I will choose from among the arguments presented to me.  I pay close attention and keep an accurate flow of the debate.  Both are important to me.  Cross examination exchanges are important as well in shaping how I view arguments and debates.  Consequently, I usually have thoughts about who won the debate immediately after its conclusion.  Then my decision making process goes something like this:  (1) who  do I think won and why?  (2)  does that team think they won for this reason?  (3) why does this team team think they won?  (4)  Are they correct?  (5)  why does the other team think they won?  Are they correct? (6) who has the better claim to victory?  (7)  Decide.  (8)  what will be the losing teams complaint and what will I say?  (9) Vote.  10.  Deliver.

I vote for plans, counterplans, interpretations, performances, alternatives, permutations and presumption.  You should be clear about what you are asking me to vote for.  Know your plan, interpretation, etc.  Know the other team's interpretation, permutation, etc.  I usually start with a very narrow question to resolve a debate and they center around these issues.  I usually ignore role of the ballot arguments except and unless it helps me resolve an otherwise irresolvable debate.  I will usually just dismiss these arguments.

As a judge in a competitve academic activity I find that maintaining fairness is a paramount concern.  Deciding these issues usually take precenden over other issues because as ther judge I am the only protection that eitther team has against unfair practices and these matters must be resolved immediately, in the round.  Education is an important but secondary concern for me in my role as judge.  It's a primary concern of mine as coach.  You will notice that my decisions focus exclusively on who I voted for and why and rarely on what I think either team could do better or where either team or debaters came up short.  I will talk about these things if asked, but I am primarly concerned with delivering a correct decision that resonably honors both team's expectations.  A decision that is fair.

Card clipping:  I have been convinced that this is an important thing.  If you are caught card clipping in any debate that I am judging I will vote againtst you and give you 0 speaker points and ensure that you receive any and all of the proper punishment.  However, anyone who accuses another debater of card clipping in any ddebate that I am judging will be held to an incredibly high burden of proof of clear and convincing evidence.  That's something less than beyond a resonable doubt, but should still effectively deter anyone from making any weak accusations.  I would much rather not have to decide this debate.  Also, it would help me and you significantly if you included a materiality argument when making such an accusation.  I.e. the other team clipped cards AND it's materially impacting the outcome of this debate.  This is the equivalent of an in round abuse requirement.  

Lastly, I do not vote for critiques of performances in front of white audiences.  I am not a white audience.  You must take note of this when you debate.  Even if there are white people around, they don't matter to me as a judge (even on a panel).

About:

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. I also briefly competed in National Parliamentary Debate Association tournaments in my undergraduate years and was heavily involved in the collegiate MUN circuit.

My current affiliation is with Crystal Springs Uplands School, where I am the Head Debate Coach for both the Middle and Upper Schools.

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!

CHSSA MS State Update for CX, LD, PF:

• Utilize full CX (and prep time, if necessary)
• Do evidence/warrant comparisons
• Weigh (Probability, Magnitude, Timeframe, Reversibility)
• DON'T gender your opponents if pronouns are not disclosed in the Tab blast, speaks will significantly lower—they is fine as a neutral pronoun
• I don't flow off speech docs and I only call for evidence if you tell me to call for it. Verifying evidence ethics is your responsibility as debaters, otherwise I defer to what's on my flow.
• Please don't mention program name during introductions—entries are coded for a reason! I likely have implicit thoughts about programs as a former competitor in CFL/Calif. Coast and I hope you'll help me check back against that

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.