Perez,+Vito

DEBATE EXPERIENCE  High School--Bravo Medical Magnet HS (2010-2013)  College--UC Irvine (2013- present)

__General Overview:__ I have been debating in Open since my sophomore year so I have a good grasp of what a good debate looks like. There needs to be explicit clash and comparative claims especially on the impact level. Although, I do like embedded clash if you’re not much of a line-by-line debater and prefer a thesis-oriented/meta-level debating. This approach to debating usually becomes messy but I am likely to be willing to parse out the details, if the debate has much clash on multiple levels, and, especially, if I like the debate.

Now, the debates I like/will be a good judge for are kritikal debates. More importantly, the literature base I’m most familiar with are around anti-blackness, indigeneity, whiteness/white supremacy, post-modernity (e.g. biopower, necropolitics, Deleuze, Heidegger, Baudrillard etc.)

NOTE: If you are a “performance” debater, I will hold you to a higher standard but I will be very, very receptive to your arguments. This means I WILL flow your poetry, dance, song, role-playing, or other non-normative performance and I WILL expect you to extend them as arguments and use them offensively, which roughly translates to something along the lines of “I danced, I win”. I want you to be very particular on the literature behind the “performance”. Abide by this simple criteria, you will be rewarded.

FW: I’ve noticed how framework has morphed throughout the years from explicitly exclusionary to strategically inclusive. I like framework debates, particularly in clash of civilization debates. Just like any framework, tell me how to evaluate the round and why it should be preferred over the aff’s framework or the default framework of policy debate. The more comparative the impact debate, the better. For example, tell me whose scholarship/pedagogy should be preferred with clear disads to the other team’s education claims.

T/Theory: I have a very low threshold for these arguments. Rarely vote for them. Even if the other team gets up and talks about kittens, I believe you can still debate. One can always generate competition if one knows how to debate. After all, there’s always good ol’ framework and T...

DAs: I’m fine with them. I’m not very familiar with abbreviations so please explain them before throwing them around as buzzwords. As for politics debates, I like case-specific specific links. If you only have generic links available, you better do a fire ass job hashing out the links from their warrants and evidence. Btw, there are “non-normative” kinds of disads. Be creative. Disads aren’t just for policy hacks:.

 CPs: I’m also fine with them. Just like DAs, I want you to tell me what those abbreviations mean. Slow down a bit so I could catch the full CP text instead of relying on CX to clarify for me or waiting throughout the debate for the text to be fleshed out. Have net benefits. Please. I don’t dislike any specific CP. Agent, consult, delacy CPs...I could jive them.

K: Given the mini-rant I gave above, you can instantly tell I like Ks. Most debaters butcher the thesis of these authors so I cringe inside when a debater who doesn’t have a fundamental understanding of anti-blackness throws around the word “black body” like it’s nothin. Thus, I encourage you to be well-read on your literature base. Even basic, widely known Ks like Cap are mangled by debaters. If you want me to give you good speaks and work through the debate, be specific with the links, make offensive comparative impact claims, and frame the debate/ballot with the K in mind.

Case: Don’t drop it. Have overviews. Cross-apply effectively to various off-case flows.