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).

1. What is your experience level? Have you been
actively coaching or judging, and how long?
How often have you judged rounds on this
topic?

Former interp competitor, who has been coaching and judging all speech and debate events since 2002. I have served as an event specific coach, assistant coach and head coach of small and large programs. I have judged speech, PF and Congress at all levels of competition, from local tournaments, state finals, national circuit, and national final rounds.

2. Describe your preferences as they relate to
debaters’ rate of delivery and use of jargon or
technical language.

I can handle speed for the most part, but too fast to flow and it would be difficult to win the round.

3. Describe your personal note-taking during
the round. Do you write down key arguments?
Keep a rigorous flow?

I record brief notes on the key arguments and points of the round.

4. What are the specific criteria you consider
when assessing a debate?

I look at who won the most important/critical argument of the round based on the impacts presented.

5. What expectations do you have for debaters’
in-round conduct?

I very open to style choices; however, overtly rude or aggressive behavior is unacceptable. Debaters who are respectful of their opponents and understand the art of debate should be applauded.

I am a parent and a traditional judge. Please speak clearly.

I am the Assistant Director of Speech and Debate at Laurel School (OH) and have been involved with interscholastic speech and debate competition since 2006.

I expect all speakers and debaters to be articulate and fluid in their delivery so any audience member can understand what is being said and why. I am a traditional judge and want to hear your arguments without spreading. I prefer that you fully explain evidence and its role in the round. Please don't just extend taglines/card authors -- flesh out the narrative, and extend the "how" & "why" as well. Please do not use debate jargon to make your case. I look for warranted arguments, clean logic, and clear voting issues.

IMPORTANT INFORMATION: Debaters are frequently disadvantaged because of biases - conscious or unconscious - held by the judge. I am well aware that male-identified debaters have been historically advantaged due to socially-constructed expectations around gendered speech. Female-identified debaters are often criticized and penalized for behaviors that their male-identified opponents get away with. This is not at all just, and I am deeply committed to increasing equity in debate. Please know that I will judge the substance of the debate and will work hard to eliminate any biases I hold from my own judging.

Please speak clearly. If you speak too quickly and I cannot understand, I cannot render the best judgment.

I like to see content backed by sources, as well as clean debate. Do not personally attack your opponent, and I do not like spreading - nor will I vote for your side if I can't understand a word you're saying.Vocal intonation, vocal modulation, dynamic voice, appropriate pacing and pausing, clear enunciation, eye contact, facial expressions, and gestures are all tools that can support your presentation. Spreading and gish galloping in my opinion are NOT tools. Be honest and respectful in your presentation.

My strength is in speech and I have years of both coaching and judging students in every speech event. I also have several years coaching and judging debate as well. When presenting (regardless of what event you are in) you have multiple tools available to use to enhance, PERSUADE and connect with your audience. Vocal intonation, vocal modulation, dynamic voice, appropriate pacing and pausing, CLEAR ENUNCIATION, eye contact, facial expressions, and gestures are all tools that can support your presentation. Whether you're presenting an interpretation, an oratory, or a position in a debate use those tools. While debating, present your argument, your facts, your position and connect it all to persuade me you're correct. Spreading and gish galloping in my opinion are NOT tools and if you choose those tactics I will not be happy and your rank will reflect that mis-step. Also DO NOT waste your time telling me why I should be voting for you when you should be persuading me. In Congressional Debate be strategic in asking questions to better position your argument. Additionally, always move the debate forward. Be HONEST and RESPECTFUL in your presentation.

Debaters must prioritize effective delivery to engage the audience and convey their ideas clearly. Simultaneously, they should provide strong reasoning, supported by evidence and logical analysis, to strengthen their arguments. I will assess both aspects to determine the most persuasive debaters. Good luck to all participants!

Welcome back and I'm glad to be back for another year.  Here is my updated paradigm.  This has general information and then items specific to LD

PERSONAL:

I have been a coach for 22 years and I have judged all forms of speech and debate.  This means I am pretty open to any time of argument. I will go with what I hear in the round and will not input myself into the debate.  I am a judge, not a competitor so I will not inject myself into the debate.  You don't need to send me your case.  I only want to judge what I hear, not what I can read.  So while I am okay with speed and I can handle spreading, only use spreading in Policy.

DEBATE:

Don't be condescending in your cross ex. Acting like you don't care about the answer the other person gave or interrupting them before they get the answer out is not okay. If you wanted a shorter answer then ask a more succinct question. All debates need to clash. I don't want to only hear prepared speeches on both sides. Show me that you are listening to what the other person/team is saying and advance the debate.

LD

I am definitely more traditional than progressive but I will listen to progressive arguments IF they still fall under the philosophical ideas of LD. I do not want to hear a plan or use the motion as the plan text. That doesn't do anything for me. Don't use a K to avoid debating. That's not what debate is about.  I WILL NOT vote on disclosure theory so don't take the time to run it.  That is not debating the topic but finding a way to not have to debate.  Otherwise, I will listen to Ks, Ts, Disads, etc if they are relevant to the debate. If you don't have a V and a VC, you won't get the win from me!  

Also, I am creating this paradigm for you so don't ask me about other items before the round. Everything else is fair game as long as it is done well! Address the resolution and give me reasons for your claims. I don't need to be on your email chain. Also, I do not disclose unless required to and it will be brief. As a coach, I want the coaching to come from me and not the judges.  As I said earlier, I am not here to relive my competitive days so I won't explain all that I am thinking.  

Good luck!

Assistant speech coach for four years, head coach for one.

Speech paradigms are tough because you can't change your piece on the fly but..

Rhetoric: I want to see your personality! I look for a balance of feeling like we're having a conversation while still being clean physically.

Interp: I'm going to look for the little things - clean transitions, clean blocking, clear characters.

Extemp: I'll flow your speech, so I'll look mostly at analysis. However, I look for a clean and easy to follow presentation as well. I also love to see your personality come through here.

Overall, I want to see you enjoying your performance!

PF:

Speed preference: Moderate

Voting: I tend to lean evidence, but there needs to be an evidence/logic balance.

Cross: Keep it polite

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 flow during rounds, but I often vote just as much on how rhetorically appealing a speaker is. I appreciate weighing and clarity, particularly when given KVIs. I'm fine with speed, so long as I can still understand the speaker. I never want to see any kind of animosity or aggression between competitors.

Name's Anju Saggi and I have been doing debate judging for couple of years.

Speak clearly - I will not flow if I do not understand what you are saying.

I am open to any and all arguments. That being said, only run theory if there is clear abuse in the round. I would much rather hear actual arguments than listening to back and forth about the technicalities of debate.

Have fun, and be respectful.