. At the end of the day have fun and make good arguments.

Name: Jennifer Mazzocco

School Affiliation: Taylor Allderdice High School, Pittsburgh, PA

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: 13 years

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: 0 years

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: some speech judging experience throughout the last 10 years

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: 0 years

If you are a coach, what events do you coach? Public Forum debate, Lincoln Douglas debate, Parliamentary debate, Congress

What is your current occupation? 9th grade English teacher

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of Delivery – I prefer a traditional, or slower delivery with a focus on robustness of fewer arguments rather than superficial treatment of a higher number of arguments.

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?) I prefer a big picture review of arguments in the summary speeches.

Role of the Final Focus – I prefer the final focus to highlight voting issues and review where the debate “landed” on those issues.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches – I am in favor of extending arguments into later speeches. I prefer thorough clash on arguments and if there is more new arguments or evidence to be presented, I value that debate.

Topicality - no

Plans - no

Kritiks – no

Flowing/note-taking – I support teams pre-flowing or flowing during the round, and taking notes. I typically take notes while listening on major points.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? I think style is important, but ultimately I value argument over style. I think the substance of the arguments and the quality of rebuttals and clash is the most important thing in deciding a winner.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Yes, I think if they intend to win on it, it should be extended.

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? Yes, they should do both.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? Yes for grand crossfire, no for final focus.

I have completed the PHSSL Cultural Competency Course.

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.