I competed in World Schools Debate and Public Forum for 3 years with Kingwood High School and competed for the USA Debate team my junior and senior years. I coached British Parliamentary debate at Pepperdine University while I was a student there.

A little about me:

Currently coaching: Sage Hill School 2020-Present

Past Coaching: Diamond Ranch HS 2015-2020

I also tab more tournaments, but I keep up with my team so I can follow many of the trends in all events.

-

I prefer all of my speakers to make sure that any contentions, plans or the like are clear and always link back to the topic at hand. You're free to run theory or K at your peril. I've heard great rounds on Afro-pessimism and bad rounds on it. I've loved a round full of theory and hated rounds full of theory. All depends on how it's done, and what the point of it.

I am a social studies teacher, so I can't unknow the rules of American government or economics. Don't attempt to stay something that is factually inaccurate that you would know in your classes.

Be respectful of all parties in the room - your opponent(s), your partner (if applicable) and the judge. Hurtful language is in not something I tolerate. Pronouns in your names are an added plus.

Speaking clearly, even if fast, is fine, but spreading can be difficult to understand, especially through two computers. I will say "Clear" if I need to. In an online format, please slow down for the first minute if possible. I haven't had to listen to spreading with online debate.

For LD, I don't mind counterplans and theory discussions as long as they are germane to the topic and as long as they don't result in debating the rules of debate rather than the topic itself. In the last year most of my LD rounds have not been at TOC bid tournaments, but that doesn't mean I can't follow most arguments, but be patient as I adjust.

Truth > tech.

*It's work to make me vote on extinction or nuclear war as a terminal impact in any debate. That link chain needs to be solid if you're doing to expect me to believe it.*

In PF, make sure that you explain your terminal impacts and tell me why I should weight your impacts vs your opponents' impacts.

WSD - I have been around enough tournaments to know what I should hear and I will notice if you're not doing it well. Thinking global always. Models should always be well explained and match the focus on the round. Fiat is a tricky thing in the event now but use it as you see fit.

I am a former debate coach and debate tab staffer at many regional and circuit-level tournaments in California. I competed in student congress and have actively coached congress, speech (e.g., oratory or platform events), LD, and public forum debate. I competed from 2006 to 2008, coached from 2008 to 2013, and tabbed from 2011 to 2022. My specialty is in tabbing and evaluating TOC-level congressional debate rounds.

Outside of speech and debate, I have my PhD in Social Psychology. I focus on group identities and how it affects our thoughts and behaviors. Between that and my other professional experiences, my view of speech and debate has now become focused on the communication of information and logical arguments for an audience.

Here is how this has affected my perspectives of debate rounds:

1. Do not actively harm anyone else in the debate round. Personal attacks, ad hominem arguments, or similar actions detract from the speech and debate experience. If you engage in any behavior that actively harms yourself or a competitor, I will give the win to your opponent and immediately let tab staff know of your behavior.
   
   Think about what you plan to say or do before you say and do it. This can often lead to a better round and less potential for unintentional outcomes from a round. This can also help identify biases within ourselves and each other that affect what we do and do not perceive or how our words and actions can affect others. I am trying to learn how my biases influence how I see the world, and I hope you take time to do so as well.
2. Any argument that you want to run that does not actively harm yourself or your opponent works for me. This includes traditional and progressive arguments. Importantly, any argument that you want to run is fine with me if you can explain the argument in simple English. Tell me why your argument is relevant and matters in the round, and I will evaluate it. Arguments filled with excessive jargon without an attempt to explain it in simple English will likely be ignored.
3. Debate is inherently an activity based on value judgements. Arguments that focus on an empiric as the take-home point (e.g., we save x more lives than our opponents or save x more money than our opponents) do not inherently have value by itself. You need to tell me why your evidence and analysis matters (e.g., overall, our side allows us to achieve something we value or avoid something that we do not value). Tell me what matters, and tell me why I should weigh it above your opponents' case. On average, I will value plausible evidence more than implausible examples. As an aside, extinction arguments will usually be ignored and excluded from my flow if it is irrelevant to the topic.
4. It is up to you to convince me as a judge that your evidence is (1) valid and (2) relevant to the round. Sensationalist or inflammatory arguments or evidence that do not add to the overall logic or arguments of the round will be ignored completely (e.g., they will not make my flow sheet). It is your responsibility to ensure that your argument is (a) not sensationalist, (b) not inflammatory, and (c) relevant to the round
5. I do not support the game theory of spreading. Communication matters. Information processing speed in working memory capacity matters. Short-term memory matters. Physical or mental obstacles to hearing or encoding information matters.
   
   I will defer to Cowan's (2001) analysis of short-term memory, which states that a person can remember about 4 chunks of information in short-term memory. In practice, this means that I--as well as every other judge you encounter--will remember somewhere around 4 chunks of information within each speech. You are better off developing four well-developed chunks than spreading across multiple points in a constructive speech and then collapsing from many arguments into few arguments.
   
   What this means in practice is this: If you propose three to four general advantages/disadvantages, contentions, or reasons why I should support your side and realize that two of those points should be promoted by you and your team, then collapsing to those two chunks makes sense and is a good strategy to do. If you propose more than one chunk per minute (or more) so that there is no way for your opponent to respond, and then collapse after your opponent had a chance to address your case overall? That is not equitable and I will likely call out that strategy.
   
   Do not spread. Speed is okay, but spreading will receive low speaker points. Furthermore, I will be very open to hearing and voting for a critique that says the opponent is spreading too fast, which inherently makes the activity more exclusionary and harmful to competitors and observers within speech and debate.
6. Most debates focus on a specific topic or point. Although it is a tactic to focus on a specific aspect of the debate, concede that point after much of the round has passed, and then state “I concede the point that we spent much of the round that we discussed while still winning on the rest of my case that my opponent has overlooked,” I find that to be a very cheap debate tactic that does not have much real world applicability. If you and your opponent explicitly or implicitly focus on a specific point or area of contention within a round, I will decide my ballot based on that point or contention.
7. Specific to LD: I need a value. Morality is not a value, as groups define what it means to be moral (Ellemers et al., 2013). I need to know a specific value that you think I should promote or prefer in the round.
   
   Utilitarianism is a value, but you need to tell me why this value should be preferred over other values in the round. Stating that your value is utilitarianism and that your value criterion/plan/whatever is a cost-benefit analysis may or may not win you the round, but I will likely not give more than 27 speaker points in the round to a competitor who proposes this CV/VC or defaults to this CV/VC.
8. Specific to Congressional Debate: You may have noticed that I said I competed in student congress but evaluate congressional debate rounds in my introduction. That is intentional. Congressional debate has grown into a multifaceted event with nuanced arguments regarding policy and societal proposals and implications. Assume that my rankings is based on diversity of skills (e.g., can you give multiple types of speeches), essentialism within the round (e.g., what was your holistic effect within the round, or how would the round be different if you were not in the round), and quality of novel arguments and argument advancement during debate on a topic.
   
   I rank presiding officers and know how to evaluate them based on 2 years of being a presiding officer and 14 years of evaluating student congress and congressional debate rounds.
   
   All things being equal, I rank students lowly who only give crystallization speeches within the round. The goal of congressional debate is to advance discussion on a topic. There are many ways to do so (e.g., sponsorship, early-cycle extension speeches, summary and late-cycle extension speeches, and crystallization speeches). All speeches have value, but I prefer students who show diversity in their speech types when possible. When diversity is not possible, I need to know how your speech extends an argument above and beyond summarizing what was previously discussed. Often, crystallization speeches summarize events without extending discussions. In rounds where it is possible for all speakers to give two speeches, I rate students who choose to only give crystallization speeches lower.

Overall, I hope you have fun, communicate clearly, use valid and relevant evidence effectively, and be respectful of yourselves, your opponents, and the community. We all showed up because this is something that we enjoy. Treat others with the respect you hope to be treated with, and I will do my best to treat everyone with respect throughout the round.

In my role as a judge, I adhere to a specific set of criteria to assess debates fairly and effectively. I value clear communication, respectful behavior, and strategic argumentation. Here are my guidelines:

1. Clarity and Accessibility:

   • I appreciate debaters who communicate their arguments clearly and concisely. Spreading, excessive speed, or reliance on dense debate jargon can hinder clarity and accessibility. Debaters should strive to make their points in a manner that is understandable to both judges and their opponents.

2. Respectful Behavior:

   • Respectful conduct is paramount. Interrupting a partner without their consent or engaging in disrespectful behavior towards opponents will not be tolerated. Debaters should maintain professionalism and courtesy throughout the debate.

3. Argumentation and Analysis:

   • I value well-reasoned arguments supported by evidence and analysis. Debaters should focus on the quality of their arguments rather than the quantity. Logical reasoning, relevant evidence, and clear impacts are crucial in making a persuasive case.

4. Engagement with Opposing Arguments:

   • Debaters should engage substantively with their opponents' arguments. Ignoring or dismissing valid points made by the other side will be detrimental to their overall performance. Constructive engagement and refutation are key components of successful debating.

5. Organization and Structure:

   • A well-organized speech is more persuasive and easier to evaluate. Debaters should structure their speeches coherently, with clear signposting and a logical flow of arguments. A clear roadmap and organized rebuttals are essential components of effective speeches.

6. Flexibility and Adaptability:

   • Debaters should be able to adapt their strategies based on the flow of the debate. Flexibility in argumentation and the ability to respond to unexpected arguments are indicative of skilled debaters.

7. Final Focus:

   • In the final focus speeches, debaters should crystallize the key issues of the debate. Clear voting issues and impacts should be emphasized. Debaters should prioritize their most compelling arguments and explain why they outweigh their opponents' case.

Debates will be evaluated based on these criteria. I encourage debaters to focus on clear communication, respectful behavior, and strategic argumentation to excel in my rounds. Remember, quality always supersedes quantity in constructing persuasive and impactful arguments.

About:

American University MA '26 | Claremont McKenna College '23 | Archbishop Mitty '19

Hi there! My name is Jon Joey (he/they) and I competed in Parliamentary, Public Forum, and Congressional Debate at the national circuit level for three years at Archbishop Mitty High School. After graduation from Mitty, I served there as an Alumni Coach for two years and personally coached the 2021 CHSSA Parliamentary Debate State Champions. Formerly, I was the Director of Debate (2021-2024) for Crystal Springs Uplands School. I also briefly competed in National Parliamentary Debate Association tournaments in my undergraduate years and was heavily involved in the collegiate MUN circuit.

In the interest of inclusivity, if you have ANY questions about the terms or jargon that I use in this paradigm or other questions that are not answered here, feel free to shoot me an email at jtelebrico23@cmc.edu—and please Cc your coach or parents/guardians on any communication to me as a general practice!

PF Paradigm (last updated 10.04.24 for Northwestern)

Email for the email chain: jtelebrico23@cmc.edu

General

• Feel free to read any cool, funky cases on this topic in front of me. See the last bullet point of the paradigm if you're concerned about prep-outs, etc.

• Can flow any speed, so feel free to go as slow or fast as you'd like.

• Feel free to read my Parli paradigm for more nuanced thoughts on argumentation and strategy.

• STOP stealing prep time during evidence exchange. I will interrupt debaters if I see Second Speakers exploiting evidence exchange to prep further. Have your cards available, set up the email chain before the round (yes, I want to be on it), and use the prep time that has been allotted to you. The amount of prep-stealing in debate has become unreasonable and structurally unfair. You can even use this bullet of my paradigm as fairness uniqueness for a theory argument. Don't steal prep in front of me.

Evaluation

• Every argument requires a warrant for evaluation—articulations of "extend xyz author/statistic" are insufficient without accompanying warrants. Please extend and implicate warrants in both summary and final focus.

• Weighing (Probability, Magnitude, Timeframe, Reversibility) is also SUPER IMPORTANT. Start doing this in summary. This also goes beyond just impacts—do link-level weighing and collapse pls.

• I maintain that I won't flow crossfire. However, you may generate offense off of concessions (they're binding!) or contradictory answers made in CF ONLY if you explain and strategically utilize the indicted claim to generate meaningful clash.

• [ask me what my thoughts are about GCF before it happens]

• Second Rebuttal absolutely should begin to frontline. First Summary doesn't need to extend defense unless second Rebuttal begins to frontline args. However, it's probably strategic for second Rebuttal to answer first Rebuttal and start frontlining. Defense is not sticky, except maybe between first Rebuttal and first Final Focus.

• If it's in Final Focus, it has to be in Summary. This does not mean collapsing Final Focus from a single 'conceded' warrant or sentence in Summary without proper analysis.

• Impacts should be terminalized. I prefer numbers to scalar impacts, which should always be contextualized within the evidence. In other words, I'd much rather vote on an impact of "affects 10k people" over "iNcrEaSe oF 500%."

• Impact framing is also very cool.

Tech

• I think theory, kritikal, phil, and other forms of tech argumentation are severely underutilized in PF due to both structural and perceptual bias concerning speech times and the nature of these arguments. Open to hearing any kind of argument on these layers (and do uplayer the argument for me) but I am otherwise agnostic concerning my evaluation of them—I would not consider myself a tech hack judge, I just think a lot of case debates are done poorly and these rounds are fun to judge. Debate flight seems infinitely regressive so don't be afraid to run these arguments in front of me.

• I think strategies like IVIs being read on anything your opponent does or represents in-round are advantageous insofar as maximizing paths to the ballot.

Evidence Ethics & Speaks

• To minimize intervention, I won't view the email chain or card doc (but still add me!) unless a particular card defines the round—and debaters should be explicit that I should do so (e.g. "Look at their x ev, it doesn't say y"). I prefer cut cards but don't mind paraphrasing so long as you can have a substantive theory debate.

• Do not use any surveillance or tracking technologies like MailSuite/MailTrack on the email chain. I will not begin the round until an email chain without them has been created and I'll tank your speaks for even having me click on the initial email in the first place.

• However, I do reserve the right to intervene on behavior that I find explicitly oppressive and morally reprehensible; if it's implicit or you're just excessively rude in general I will simply tank your speaks.

• My updated speaks average aggregated across both PF & Parli is a 28.7 [L/H = 27/30; n=234; last updated 09.24.23]. Most people will get a 28+.

• Speech docs are very appreciated (jtelebrico23@cmc.edu). I will exclusively use these documents in the context of accessibility (e.g. to clean up card citations on my flow) in the debate round and not for coaching or sharing purposes.

Parli Paradigm (last updated 11.09.23 for NPDI)

Important parts bolded and underlined for time constraints.

General

• TL; DR: Debate how you want and how you know. If you need to adapt for a panel, I will meet you where you are and evaluate fairly.

• STOP stealing time in parliamentary debate! Do not prep with your partner while waiting for texts to be passed. There is no grace period in parliamentary debate—I stop flowing when your time ends on my timer. In the event of a timing error on my end, please hold up your timer once your opponent goes overtime.

• The debate space is yours. I can flow whatever speed and am open to any interpretation of the round but would prefer traditional debate at State. Don't be mean and exclusionary. This means a low threshold for phil, tricks, etc. but I will exercise a minute amount of reasonability (speaks will tank, W/L unchanged) if you're being intentionally exclusionary towards younger/novice/inexperienced debaters (e.g. refusing to explain tricks or clarify jargon in POIs or technically framing out teams for a cheap ballot). No TKOs though, sorry.

• Please adapt to your panel! I will evaluate as I normally do, but please do not exclude judges who may not be able to handle technical aspects of the debate round.

• I keep a really tight flow and am tech over truth. Intervention is bad except with respect to morally reprehensible or blatantly problematic representations in the debate space—I reserve the right to exercise intervention in that case.

• I prefer things to be framed as Uniqueness, Link, Impact but it doesn't matter that much. Conceded yet unwarranted claims are not automatic offense for you.

• Doing impact weighing/comparative analysis between warrants is key to coming out ahead on arguments.

• Collapse the debate down to a few arguments/issues/layers. Extend some defense on the arguments you're not going for and then go all in on the arguments that you're winning.

• Rebuttals are also very important! The 1NR cannot be a repeat of the 2NC and the 1AR should be engaging with some of the new responses made in the block as well as extending the 2AC. Give overviews, do comparative world analysis, do strategic extensions.

• Please do not mention your program name if the tournament has intentionally chosen to withhold that information. I would also generally prefer debaters stick to "My partner and I" vs. saying something like "Mitty TK affirms."

• This paradigm is not a stylistic endorsement of one regional style of debate over another (e.g. East v. West, logical v. empirical, traditional v. progressive). Debaters should debate according to how they know how to debate—this means that I will still evaluate responses to theory even if not formatted in a shell or allow debaters to weigh their case against a K argument. There is always going to be a competitive upshot to engaging in comparison of arguments, so please do so instead of limiting your ability to debate due to stylistic frustrations and differences.

Framework

• In the absence of a weighing mechanism, I default to net benefits, defined therein as the most amount of good for the most amount of people. This means you can still make weighing claims even in the absence of a coherent framework debate. To clarify this, I won't weigh for you, you still have to tell me which impacts I ought to prioritize.

• Framework cannot be backfilled by second speakers. Omission of framework means you shift framework choice to your opponents.

• For CFL: Please respect trichotomy as these topics were written with a particular spirit and are meant to serve as preparation for CHSSA (should = policy, ought or comparison of two things = value, on balance/more good than harm/statement = fact)

• Any and all spec is fine.

• Read and pass texts to your opponents.

• Epistemic confidence > epistemic modesty. Win the framework.

Counterplans

• I tend to default that CPs are tests of competition and not advocacies. Whether running the CP or articulating a perm, please clarify the status of the CP.

• I think counterplans are super strategic and am receptive to hearing most unconventional CPs (PICs, conditional, advantage, actor, delay, etc.) so long as you're prepared to answer theory. These don't have to necessarily be answered with theory but affirmative teams can logically explain why a specific counterplan is unfair or abusive for me to discount it.

Theory

• I'm a lot more willing to evaluate theory, or arguments that set norms that we use in debate.

• I default to competing interps over reasonability, meaning that both teams should probably have an interp if you want to win theory. Feel free to change my mind on this and of course, still read warrants as to why I should prefer one over the other.

• I'm slowly beginning to care less if theory is "frivolous" as my judging career progresses but, by the same token, try not to choose to be exclusionary if you're aware of the technical ability of your opponents. Inclusivity and access are important in this activity.

Kritiks

• Kritiks are a form of criticism about the topic and/or plan that typically circumvents normative policymaking. These types of arguments usually reject the resolution due to the way that it links into topics such as ableism, capitalism, etc. Pretty receptive to these!

• I find KvK debates quite confusing and difficult to evaluate because debaters are often not operationalizing framework in strategic ways. Win the RotB debate, use sequencing and pre-req arguments, and contest the philosophical methods (ontology, epistemology, etc.) of each K. On the KvK debate, explain to me why relinks matters—I no longer find the manslaughter v. murder comparison as sufficiently explanatory in and of itself. I need debaters to implicate relinks to me in terms of one's own framework or solvency.

• Read good framework, don’t double turn yourself, have a solvent alternative.

• When answering the K, and especially if you weren’t expecting it, realize that there is still a lot of offense that can be leveraged in your favor. Never think that a K is an automatic ballot so do the pre- v. post fiat analysis for me, weigh the case against the K and tell me why policymaking is a good thing, and call out their shady alternative.

• I think that teams that want to run these types of arguments should exhibit a form of true understanding and scholarship in the form of accessible explanations if you want me to evaluate these arguments fairly but also I'm not necessarily the arbiter of that—it just reflects in how you debate.

Speaks

• Speaker points are awarded on strategy, warranting, and weighing. As a general rule: substance > style.

• The path to a 30 probably includes really clean extensions and explanations of warrants, collapsing, weighing.

• Any speed is fine but word economy is important—something I've been considering more lately.
• Not utilizing your full speech time likely caps you at a 28. Use the time that has been allotted to you!

• Despite this, I am pretty easily compelled by the litany of literature that indicate speaker points reify oppression and am pretty receptive to any theoretical argument about subverting such systems.

• I don't have solid data to back this up but I believe my threshold for high speaker points for second speakers is pretty high. See above about doing quality extension and weighing work.
• Sorta unserious but I wanna judge a nebel T debate in Parli really bad—30s if you can pull it off!

• My current speaks average aggregated across both Parli & PF is 28.7 [H/L = 30/27; n=234; last updated 09.24.23].

Points of Information/Order

• PLEASE take at least two POIs. I don't really care how many off case positions you're running or how much "you have to get through" but you can't put it off until the end of your speech, sit down, and then get mad at your opponents for misunderstanding your arguments if you never clarified what it was in the first place. On the flip side, I won't flow POIs, so it's up to you to use them strategically.

• Tag teaming is fine; what this looks like is up to you.

• Call the P.O.O.—I won't protect the flow.

Fun Parli Data Stuff, inspired by GR (last updated 02.15.23):

• Rounds Judged: n = 170
• Aff Prelim Ballots (Parli): 72 (42.35%)
• Neg Prelim Ballots (Parli): 98 (57.65%)
• Aff Elim Ballots (Parli): 26 (50.00%)*
• Neg Elim Ballots (Parli): 26 (50.00%)*

Feel free to use this to analyze general trends, inform elim flips, or for your "fairness uniqueness."

*this is pretty cool to me, i guess i'm not disposed to one side or another during elims ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

For anything not covered here, feel free to ask me before the round!

I mostly judge WSD, the below applies to such.

Clarity and cohesion (as a team) are good. Build off of each other.

If you don't have enough content to fill the entire allotted time, don't feel pressured to drag it out. A good speech can be shorter than 8 minutes.

Try to resolve conflicts on definitions and assumptions quickly. Not doing so cuts into the amount of time debating the substantive points, and it helps neither side.

Debate is a performance as much as it is intellectual exercise, so try to make sure your audience can understand it -- speaking at a conversational pace is best.