Perez,+Christopher

My name is Christopher Perez, and this is my 4th year of debating at Downtown Magnets High school. I’ve qualified for the UDNC and am relatively experienced with debate; if you have more specific questions about my experiences of preferences feel free to email me at christopherp1322@gmail.com 😊. General comments: Theory: I’m ok with theory as long as it has a purpose in the round, be it to get a link or the other team is actually doing something pretty questionable. Obviously if theory is dropped by the opponents and that becomes what you go for, I’ll vote for it. However, if the theory is otherwise read for just time skew and the other team sufficiently answers the argument I’ll generally disregard it. If you can articulate a substantive impact then it probably has a purpose and I’ll buy the argument – I won’t buy a 20 second theory argument with blippy standards just to force a time trade off. Kritiks: I’ve generally been a kritik debater throughout my four years of debating. I like psychoanalysis and Antiblackness if you’re up to it, but I will always prefer a k debate with meaningful link stories. I will // not buy // a k looking for a link argument. What I mean is that I won’t buy k debates where the 1NC reads a generic link argument, and builds off the link debate based on permutation/alternative answers from the 2AC. Otherwise, if the link is contextualized and I can understand how the alternative solves the aff or solves something that outweighs the aff, I will gladly vote for the argument. If you’re reading a nuanced kritikal argument that I’m not familiar with like Edelman, try to cut down on the jargon. A good k debate to me will help your speaks! K-affs: I’ve run these affirmatives before and I like them. I don’t like k-affs that don’t engage politically just because they don’t want to; there HAS to be a purpose to your method. Although I like critical arguments, I’m still very political. If the neg can point out a clear TVA of your aff that can encapsulate your affirmative and remain in the political, I’ll err neg. Also, since I probably won’t be clear with many k-affs that I haven’t heard before, lessen jargon and explain more. DA: Similar to the K, always contextualize the link. If the link’s warrants are in the context of Common Core and the aff is entirely different and the aff points this out, I’ll probably err aff (unless the negative can effectively articulate that the aff is similar to what the link story says). I don’t find politics arguments too interesting, but a well-articulated DA will merit high speaker points. CP: I expect the CP to solve the case or at least a portion of it, and is competitive to the plan. I’ve read a lot of abusive counterplans in the past like Consultation/Agent CP’s/PICs and don’t mind them. Obviously if the aff can effectively debate theories against these CP’s I’ll definitely buy them. Otherwise, please have fun!
 * Put me on the email chain
 * Don’t make disrespectful remarks
 * If you only read cards without analysis/analytics you won’t earn high speaker points. Nuanced argument building merits you high speaker points
 * I’m ok with tag-team; just don’t dominate
 * I’m ok with spreading. Differentiate tags with warrants
 * // Don’t clip cards // – I will be checking occasionally. If you mark the card, make sure to send the rest of the room the marked version.