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).

I did public forum for 4 years in high school and have been coaching it for 3 years now. I am going to divide this into 3 parts because I usually judge PF, LD, and policy (occasionally). Also apologies if this is all very long and confusing! If you have any questions, please ask me before the round and I will answer! Or if you have questions about the round after it's over, ask me!

Public Forum

I am okay with speed. However, send me your case if you think you will be speaking fast. I need to understand what you are saying if you want me to vote for you. I like to see clear and clean extensions of your links, warrants, etc. I have been seeing a lot of shadow-extending recently and if it happens in round, I can't vote for you on those arguments, cards, warrants, or whatever it is. You don't need to weigh too much in your rebuttal, but you need to start weighing in summary for me to vote for you. In PF, I prefer a line-by-line debate that has a lot of warranting, making it clear what arguments you are winning, whatever it may be. And make sure to signpost too. For summary, I think that the round needs to be brought down to 1-3 key issues on your side and your opponent's side as to why you are winning and starting impact calc. Basically, summary should be treated as a longer version of final focus. For final, I like impact calc that does a good analysis on both sides, with good warranting with why you win and why you win the impact debate. And don't be rude in the round to your opponents, such as being mean during cross or during your opponents' speeches. I am more likely to vote you down solely based on that.

Lincoln Douglas

I have been judging LD for probably the last 2 years, so I have a lot of experience of the format and how the round works. And also with the background of PF that helps too. My big thing is that I love a framework debate. If you win framework, I am more than likely to vote for you. Because (unless your opponent accesses your framework too), you have the better explanation for why we must evaluate the round based on that interpretation. If both debaters agree on framework, then it becomes a round based on who accesses framework better, becoming more of a standard "line-by-line" debate. If both sides don't discuss framework enough or just drop it, then I will resort to judging it similar to a PF round.

Policy

For the national circuit - I apologize if I am your judge. I will do my very best but please do not spread. I hate spreading and most people doing it aren't amazing at it. I would rather you speak clearly and focus on good arguments.

For the local circuit - I know most of you don't spread, but don't do it regardless.

email - johnevans201413@gmail.com

Hello, I’m Kristen Fanning and I’ve judged Speech and Congress since 2022. Before I go into detail, you can reach me at krisvf14@gmail.com if you have any questions.

I graduated from Upper St. Clair in 2015 and attended Pennsylvania State University (2 years in Erie + 2 years at University Park) to study Toxicology. I graduated with 6 other Toxicology students in May of 2019 with undergraduate research experience in a cancer research/nanomedicine lab ran by the Head of the Department of Biomedical Engineering. Afterwards, I worked at the University of Pittsburgh for 4 years. I spent over 3.5 years in an Acute Lung Injury lab studying sepsis, cigarette smoking, and COVID-19 and certain molecular pathways of interest, such as protein degradation, epigenetics, and cell death in cellular and mouse models. I coauthored 5 publications from that lab (listed below).

Publications:

Li T, Long C, Fanning KV, Zou C. Studying Effects of Cigarette Smoke on Pseudomonas Infection in Lung Epithelial Cells. J Vis Exp. 2020 May 11;(159):10.3791/61163. doi: 10.3791/61163. PMID: 32449738; PMCID: PMC7946338.

Li T, Fanning KVF, Nyunoya T, Chen Y, Zou C. Cigarette smoke extract induces airway epithelial cell death via repressing PRMT6/AKT signaling. Aging (Albany NY). 2020 Dec 1;12(23):24301-24317. doi: 10.18632/aging.202210. Epub 2020 Dec 1. PMID: 33260152; PMCID: PMC7762507.

Li T, Fanning KV, Chen Y, Zou C. PRMT6 Deficiency Aggravates Cigarette Smoke- Induced Airway Epithelial Cell Death Through Repressing PI3K-Akt Cascade. American Thoracic Society International Conference. 2020 April. (abstract)

Li W, Kitsios GD, Bain W, Wang C, Li T, Fanning KV, Deshpande R, Qin X, Morris A, Lee JS, Zou C. Stability of SARS-CoV-2-Encoded Proteins and Their Antibody Levels Correlate with Interleukin 6 in COVID-19 Patients. mSystems. 2022 Jun 28;7(3):e0005822. doi: 10.1128/msystems.00058-22. Epub 2022 May 18. PMID: 35582921; PMCID: PMC9238396.

Deshpande, R.; Li, W.; Li, T.; Fanning, K.V.; Clemens, Z.; Nyunoya, T.; Zhang, L.; Deslouches, B.; Barchowsky, A.; Wenzel, S.; et al. SARS-CoV-2 Accessory Protein Orf7b Induces Lung Injury via c-Myc Mediated Apoptosis and Ferroptosis. Int.J.Mol.Sci.2024,25,1157. https:// doi.org/10.3390/ijms25021157

After losing funding, I briefly worked at Pitt’s Aging Institute, studying ER stress and protein degradation in age-related diseases. I left that lab in 3 months (by my 4th year at Pitt) after realising that management wasn’t fit for me. The ordeal also inspired me to write a book about it to let others know that they’re not alone. In between jobs, I served as a minority clerk poll worker during Election Day of 2023 and plan to serve for the primary in 2024. I finally joined a biotech startup, Imagine Pharma, in late November 2023 and aside from drug discovery research, I participate in Autologous Islet Transplants for patients with Type 1 and 2 Diabetes as well as pancreatitis, under the direction of Dr. Rita Bottino, the Islet Program Director. Dr. Bottino was mentored by Dr. Camillo Ricordi (currently a professor and Diabetes Research Expert at the University of Miami), who invented a chamber and method for researchers to follow during Islet cell preparations for the transplants. Dr. Ricordi used to be a Director of Cellular Transplantation at the University of Pittsburgh and worked with Dr. Thomas Earl Starzl, Father of Modern Transplant Surgery, on optimising Islet transplants back in the 1990s. Not only that, the founder of Imagine Pharma, Dr. Ngoc Thai (also a Transplant Surgeon at AHN), used to be a Clinical Fellow of Dr. Starzl. My lung lab was coincidentally located in Pitt’s Starzl Biomedical Science Tower, hence how I became familiar with his work. Lastly, I recently became an Associate Member of the Society of Toxicology.

Outside of work, I write stories and poetry; learn about history, art, and other fields of science (like Quantum and Astrophysics) for the sake of learning; sew, knit, and crochet; and do long distance running (I did the 2023 Pittsburgh half marathon and I’m currently training for the full marathon). For how much of a nerd that I am, I’m particular about facts. If you state something as a fact, you must provide sources and/or evidence to prove it. If you’re using emotion, anecdotes, or personal beliefs to back up a fact, it will be dismissed and not taken seriously. If you were presenting something open for personal interpretation, then I’m open to listening to all sides considering that everyone has different backgrounds. Regarding the current conflict in Israel, I have family living there and none of them blamed Palestine for the October 7th attacks… just the acts of religious extremism. For giving a speech in general, speak clearly at a moderate pace, and enunciate… I’m losing hearing in both ears and currently can’t hear at the pitch of women and children. Make sure you choose your topics wisely because I can catch you if you state misinformation (it happened before). Lastly, relax, do your best, and have fun!

For Speech events:

For informational type speeches, use basic structure of hook, intro, main points, conclusion. Stating what you are going to say, then say it helps me remember the speech.

For story-telling events, I like it when the introduction contains a hook that fills me with anticipation. The structure could be anything, but I find a main character overcoming a series of obstacles particularly engaging. Bonus points for tying the introduction to the conclusion. For example, story about a chance encounter in the introduction becomes very important in the conclusion.

Again, for story-telling type events: I expect range in all characters. I like a clear voice between characters and expect the emotion portrayed to match the meaning the author is trying to convey. Especially for DI, if you create a high bar for emotional range by picking a very dramatic scene, you are expected to deliver very intense acting. In other words, I expect congruency between non-verbal and verbal communication.

If you finish beyond 10:30 or 7:30, you will likely be sorted toward the bottom. Anything between 7-10 minutes is fine. If you can make your point in 7 minutes, that is acceptable.

Lastly, enthusiasm sells. Please put aside all the difficulties leading up to the event and be enthusiastic about your piece for a few minutes. It is expected to put on a good show every time.

I am a current member of Duquesne's Debate Team and focus on parliamentary debate. I'm a blank slate when it comes to preferences and will be choosing the winner based on who is able to make the most clear argument backed by evidence.

I am a parent judge, please speak clearly, slowly if possible, and emphasize the key reasons.

Please do not interrupt when your competing colleague(s) is(are) speaking.

When you quote with numeric data, please be slow to tell clearly with naming properly a correct source.

Hello! Glad to be your judge for the Round! I know that Speech paradigms are considered unnecessary because you can't change anything mid-tournament, but nevertheless, I think that this is useful to competitors, coaches, and myself. I consider myself to be a pretty laid-back judge, and I enjoy seeing everyone have fun and doing their best. I did Forensics in high school and judge in speech. I qualified to the state tournament twice and qualified for the CFL National tournament, so I've seen a lot of different performing styles, critiques, and surprises. That said, I also know I haven't seen it all, so I look forward to you wowing me as well! There are a few factors I judge by: how well did you live up to your piece, were you clear and concise, and could I feel your piece? That last one is pretty tricky, but don't worry, all you have to do is portray emotions and build connections with your audience. I also try to get feedback in ASAP and am a firm believer in the concept of giving clear and constructive feedback. I also have different criteria for each category, which goes as follows:

Dec.: If you're giving me a famous speech or some sort of TedTalk, I want you to whisk me away to where and when it happened. Remember to maintain a certain level of professionalism but also a bit of you in there as well. If, for example, you were to deliver Patton's speech, I want to feel like I'm there listening to Patton giving the speech.

DI: With DI, the main thing I look for is where the drama matches the piece. If you have a piece on a hit and run accident, I don't want your level of drama to be as if you were suffering from cancer. Also, if you're going to have a trigger warning, make sure that the trigger warning actually implies a heavy piece. Don't say to me: "I would like to issue a trigger warning before I begin. This piece tackles heavy topics and involves swearing." Unless the piece explicitly talks about a heavy topic (suicide, abuse, murder, or anything particularly gory), I don't see a need for one.

Duo: The main thing I look for when judging Duo is how well in sync you and your partner are with each other. Is there any dead space between lines that shouldn't be there? I also check for interactions as well, as admittingly, you can't look at your partner the last time I checked (2021-2022 season). This means, don't give your partner a high-five during the piece, shake their hand, anything that would be two-people. In these cases, you just want to turn the other direction and do the gestures instead.

DP: Obviously, it's impossible to properly judge DI and HI in the same room. One group is on the verge of making me cry with tears of sadness and the other on the verge of making me cry with tears of laughter. Instead of judging by "Did I like your drama and did I like your comedy?" I judge by "How well did you measure up to the first letter?" D or H. I also judge by looking at what's happening in the piece. Is it the same thing over and over, or is everything changing and something is happening?

Extemp: When it comes to Extemp, I look for a lot of things. First thing's first: can the problem actually be solved? Don't waste time trying to sell me on something that doesn't work. Just tell me "No, this cannot be fixed." I'm also one of those judges who enjoys hearing a connection you make between an event and something personal to you. That said, if you tell me one week: "In my favorite episode of..." and then the next week you say the same thing, but they're different episodes, it will take something away from your argument. It also gets a little tiring of hearing about SpongeBob episodes, so also make sure to shake things up too. Another thing I look at are sources. Who did you use as a source? I'm a big believer in using neutral sources, and while I get it that sources such as FoxNews, CNN, The Wall Street Journal, and The New York Times are convenient and established, I will factor that into my judging. I also REALLY enjoy hearing the opposing point of view to your argument, so if you have time to put one in there, I advise you to go for it!

HI: In HI, there's only one thing you need to do: Make me laugh! I understand that humor is subjective, so make sure to also develop the scene, your characters, voices, and pops as well if you're afraid a joke may go over my head. Writing a bit of your own material for your intro also never hurts either.

Impromptu: In Impromptu, there's a lot of different ways you could take your give, so do it in the way that you like it best. Whether that be a serious or humorous approach, I'll be impressed at what you deliver and how you deliver it. That said, I get even more impressed with competitors who spend less time prepping and more time speaking. This works two ways: one being that you get more time to say what it is you want to say, and the second being that it's Impromptu! I want to see what you can come up with on the spot.

OO: Original Oratory is whatever you want to make it. I've heard all different kinds of pieces and always look forward to what's next. The main things I look out for are pronunciation and connection, but I do keep an eye out for emotion and a story. The big thing is to make sure you do have a connection to what you've written and not just "Oh, well, this is something I thought might be fun to talk about." The deeper your connection with your piece, the clearer it shows and the better it becomes.

Poetry: It can be a little tricky sometimes to judge Poetry, but the main thing I try to look out for is how the pieces flow together. I have recently been informed that Poetry does not need a distinction among poems, therefore, I will not penalize if there are no distinctions between poems. I highly advise you to not use the same voice/tone for every piece, or it will get confusing as to which poem is which.

Prose: Something that can be tricky about judging Prose is that you never know what to expect. I've heard Prose pieces that remind me of other categories like DI, HI, Poetry, Storytelling, etc. Just remember that a Prose reading should have some kind of a power behind it. Whether that's multiple characters or a certain tone is entirely up to you.

Also some general housekeeping rules:

If I catch you on your phone during the round, I will penalize you and write it down in your feedback form. It should go without saying, but I've sadly seen it too many times that it needs to be said. Extend the same courtesy to your fellow competitors that they give to you. Obviously if it's medical or something with home, that's completely different. Reminder: SnapChat is not medical!

This is also similar to the phone policy, it drives me crazy when I see competitors take a nap in the middle of other people performing. It's very rude and very unprofessional.

Double entries get priority. Also, I salute you for double entering.

If you are late to the round, don't panic! I won't hold it against you, I swear. Just wait outside the door until you hear the applause at the end of the piece to come in. I know some rooms make it so that sound doesn't get through them easily, so just try your best.

If your piece gets interrupted, I also won't hold that against you. I also encourage you to start over (or resume if you've made it through most of the piece) so you won't have to start in an awkward place.