It is the responsibility of any judge to set aside personal biases, which I strive to do in full during any round of debate.  When I state that I am a traditional lay judge from an area that debates slower, I do not mean to imply that particular cases will be immediately discounted for their criticality or theoretical examinations of the event.  Rather, it is the responsibility of the debaters within the round to convince me of the superiority of their argument.  In determining a round, it should be considered that the entirety of the argument must be coherent and open to discussion on both sides.  In other words: please do not spread in a round without disclosing your case to myself and your opponent.  Debate is not particularly educational at excessive speaking speeds.

For deliberation, I look toward the flow of the debate itself.  While I expect that debaters are capable of tracking arguments and defending their cases, personal remarks or excessively abusive language may have an impact on deliberation.

Email:

beckman@mtsd.org

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).

Speak clearly

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!

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.

LD: I am a traditional judge. I do NOT believe is SPREADING. Do NOT speak fast! This technique of speaking does not show your ability to be clear in stating your contentions and using concise arguments. If you spread, I will miss your points and then most likely, you will not get the win. Definitions should be clear and concise. Competitors should have clash in the debate round. Since this is a philosophical debate, I would expect to hear which philosopher reflects your value/criterion and explain the connection. Stating voting issues at the end of the round is very important. Also, competitors must support their V and VC in their speeches. Stay away from WOKE responses...they are distracting and tell me that you can't defend this resolution. Careful that your sources are not from partisan sources.

Parliamentary debate: define the government and any pertinent definitions; stay away from LD jargon; convincing arguments are important; since this is less source-based, I want to hear the general reasons that support your argument; NO new contentions in the final speeches; each speaker should take at least one questions during their unprotected time; each competitor should pose at least one question during the entire round...this indicates understanding of your opponent's position and your engagement in the issue being debated; choice of strange or a very narrow definition of the "government" does not help a debate and wastes the round. Woke arguments or arguments that have nothing to do with the topic do not help your team. These arguments only distract and say to me that you can't address the issue at hand.

Congress: If you are the first speaker/author of the Bill/Resolution, your speech should explain the Bill and its importance. First negative, you need to explain why this Bill should not be passed. While sources are sometimes important in supporting your stance, use sources that are non-partisan. (ex. MSNBC leans to the left). Also, if you use a source such as Breitbart which I've heard often, cite the specific researcher or pollster who authors the supporting evidence. If you are 3rd or 4th on Pro or Con, you must have new information as to why you support this side of the Bill. Stay away from Woke arguments.

PF: remember this type of debate says that a person off the street should be able to come into the room and judge a round. Stay away from LD language. Fighting over sources is a waste of time in my opinion during the debate. If you have researched the topic, you have the sources that support your side of the resolution. Be specific in the source and use non-partisan sources. Sources that are stronger include governmental departments and possible university research. If you are using a source such as a magazine such as The Atlantic, mention the author and his/her qualifications in presenting the information that you use. No Woke arguments.

I am not interested in spreading, K, or Theory debate. I will vote on topicality if it is run well. Please write my ballot for me and give voting issues in your final speech. Weighing is encouraged!

I have one year of judging experience, so please keep the debate clean and clear.

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

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.