To win my ballot, you will need to speak at a rate that I can understand what you are saying. In addition, please make sure that your arguments are backed with evidence, but are not absent logic.

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!

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

I admire respectful communication; I appreciate style of delivery just as much as content; I don't prefer rapid fire facts prioritized over evidence of listening skills and active listening.

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.

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.

Congressional Debate Paradigm:

While congressional debate is most certainly an argument, this debate event takes the form of one long and continuous coversation that is more akin to a socratic seminar than to a structured debate. Entering the conversation where it is is the most important skill for any congressional debater. It is from that point that I expect each speaker to begin and then to advance the argument. Referencing the speakers who came before and their contributions to the conversation is integral to fully placing new points or extensions of points already made. While summary and crystalization has its place later in the debate, rehash has no place in a well presented congressional speech. I also look for gracious behavior at all times focusing on the strengthes and weaknesses of other arguments but no the speakers themselves. I have no patience for speakers who try to elevate themselves by putting down others.

Individual Events Paradigm:

I have coached speech and debate since 2010, but in recent years my coaching is focused on speech. I see every speech event as an argument, so I am in search of an important message, explicit or implicit, in every performance or speech I judge. Beyond message, I look for a coherent argument whether you have crafted this with your own words with original oratory, responding to a question in extemporaneous speaking, or making your argument in a program or performance in interpretation. In Informational speaking, I am looking to be exposed to relevant informaition around a topic of importance in society but without a position, an advocacy, or solutions. In all of these forms, I expect to be engaged and compelled to listen to what you are saying. This is speech where how you say it matters just as much as what you say. And, while I love creative and edgy pieces that take me from my comfort zone, every single word should work to convey and elevate your message and do so at no one's expense. I will not reward hurtful, harmful or thoughtless words or actions.

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!

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 am a lay judge who prefers clear analysis, well-cited arguments and clearly outlined reasons for decision in the third and fourth speeches. Teams that clearly outline their reasons for decision/voting issues in the third and fourth speeches tend to do better than those that do not. I like it when teams clearly tell me what issues they believe defined the round and why I should vote for them.

I prefer a more conversational style debate with no spreading - if I miss points because you read too fast, that's on you. I am here to listen to the best arguments you've brought to defend your side. I tend not to rate highly teams that rely heavily on PF-jargon or who try and score technical points. If you are asked to provide a source and you are unable to provide it, I follow PHSSL rules and consider that an automatic loss.

- Gloria

Hello!

My name's Jake Zartman and I'm the Assistant Debate and Extemp Coach for Louisville HS in Ohio. I competed in Congressional Debate (and USX) from 2012 to 2016. Most of my experience comes from the Ohio circuit, though I had the chance to compete on the national circuit a number of times throughout those years. My pronouns are he/him/his.

World Schools, Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, etc.:

I’m far from the most experienced tech judge in the world. Aside from a few rounds of Public Forum in high school and my having watched like a hundred rounds of Policy, my knowledge is reasonably limited.

That being said - I do understand argumentation, warranting, and impact analysis. A novel, well supported line of argumentation will always hold sway with me. I may not have hundreds of hours of experience line-by-line debating, but I know a weak argument when I hear one.

I am also well-versed enough to tell when debaters are acting in bad faith or debating abusively. So, for your sake and for the sake of the round itself, please debate fairly and respect your opponent at all times. Abusive or uncivil behavior is the only guaranteed way to lose my ballot.

***LD SPECIFIC***: Though I'm likely to favor the contention-level debate because of my background, I am also happy to vote on framework as necessary. I'm fairly comfortable with progressive debate, generally speaking, as long as you're willing to engage in good faith with an opponent running a more traditional case. Spread at your own risk, and only if your opponent is comfortable with it! (And if you can signpost clearly!)

WORLD SCHOOLS SPECIFIC: I will follow NSDA procedure and established WS norms to the absolute best of my ability. I expect to see clash, good argumentation, and human-centered impacts, but above all I expect you to debate your opponents fairly. If you can meet them at their highest ground and articulately present your case, I will ultimately vote for the team that most completely and persuasively argues their side. Also, I coach Extemp and so do appreciate extemporaneous speaking!

Congressional Debate

My overarching philosophy is pretty simple: Be an advocate. As a mock representative or senator, it's your job to be an advocate - for your constituents, for your communities, for the things you believe in. Each time you take the floor should be purposeful, instilled with a sense of passion and purpose.

There are three main ways to be a good advocate in a round.

The first is to engage your audience, competitors and judges alike, through effective presentation that is both clear and rhetorically sound. You can't bring attention to an issue or demand better for your constituents if no one wants to listen.

The second is to be unique in how you go about making your case. If I've heard the same points rehashed over and over again, I'm naturally going to assume that while it is important, your non debate-progressing information probably isn't. Novel argumentation wins!

The third and arguably most important way to be a good advocate is to put people first. Impacts are just as important in Congressional Debate rounds as in any other, possibly even more so because the role forces you to consider how the legislation will affect the people represent. That frame, that every action can be measured by how it affects the imaginary citizens of your districts, can be a powerful tool in a round - so use it! A bill might cause economic damage, it might help the environment, but those impacts mean nothing without considering how those changes will alter the lives of real people. Law isn’t written in a vacuum!

Hopefully this is at least somewhat illuminating, and good luck!

Email: jake.zartman@lepapps.org