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 loudly, speak clearly, speak honorably.

I am "old school" communication and debate.

I can only judge what I am able to understand.

Communication, clash, and analysis with respect

are a joy to judge.

As I evaluate debate rounds, a successful debate competitor/team will be strong in three aspects: initial presentation of their argument; strong and, when appropriate, source-based retorts to challenges; and passionate-but-respectful navigation of the event overall.

Presentation of one's argument should come in a thoughtful, deliberate speech that is paced appropriately and relatively easy to follow. Fast-paced presentations are not in and of themselves impressive; they still must be structured in a way that always comes back to the central question. I prefer presenters to lay out the path of their argumentation if they prefer to speak quickly. I weigh the logic, evidence, and sourcing of one's argument heavily. Style and comfort with public speaking is a tool that helps to deliver an effectively structured argument. Without the core elements that make up a solid argument, the style rings hollow.

The level of one's preparation for debate reveals itself in exchanges with competitors. Effective debaters tend to demonstrate an ability to anticipate tough lines of questioning and are prepared with responses that support their own viewpoint. Failing to anticipate the basic counter-arguments to one's position tends to significantly weaken one's own position.

In the heated exchange of ideas and arguments, I look for competitors who are able to hold their ground, argue passionately, maintain comportment, and also still be respectful of the rules and the competitors in the round.

Overall, I do not weigh these three areas equally. A strong, structured line of argumentation is paramount. Style and presentation are important, but only if the first element is already strong. And debate decorum does not score on its own, but it can most certainly detract from a competitor's scoring if they are disrespectful.

Have fun -- it is an honor to watch all of you!

Don't go too fast. Be clear and concise.

Be respectful to your opponents. It goes a long way! I do not tolerate homophobic, racist, or sexist comments.

Email Chain: traviscornett16@gmail.com

Remember to have fun!

I'm a parent judge and would prefer if you spoke more slowly.

Willing to judge all speech, congress, parli/world schools, PF, and LD. I also love serving as a parliamentarian in Congress. I strongly prefer Speech, Congress, and impromptu-style debate events over all other events. PF is sometimes fun; LD is fine if you need me. I would not consider myself qualified to judge policy, but I am willing to give it a shot in a time of complete desperation. I love tabbing and always prefer it over judging, so feel free to pull me if needed.

I’m an assistant coach/judge/person from Dallastown Area High School in PA. I graduated from college in May 2021 and now work full time, but I try to stay involved with Forensics as much as I can! I competed in several different events in High School, but as an alum I’ve continued to learn a lot more about everything Forensics has to offer, so when I travel with the team, I judge where I’m needed. That said, here’s what to expect from a round with me:

VIRTUAL TOURNAMENT NOTES:

Note that I have two very sweet but disruptive cats-- if this might become distracting to you, please let me know and I will keep my camera off. The same applies if you have wifi/other issues that make video chats difficult-- if it will be a bandwidth/connectivity issue, let me know if you'd like me to keep my camera off.

OVERALL TOURNAMENT NOTES:

SPREADING-- I’m still working on keeping up with this. Admittedly, I have a hard time catching important arguments when debaters spread. However, I’m okay with you spreading as long as you email your case to me right before the round begins. [red.forensics@gmail.com]. Please also do the same for your opponent. That said, please try to slow down during your rebuttal speeches (or anything else that isn’t pre-written) so that I can catch everything that needs to be on the flow. This especially applies for any sort of Theory/Ks/Plans/etc. I also ask that you slow down for any major parts of your case (Contentions, Value, VC, subpoints) so that I can get the tagline/topic down.

CASES— It’s only fair to warn you that I don’t have a lot of exposure to Theory, Ks, Plans, etc. However, what I've seen of Ks, I like. I'm open to disruption and anything that feels less like a round I've seen before. So I'm open to seeing more and learning more. Just let me know before the round begins that you plan to run one so that there’s no question of what’s going on. Articulate very clearly why your strategy is important + why I should vote for it rather than your opponent’s case-- and explain what the role of my ballot should be as a judge. What hypothetically happens when I vote for you? Also, don’t assume I already know about all theories that you’ll introduce into the debate. Even just a brief, simple explanation would be great so that I know we’re on the same page.

DISCLOSURE— I tend to take a few minutes after the round has concluded to make my decision. I like to look over my notes and my flow to ensure that I’m being fair in my decision and providing you with good comments. Therefore, I don’t like to give my verbal critiques or RFD immediately after the round. I’d rather you leave the room until I’m done with my ballots and then find me later. After I’ve turned in my ballots, I’d be more than happy to talk to you about the round as long as it does not go against tournament rules and as long as I am not actively engaged in another activity that would be difficult to multitask with— i.e., helping one of my students with an emergency, napping, etc. You can also feel free to email me at [red.forensics@gmail.com]

IMPROMPTU SPEAKING-- In Congress, I STRONGLY prefer a crappy impromptu speech on an under-debated side over a perfect prepared speech that rehashes the last several speeches we just listened to. In other words-- please don't make me listen to more than 2 speeches on the same side in a row. I'll have MASSIVE respect for anyone who switches sides at the last minute for the purposes of keeping debate interesting. I've ranked students up for this before, and I'll do it again. Impromptu speaking is a lifelong skill....get that experience!

ETIQUETTE—

Sitting or standing for speech and cross-ex is fine with me. Whatever makes you comfortable.

Sometimes it’s necessary for me to eat during rounds-- I try very hard to avoid it, but if I have no choice but to eat during your round, I’ll do so in a way that is minimally disruptive. Virtual tournament note-- if I do eat during your (virtual) round, I will likely turn my camera off, or you can feel free to request that I do so.

I’m young, so not a lot of people immediately realize that I’m a judge and not a competitor who hasn’t advanced. Just as a general rule, act respectfully out of round too. I hear things, and I pick up on falseness very easily. More than anything, be nice and fair to your opponent before, during, and after the round; or I guarantee I’ll lose a lot of respect for you.

Along those lines— I’m your judge. I know I’m young, I’m still learning, and I may not know as much about your event as you do, but I’m still your judge. Please be respectful of the fact that I’m not perfect; I’m human. I do my best to be a fair judge and give every competitor their best experience possible, but that said, not every call I make will make everyone happy. At the end of the day, even if I miss something or am more enthralled by one argument over another, remember that it’s your responsibility as the debater to convince all kinds of judges. It’s not my fault if you lose, and I promise that I took my decision in your round very seriously.

“DEAL BREAKERS”

1-- Aggression. I know, this is a competitive activity. It’s literally formal arguing. But there’s a difference between smart and impactful debating and straight-up aggression. I understand that there’s a certain amount of aggressiveness required to be an effective debater, but there’s a line. Therefore, any excessive aggression will not be tolerated in my rounds. I know you’re here to win, but you’re also here to learn, and it’s hard to learn or have any sort of effective discourse when your opponent, judge, or audience is uncomfortable. I don’t care how good of a debater you are, if you are unnecessarily aggressive, I will vote you down.

2-- Racism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia, ableism, hate of ANY KIND will not be tolerated. Again, there is no reason to make your opponent, judge, or audience uncomfortable or unsafe in what is supposed to be a safe, educational environment. Leave the hate at home...or better yet, re-evaluate it.

3-- Remember that your audience can be anyone, and sometimes members of your round may be part of the very communities you are insulting or judging. When it comes to talking about issues that impact minorities, don't speak for them. Use your platform to elevate the voices of those who are directly impacted by the topic at hand. You don't decide what's best for a group that you're not a member of!

4-- (Mainly for Congress, but elsewhere if it applies:) If I hear anything resembling COERCION in my Congress chamber, I will rank you lower or not at all. Do NOT pressure other competitors to "let" you PO or "let" you speak before them. Let recency and the rules fall where they may. This is a competition, I get it, but be fair and be mature. In all events, fairness is the supreme goal of each round.

ABOVE ALL, I am a true believer in the power of Forensics as an activity. It changed my life, and it has the ability to do a lot of good. Therefore, the integrity of each round and the experience of each participant is very important to me. Not everyone will leave with a trophy, but everyone has the opportunity to leave with valuable life experience, great ideas, and unique friendships.

TL;DR, I’m cool with whatever you want to do in round as long as it doesn’t jeopardize those components of Forensics competition.

Note about LD theory/T: Read theory or T if it's making a reasonable point about a squirrely aff or a patently unfair practice. In that sense I default to reasonability, not in terms of intervention but rather my gut feeling that you have to meet a high bar for proving your opponent rigged the game. It's absurd to me that people rush to theory instead of doing topic research. I don't think any frameworks are unfair, I don't think the lack of an ‘explicit weighing mechanism’ is unfair, and I don't care if the aff's theory spikes didn't ‘take a stance on drop the debater or drop the argument’.

I will try to evaluate the flow as technically as I can. I care more about the debating that took place than what I think about the ultimate truth of your arguments or relative quality of your cards. I do think you should try to match your opponents cards with better cards, but you first have to convince me that your opponents have dropped crucial warrants and explain why those matter. For example, maybe none of the aff's advantages about space-based solar power come to grips with this one implementation problem; you have cards that speak to that issue, they do not. I'd rather you explain to me these comparative points than present dueling taglines and leave it up for me to wade through.

I am absolutely okay with non-traditional debate styles, but I believe that you should adopt a concrete political project, or explain why you shouldn't have one. This doesn't have to be state-based but I think you need to describe how your advocacy would, if adopted more widely, change things that happen outside of debate. Whether or not fiat is real, I still think you either need to make a normative claim about how other people--not just debaters--should act, or you have to be radically anti-normative (no demands, no future, no change is possible). I personally think it's vapid to just have debates about debate, and given the real-world impacts that people face I think that you either need to expand your vision to the world or explain why the world is irredeemable. In other words, I think that good Left thinking is optimistic unless you systematically justify your pessimism.

Hello! I am Geetha Dwarakapuram. I am a senior technology manager at Bank of America. As for public speaking and giving speeches, I speak on a daily basis in front of large groups of people as part of my job. I am also a volunteer at a local youth Toastmasters club. I have been a parent judge for the last four years both online and in-person. My daughter was a National Circuit competitor in Congressional Debate for five years and my son is an active competitor in Congressional Debate.

Congress: I like to look for concise speeches that support the argument with evidence contradicting the opposing side. I also look for senators and representatives that mention others to enhance their ideas. I highly frown upon rehash but enjoy listening to speakers who engage the audience with their take on the bills. While your speaking style and delivery are, of course, an important part of the overall package, it is congressional debate after all, so I'll always rank a less polished speaker with better arguments higher than somebody who's a great orator but isn't providing something new or doesn't have the same quality of evidence. For presiding officers, I mainly judge if they do not stick out to me during the session and run a smooth and steady round.

Speech: I look for eye contact and a powerful voice when talking. I should be able to understand what you are talking about and like to be engaged throughout the whole speech. I enjoy speeches that have a memorable ending, or " end with a bang" as I like to call it. For dramatic speech events, I should be able to feel the emotion that you are trying to show with your voice. Time limits are something I look at when deciding scores.

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!

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. Focus on framework and the value. Not one to disclose.

I have been judging Speech and Debate for 4 years. I have judged almost every event. For congressional debate, I let the presiding officer and Parliamentarian do everything and just judge the speeches. I weigh speech and questioning section equally when considering your rankings. You need to be able to question, defend, or attack your's or other's points effectively.

I don't particularly mind jargon, such as um-ms or aah, but I prefer a slower speech compared to speeches that are padded by nothing. I keep a running note on what is said and who said it. I try to get the most important points down on the flow. I value argument over style, but will consider style if needed.

I am a parent judge, but I do flow and track arguments. I prefer a medium speech pace, please.

I was an LD debater from 2000-2002 (read: the Stone Age). As you'd likely expect, I'm a traditional style LD judge. Seeing K, disads, and counterplans in value debate bums me out. Hard. That said, I had some VERY limited policy experience in high school as well, so I can probably follow some of the policy crossover; you can just guarantee I'll grind my teeth through it.

I can handle spread...if you can. If you're speedy and articulate, we won't have any problems. If you're speedy with mushmouth, I won't catch everything, and that's an issue.

I tend to keep speaker points in the 27 to 29 range (unless point standardization is present at a tournament), but don't shy away from higher speaks if you do well. I generally only reserve low speaks for situations that are outright abusive or condescending.

Best strategy to get my ballot is to move cleanly down the flow, crystallize, and outline clear voting issues at the end of the debate!

Certified PA Social Studies teacher for 8 years now. 4 of which I have taught Government and Economics. 2020 is my first year participating in Speech and Debate and I'm eager to continue to learn more. I do prefer a moderate pace when speaking rather than a speedy rate since I would rather hear your argument than judge based on how many words you can get in within the timeframe. Follow the three guides below for a sense of what I look for!

1. Engage arguments with discernment. Disagreement is always welcome, however, engage with the specific argument and not your prewritten counters.

2. Be consistent in your debate. Beginning, End, and throughout your counters/rebuttals. Build your story/argument and do not deviate, Instead, defend a cohesive worldview throughout the round – and pull that story through extending both warrants and impacts.

3. Be respectful: Exercise good judgment. If you do something that a majority of reasonable people would find unkind, offensive or rude I will stop to give a violation.

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

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.

I coach SPEECH! Do not spread. If I cannot follow the speech you are giving because you’re speaking too fast, you will not win my vote. I must be able to follow the argument; if you speak in a way that prevents me from hearing your argument, how could I possibly vote for you? Moreover, evidence should relate clearly to your argument and resolution. Most importantly, HAVE FUN!

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1. Clash is LIFE: Don't avoid clashing. Get in there and don't be afraid of responding to your opponent's argument. It is what makes this DEBATE, otherwise, it's dueling Oratories.

2. What is a good piece of evidence? Your evidence should connect your arguments to a clear purpose in the round. "Why are you telling me this info" should never be a thought I have. Just saying there is a link does not mean there is one. Prove it with your evidence! Connect all the dots, don’t leave me guessing or trying to piece your argument together for you.

3. Speed: I NEED TO HEAR THE WORDS THAT ARE COMING OUT OF YOUR MOUTH! Speed for speed's sake is as if the UPS guy drives by my house at 90 mph and throws the package at my head. I'm mad, the package is broken, and UPS just lost a fan. So, if you have a lot to say, I recommend slowing down to make the tags and analysis of your arguments clear so I can write them down. I would hate to see a good argument die on the lips of a speed demon.

4. Reminder: Speak loudly and in a conversational manner. So, make sure to emphasize your points clearly and effectively.

5. Confidence is key! Exemplifying a confident attitude not only makes you a stronger debater, but an overall stronger competitor.

6. Finally, be kind. The worst thing in a round is when a bully decides their opponent is inferior. I am immediately turned off.

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.

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.

Key Points (it's honestly nothing):

- Keep it structured like an argumentative paper! (Intro, three points, conclusion [with several sub-points in your main points])

- Bring the VOLUME, not the PACE! In other words, try to SPEAK CLEARLY and LOUDLY, but not FAST!

- Repetitive contentions are allowed any time/any day!

- Do your thing. Just keep your flow going and do your best; anything works! Depict good communication skills and try to elaborate as much as you can on your arguments!

- Be nice! :) Any rudeness, discrimination, or any negative comments will NOT be dismissed and will be used AGAINST you during your rounds. (Keep in mind, this may be an automatic WIN for the opponent).

- I will use arguments, preparation, and speaking skills made to make my decision. Please make sure to participate at your best effort.

ALWAYS REMEMBER TO HAVE FUN!

Hi there! I've been performing since I was very young, and I am a 2007 graduate of the American Musical & Dramatic Academy in New York City. I direct both adult and youth productions at my local theatre and have been an active judge in both this year's, as well as last year's, tournament seasons.

I have completed the NFHS Cultural Competency course, and I identify as diversity enhancing!

POI/PR/PO: Show me a strong commitment to your material, with bold but organic choices. Use your binder --this is a reading event-- but don't hide behind it!

HI/DI: Make sure your piece tells a decisive story and that your character transitions are smooth enough that I know who's talking at at all times! Also important: sure, bold choices are good, but I still want to see the nuances behind your characters and what you're saying. Rather than just doing stock characters, approach them from a place of truth. That almost always yields funnier and/or more powerful results!

EXTEMP: Research, research, research! I'm looking for a well-organized speech that answers the question clearly and provides a lot of cited sources.

OO/INFO: I love how much I learn when judging both of these categories. Remember your top priority is to teach us something, and that good lessons are organized, compelling, and easy to understand.

CONGRESS: Ask great questions of your fellow debaters and be researched enough to be able to provide convincing answers to the questions that are asked of you! Looking for strong points and organization in your speeches!

Remember that no one can offer exactly what YOU offer, and embrace that! Most of all, have fun!

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.

Regardless of speech or debate, all competitors should emulate good sportsmanship and be respectful during the competition. Examples of what this means:

> Paying attention while your opponent/competitor is presenting. (NOT goofing off on your phone or talking with a friend in the room).

> Being respectful and courteous, whether after a presentation or during debate cross-fires.

Debate Event Specific: Clear articulated and respectful debates. The pace of speaking should not be so rapid that the judge cannot clearly discern arguments being made. Additionally, while debate clashing is key, debate is still an exercise of public speaking, so be mindful of presentation skills.

I learned to judge back when we had to give a rating for each category and then rank accordingly. You can see from my individual notes, I still do it that way. I have specific comments above the categories and also under each, or wherever I could type them while you spoke.

I was a former competitor in Original Oratory, Congress, Commentary, and Impromptu. I have also made it to the State Tournament for Impromptu advancing to the quarterfinals round. Also, I was the previous president of the Speech and Debate team at Deer Lakes High School. I have judged for numerous years in the Pittsburgh District and other online tournaments after high school. In 2019-2020, I was the coach for the Deer Lakes High School Speech and Debate team.

Judging Experience

I am very familiar with all of the types of speech events. For debate events, I have judged as a parliamentarian in Congress as well as judged numerous rounds of Public Form debate and Lincoln Douglas. My main area of interest in judging is primarily speech events.

What I'm looking for follows basically the guidelines set forth in the sepcific event that you are in. Of specific importance outside these guidelines are the following:

• clearly enunciating your speech. Take your time and effectively use your voice
• use of physical characterizations and body language to help tell the story
• creative use of your voice during charazterizations
• using pacing to a purpose
• at the close bring the entire speech together in a delightful manner