Vito Perez Paradigm

Last changed 3/2 11:59A PDT

Add me to the email chain please: vitoperez117@gmail.com

Please email me any questions regarding my decision. On the Subject line, please provide the name of the tournament, your team code, and the round number.


Experience
Bravo Medical Magnet HS (2010-2013)

UC Irvine (2013-14): 2014 NDT Qualifier and 2014 CEDA Octafinalist

Overview

My ideal debate demonstrates a) well-researched positions that are communicated clearly and concisely and are easily flowable, and b) direct refutation of arguments that can be easily visualized on the flow.

In 2014, I said, "I am compatible with embedded clash" and will do the sorting work even if messy. This delays the tournament schedule by prolonging the time it takes to render a decision. Line-by-line refutation is most preferred. Grouping arguments is acceptable if you identify what premise they all share that you are refuting.

The literature bases I’m most familiar with are around afropessimism, settler colonialism, capitalism, whiteness, biopolitics, semiotics, and (some) psychoanalysis.

Prerequisites to earning the Ballot:

1.) Be Clear: This is a communication activity. You are persuading the judge. I'm slightly hard of hearing, so if I can't understand you, I'll say "CLEAR". I will repeat only twice per debater. Lack of clarity will reduce speaker points and will make it difficult to flow and genuinely understand the argument. This rule is most important during OVERVIEWS and ANALYTICS.

SLOW DOWN for Plan texts, Counterplan texts, Advocacy texts, Permutation texts, and PIC/PIK texts. If I have to look at the speech document for the TEXT, I will remove half a speaker point. This is a speech activity. If it weren't, we would only need to share word documents over email and we wouldn't need to be physically present at tournaments.

Speaking for/over your partner (or puppeteering them) will reduce both of your speaks. Debaters should be able to speak for themselves in a speech activity.

2.) Complete the argument: A complete argument contains a claim, warrant, and evidence. An incomplete argument will be flowed for reference but ultimately will not be evaluated. If an argument is completed in a constructive, I will evaluate it. If it is completed in a rebuttal, it is a new argument and I will not evaluate it.

3.) Explain Key Theories/Concepts: Assume I am a lay judge who only knows how to flow. Do not assume that my familiarity with certain literature bases will allow you to skip over explaining key philosophical, economic, or political concepts and chains of logic. Doing so risks skipping warrants, which means you've made an incomplete argument that I will not evaluate. Returning to the first prerequisite of clarity, if you are not clear I might not completely understand the concepts you explained. Then, your warrants and analytics might be absent on my flow. Don't let that happen.

Also, DO NOT use abbreviations or acronyms until you have spelled them out for me. Do not leave me to guess. I might not flow it.

4.) Tell me who I am: Role of the Judge. Dictate to me how I ought to view the round--as a policymaker, a critic, an educator, a revolutionary, etc. Otherwise, my default position is to evaluate the round as a policy-maker. I have spent too much time post-round thinking about how to weigh impacts and advocacies that clash and are both well-researched. Do not leave me at the end of the round with my biases.

5.) Tell me what the ballot does: Role of the Ballot. Dictate to me what the purpose of the ballot ought to be: for example, does it simply go to the team that did the better debating or does it change the structure of debate or the debate community? Moreover, what the ballot ought to do/be depends on what DEBATE should be about. In short, delineate your model of debate (what debate should be about) and defend why we should affirm that model of debate.

6.) Tech over Truth: I will only evaluate what is said in the round not what I know outside the round. Prioritizing truth claims relies on judge intervention which nullifies the argumentation within the round and the purpose of the activity. Prioritizing tech minimizes judge intervention because the argumentation in the round determines the ballot.

Specifics

Aff/Neg Roles: The affirmative must change the status quo via fiat or performance. The 1AC must make the status quo net better. The negative must prove the affirmative either DOES NOT change the status quo or makes the status quo net worse. Sounds too basic but is a fundamental theoretical issue about the model of debate that debaters gloss over with statements like "we only need to prove the aff is a good/bad idea".

I find myself wanting to vote Neg on presumption in debates in which the Aff does not meet the burden of changing the status quo or does not provide a counter-interpretation to "changing the status quo". To clarify, I won't vote on presumption if the argument is not made.

I believe the neg should have the status quo as an option, only if the neg makes this argument. Unless the debate becomes a method vs method debate, the focus of the debate is the 1AC's effects on the status quo.

Framework: Tell me why I ought to prefer your model of the debate. The more comparative the standards and impact debate, the better. For example, tell me whose scholarship/pedagogy should be preferred with clear disads to the other team’s education claims. As a judge, I do not take a position on the structural fairness vs procedural fairness debate, except that fairness (structural or procedural) should be explained as an impact in and of itself. Otherwise, I am likely to interpret fairness as an internal link to an impact waiting to be articulated.

Topicality/Theory: Will vote on it but my threshold is high because in the debates I've judged, abuse in-round is not clearly articulated (or that it's potentially abusive) or it is unclear what kind of ground the aff destroyed or the extent to which the negative was unable to generate substantial clash or the aff killed education on topic literature. If neg definitively proves in-round abuse, I'll vote on T.

Topical versions of the Aff are extremely persuasive because they prove that the 1AC's content is non-competitive with topicality, which means that being un-topical is not uniquely key to access 1AC offense. Neg doesn't have to prove solvency; only that the content and performance of the 1AC is not competitive with affirming the resolution.

Disadvantages: I’m not always familiar with abbreviations so please explain them at least once. For politics debates, I like case-specific specific links. If you only have generic links available, contextualize the links to the warrants and evidence of the 1AC or the warrants and premises you have elicited from the cross-ex of the 1AC. Returning to the third issue of explanation, explain the economic and political concepts that prove the disad.


Counterplans: Slow down substantially 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. Solve for your net benefits, don't link to them. I don’t dislike any specific CP. Agent, consult, delay CPs...I could vote on them.

Plan-Inclusive Counterplans/Kritiks: May or may not be abusive. I will consider voting on it if neg proves textual and functional competition. If aff does not impact a lack of such competition, then the PIC is legitimate. Provide an impact to "Mooting the 1AC". Provide defense for this impact.

Kritiks: Do not depend on tag-lines and buzzwords for explanatory power. Be well-read on your literature base. If I recognize that you mischaracterize, oversimplify, or misunderstand the thesis of the K, your speaks will decrease.

Starting point debates/Root Cause debates: I evaluate these debates just like a framework debate: competing models of structural analysis. Thus, I compare standards/net benefits. If your analysis has a wider scope, why is that good? If it has a narrower scope, why is that good? If your starting point historically precedes the other team's starting point, why does that mean I should prefer your starting point. I ask these questions because these are the questions I am left with at the end of the debate. Dictate to me the criteria for comparing starting points. Without it, you are asking me to intervene with my own analysis. Don't do that.

Alternatives: By the 1NR, it should be clear how the alt solves. Whether this is via fiat or via scholarship (epistemological/ontological model) should be established BY THE BLOCK.

If something happens in-round and one team argues that the other's performance/language/etc is problematic in some form, explain how the significance of this issue outweighs the rest of the debate (i.e. why should I pay attention to this before analyzing the debate itself)--which means engaging in the framework debate.

If this is a new argument in the rebuttals, you have a higher threshold for proving why this outweighs the rest of the debate or why I should/can moot the 1AC.

Conclusion

Debate ought to encourage safety, fairness, and education.

Everyone should feel as safe and comfortable as the community can make itself to be, even though safety and comfort are effects of power and are not equitably distributed.

Debaters should be able to substantially engage with the topic and each other. Please disclose arguments and evidence properly. Please share enough with the other team before the round so they can understand and at least attempt to make arguments.

Everyone should be able to learn from the activity, win or lose.

The team that violates any of these tenets will be denied the ballot.

Full Judging Record

Tournament Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
USC Damus Spring Trojan Championships 3/1/2019 POL R8 Damien DQ Peninsula LL Aff Neg on a 2-1
USC Damus Spring Trojan Championships 3/1/2019 POL R7 Peninsula MQ Damien HB Aff Neg on a 2-1
USC Damus Spring Trojan Championships 3/1/2019 POL R6 Damien BB Peninsula LL Neg
USC Damus Spring Trojan Championships 3/1/2019 POL R5 Damien JF ModernBrain FY Neg
USC Damus Spring Trojan Championships 3/1/2019 POL R4 Damien VK ModernBrain DS Aff
USC Damus Spring Trojan Championships 3/1/2019 POL R3 Peninsula LL Damien DQ Aff
USC Damus Spring Trojan Championships 3/1/2019 POL R2 Peninsula PS Damien JF Aff
USC Damus Spring Trojan Championships 3/1/2019 POL R1 ModernBrain LW Damien BB Neg
D1 Pacific Championship 2/23/2019 JVPol Semis Southern California Clopton & Perez Cal State Fullerton Hernandez & Perry Aff Aff on a 3-0
D1 Pacific Championship 2/23/2019 JVPol R6 Fullerton Kejejyan & Jensen Southwestern Jenkins & Navarro Aff
D1 Pacific Championship 2/23/2019 OPol R5 Cal State Fullerton Burke & Rosas Arizona State Chowdhury & Encinas Neg
D1 Pacific Championship 2/23/2019 NPol R4 Cal State Fullerton Rivera & Socolan Fullerton Baltazar & Becerra Neg
Cal Invitational UC Berkeley 2/16/2019 VCX R6 Cherry Creek HG Copper Hills LB Neg
Cal Invitational UC Berkeley 2/16/2019 VCX R5 Barstow SF Kamiak DS Neg
Cal Invitational UC Berkeley 2/16/2019 VCX R4 Barstow PW Interlake CC Neg
Cal Invitational UC Berkeley 2/16/2019 VCX R3 Barstow PL Desert Vista LG Aff
Cal Invitational UC Berkeley 2/16/2019 VCX R2 North Broward Prep DF Cherry Creek DM Aff
Cal Invitational UC Berkeley 2/16/2019 VCX R1 Barstow TD Silver Creek JS Aff
Winter at the Beach 1/25/2019 NCX R8 UNLV Wong & Beckett St Mary's Sullivan & Dishion Aff Aff on a 3-0
Winter at the Beach 1/25/2019 NCX R7 Fresno State Chapman & Sandoval St Mary's Sullivan & Dishion Neg Neg on a 3-0
Winter at the Beach 1/25/2019 OCX R6 UNLV Aguilar & Warren UC Berkeley Malyugina & Overing Aff
Winter at the Beach 1/25/2019 NCX R5 St Mary's Sullivan & Dishion St Mary's Austin & Stewartson Aff
Winter at the Beach 1/25/2019 NCX R4 St Mary's Griffiths & Owen UNLV Wong & Beckett Neg
Winter at the Beach 1/25/2019 NCX R3 St Mary's Walsh & Altenberg Fresno State Chapman & Sandoval Neg
Winter at the Beach 1/25/2019 JCX R2 Fullerton Kazarian & Solis Fresno State Lowe & Mirza Neg
Peninsula Invitational 1/12/2019 O CX Octo Polytechnic HO Stockdale HS Neg Aff on a 2-1
Peninsula Invitational 1/12/2019 O CX R6 Elizabeth Learning Center RP New Design Charter School-University Park HV Aff
Peninsula Invitational 1/12/2019 O CX R5 Elizabeth Learning Center MH Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts Mathematics Legacy RO Aff
Peninsula Invitational 1/12/2019 O CX R3 Bravo DF Downtown Magnets TP Aff
Peninsula Invitational 1/12/2019 O CX R2 Alliance Stern Math and Science GL New Design Charter School-University Park GE Aff
Peninsula Invitational 1/12/2019 O CX R1 Classical MM Downtown Magnets AJ Aff
Jack Howe Memorial Tournament 9/22/2018 TOCLD Quar Brentwood LE Northwood VA Neg Neg on a 3-0
Jack Howe Memorial Tournament 9/22/2018 TOCLD Octas San Marino VL Collegiate CW Aff Aff on a 3-0
Jack Howe Memorial Tournament 9/22/2018 TOCLD R6 Brentwood LE Dougherty Valley AR Aff
Jack Howe Memorial Tournament 9/22/2018 O CX R6 Lowell BR Woodlands Independent MR Neg
Jack Howe Memorial Tournament 9/22/2018 TOCLD R5 Northwood VA Harvard-Westlake JI Aff
Jack Howe Memorial Tournament 9/22/2018 TOCLD R5 St Francis DJ Harvard-Westlake NR Neg
Jack Howe Memorial Tournament 9/22/2018 TOCLD R4 Harvard-Westlake OF Notre Dame AB Neg
Jack Howe Memorial Tournament 9/22/2018 TOCLD R4 San Marino KW Harvard-Westlake LP Neg
Jack Howe Memorial Tournament 9/22/2018 TOCLD R3 Arcadia JC Loyola SN Aff
Jack Howe Memorial Tournament 9/22/2018 TOCLD R3 Harvard-Westlake HS Northwood SA Neg
Jack Howe Memorial Tournament 9/22/2018 TOCLD R2 Loyola AS Northwood KK Neg
Jack Howe Memorial Tournament 9/22/2018 TOCLD R1 Harvard-Westlake JM Marlborough CL Neg
Jack Howe Memorial Tournament 9/22/2018 TOCLD R1 Harvard-Westlake BW Loyola RB Neg
USC Damus Spring Trojan Championships 3/2/2018 VPol R6 Peninsula BR New Design Charter School-University Park HG Aff
USC Damus Spring Trojan Championships 3/2/2018 VPol R5 South Gate HS DF AE Peninsula BR Aff
USC Damus Spring Trojan Championships 3/2/2018 NJVLD R4 Harvard-Westlake ZN Meadows JL Neg
USC Damus Spring Trojan Championships 3/2/2018 NJVLD R4 Kudos FZ Harvard-Westlake IJ Aff
USC Damus Spring Trojan Championships 3/2/2018 NJVLD R1 Harvard-Westlake BW Meadows NS Aff
USC Damus Spring Trojan Championships 3/2/2018 NJVLD R1 Northwood BX Meadows DH Neg
SCJFL Early Spring Debate 2/24/2018 LD R5 WalRee JC Kudos CF Neg
SCJFL Early Spring Debate 2/24/2018 LD R3 PhoRan JD FliPre SB Neg
SCJFL Early Spring Debate 2/24/2018 LD R3 Autono GL Kudos FZ Aff
SCJFL Early Spring Debate 2/24/2018 PF R1 Westri CC FliPre BK Aff
SCJFL Early Spring Debate 2/24/2018 PF R1 Rosemo CP Kudos SX Aff
Cal Invitational UC Berkeley 2/17/2018 VCX R6 Polytechnic LW North Broward Prep MR Neg
Cal Invitational UC Berkeley 2/17/2018 VCX R5 Woodside CA Downtown Magnets PW Neg
Cal Invitational UC Berkeley 2/17/2018 VCX R4 Garfield RR Rosemont DJ Neg
Cal Invitational UC Berkeley 2/17/2018 VCX R3 Park city high AH Downtown Magnets GG Aff
Cal Invitational UC Berkeley 2/17/2018 VCX R2 Univ Of Chicago Lab HU Asian Debate League CP Aff
Cal Invitational UC Berkeley 2/17/2018 VCX R1 Lincoln SG Oakland Tech PB Neg
Winter at the Beach 2018 2/2/2018 OParl Final St Mary's Szafraniec & Jeronimo Biola Leonard & Saville Aff Aff on a 3-0
Winter at the Beach 2018 2/2/2018 OParl Semi Pasadena City Sy Go & Huang Biola Leonard & Saville Neg Neg on a 2-1
Winter at the Beach 2018 2/2/2018 OCX R5 Missouri State Smith & Wicks Fresno State Martinez & Sansom Aff
Winter at the Beach 2018 2/2/2018 NCX R4 Fullerton Jensen & Perry Fresno State Vang & Elias Aff
Winter at the Beach 2018 2/2/2018 OCX R3 St Mary's Magee & Perez Cal State Fullerton Botello & Rosa Neg
Winter at the Beach 2018 2/2/2018 OCX R2 Gonzaga Johnson & Basler Cal State Fullerton Tero & Bencito Aff
Winter at the Beach 2018 2/2/2018 NCX R1 Fresno State Mirza & Lowe Weber State Johnson & Stephens Neg
Peninsula Invitational 1/19/2018 OCX R6 South East ME Harker MZ Aff
Peninsula Invitational 1/19/2018 OCX R5 South East EM Notre Dame PG Neg
La Costa Canyon Winter Classic 12/8/2017 CX Semi Green Valley SW Chaminade CP AT Aff Neg on a 2-1
La Costa Canyon Winter Classic 12/8/2017 CX Quar Polytechnic CG Green Valley SW Aff Neg on a 2-1
La Costa Canyon Winter Classic 12/8/2017 CX Octo Chaminade CP AT Downtown Magnets CW Aff Aff on a 3-0
La Costa Canyon Winter Classic 12/8/2017 CX R6 Green Valley CQ Downtown Magnets GJ Neg
La Costa Canyon Winter Classic 12/8/2017 CX R5 Saratoga KV Peninsula BY Aff
La Costa Canyon Winter Classic 12/8/2017 CX R4 San Dieguito FQ Green Valley CR Aff
La Costa Canyon Winter Classic 12/8/2017 CX R3 Downtown Magnets GP Chaminade CP BN Aff
Jack Howe Memorial Tournament 9/30/2017 TOCLD Dub Northwood VA Canyon Crest RA Aff Aff on a 3-0
Jack Howe Memorial Tournament 9/30/2017 TOCLD Dub Immaculate Heart MC Canyon Crest KL Neg Neg on a 3-0
Jack Howe Memorial Tournament 9/30/2017 TOCLD R6 CL Education AY Loyola MC Aff
Jack Howe Memorial Tournament 9/30/2017 TOCLD R5 Elite of Irvine CL Presentation NV Neg
Jack Howe Memorial Tournament 9/30/2017 TOCLD R4 Sanger GM Sage Hill Independent TG Neg
Jack Howe Memorial Tournament 9/30/2017 TOCLD R4 Torrey Pines FK San Marino KW Aff
Jack Howe Memorial Tournament 9/30/2017 TOCLD R3 Brentwood KR Canyon Crest RR Neg
Jack Howe Memorial Tournament 9/30/2017 TOCLD R2 Brentwood JD Northwood AD Aff
Jack Howe Memorial Tournament 9/30/2017 TOCLD R2 Loyola LA Beckman KM Neg
Jack Howe Memorial Tournament 9/30/2017 TOCLD R1 Northwood AH Loyola JN Neg