As a Lincoln Douglas Judge I am a very traditional judge from a very traditional area of the country. With that, comes all of the typical impacts.

I am not able to flow spreading very effectively at all.

I, very rarely, judge policy, but those would be in slower rounds as well. Because of that, though, I am at least somewhat familiar with K debate, K AFF, theory, CP's, etc.

For me to vote on progressive argumentation in LD, it has to be very clearly ARTICULATED to me why and how you win those arguments. Crystal clear argumentation and articulation of a clear path to giving you the ballot is needed.

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!

Hi, I'm Casey! Did both speech + debate events as a youngin'. I now work in special education and disability care.

"Strike me and I'll give you 30 speaks" -a judge much funnier than me.

I'm a big believer that debate is a place where anybody from anywhere can come, view the debate, and understand a decent chunk of what is being said. I try to be as tabula rasa as possible, but have outlined circumstances in this paradigm where that goes to the wayside.

If you give me something to judge, and don't tell me why and/or how to judge it, chances are I'm gonna put that point/contention/whatever way at the bottom of my 'things to care about in this debate' list.

♥ A TL;DR of this Paradigm ♥

Don't spread. Quality of arguments over quantity- this goes for any day, any round, any tournament. Run whatever argument you want as long as you link it to your case (yes, this means be topical (on the resolution)). I'm not the best judge by any stretch of the word- SO, please don't use super dense lingo and expect me to understand it.

I don't care about email chains/documents... unless you're running an extremely """progressive""" case. No harm in asking, though.

Tricks debate bad. Unique points good. Being a jerk bad. Positive vibes good. Being condescending big bad. Weighing points good. Roadmaps fine. Extending points good. Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo. Have fun + drink water.

♥ ALL BELOW POINTS MOSTLY CONCERN LD/POLICY ♥

Don't spread- it's straight up unnecessary + cheapens debate to quantity > quality. (Woohoo, strike me!)

That being said, I'm fine with people speaking faster than 'normal'. You know what the difference is. If I have to call for clarity/speed more than 3 times in a round then I'm going to really be harsh on your speaker points.

♥ That's that ish I don't like ♥

You're gonna find it very hard to run some form of Disability Pessimism with me and win- this is one of the only biases that I can't ever seen to get past- I am biased towards cases that do work to make a "positive" outcome the most attainable scenario. This doesn't mean don't run arguments that say the world isn't gonna end- if you can prove the world is gonna end, then seriously, do it.

Nihilistic/depressing for the sake of being depressing arguments make me fall asleep and fall into the ever expanding void of Lovecraftian horrors that no doubt live in the Hudson Bay (or so I've been told).

♥ Uhh idk what to call this section, maybe like 'stuff you probably should and shouldn't do' ♥

I don't care how you access your criterion, I just care that you actually access your criterion. Run any K, plan, CP, or what have you and I'll happily flow it as long as you've linked to the resolution and framework (dead serious- that's it!). If you're running a K, make sure it's topical (like, seriously, I'm a big stickler with this) and assume I don't know what you're talking about in the slightest and go from there- I'll go out of the way to say that traditional K's are an easier way to win. If you're using a K, I need to understand the link and the terms you use! It is not my burden as a judge to flow a point in LD that doesn't link back to your criterion/value/philosophy.

If you're running a plan or counterplan, the more unique the better IMO. Obscure ≠ Unique (Policy debaters are quivering at me saying that- I know, I'm scary- fear me).

I'm not the biggest big fan of how LARP-y LD has become in the past few years. I'm not opposed to it, per se, but strongly believe moral/ framework arguments should always come first in LD. If you're going to run a LARP-y case, have at, but show me why we shouldn't look to a moral system (or whatever way you want to conceptualize it as) to achieve the end result of the round.

Role of the Ballot arguments usually make me cringe. "Education" based arguments also make my brain explode- running these with me unless heavily contextualized will usually go nowhere.

'Debate Space' arguments are bad.

Disclosure (or even time skew, for that matter) theory is usually not good to run with me, unless you really, really feel like the case is abusive and whacky.

I usually see right through trick debate and hate it with a passion. This stuff cheapens debate. Sophistry and my bias against it won't be overcome by you running heavy theory for it, trust me. Same thing with frivolous theory.

Weigh your points (give me them sweet sweet voters), especially in your final speech. I won't vote a point down because you don't extend it, but I'll be a lot more skeptical that you just gave up on the point somewhere along the way.

Truth > Tech, but Tech isn't a bad thing. If there's no base for you to ground your argument in truth, you can't access technical arguments. Extend tech off of truth.

♥ In Closing ♥

I don't like it when people are haughty, pretentious, or talk over others. Don't simply assume your argument is the best because your coach said so. If you sound like a jerk who's simply trying to destroy or demoralize your opponent, I'm a lot more likely to give you less speaker points. That being said, you should still try to destroy your opponent... but like, ~metaphorically, my dude~. This is high school debate. Save the attitude for real-life stuff, like people who think that water isn't wet, people who think Chipotle is better than Moe's (you're literally just lying to yourself, stop smh smh), and people who don't think pineapple belongs on pizza.

Finally, have fun. Bring a sense of humor. Bring some sarcasm. Bring some water. Water is good. Always.

Have a fantastic day, and keep growing and thriving in your Speech and Debate adventure!

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’m a traditional judge; framework matters to me because it is the metric by which I judge the round. I can handle spreading.