Thais (T.C.) Perez

CSSH'22/Wake'26

Coach @ Quarry Lane

Add to chain:

tcperezdeb8@gmail.com

debate@student.quarrylane.org

I evaluate debates through an offense/defense paradigm. I would consider myself pretty flow centric because I often forget things that were said in speeches otherwise, and it helps me determine how offensive/defensive arguments interact with the rest of the flow. I flow straight down, which means doing line-by-line is the best way to ensure everything you are saying gets written down. Cross-examination is a speech that I listen to intently and flow on a separate sheet; if you refer to moments from the cross-ex during speeches I will look back at that flow so take advantage of cross-ex moments to communicate to me, not the other team. I take a while for decisions, but this is mostly because I have a decision already written and spend time playing devil’s advocate to ensure that I made the correct choice. Sometimes, after this, the decision will change, but the vast majority of the time, it will not.

I can be convinced that many, if not most, arguments are true when judging a debate. Even if it is not true that “ASPEC causes extinction,” if technical debating deems that it does, then I am willing to vote for it. If you cannot prove that ASPEC does not cause extinction, you do not deserve to win the debate. That being said, this requires a warrant and an impact. I am unpersuaded by standalone claims without reasons behind them. This does not necessarily mean you need cards to support your claims, but it does mean that you need to justify what you are saying with some form of logic and explanation.

Before debating in college, I thought my ideas about debate would never change. However, I now understand that I am improving along with this activity, and my thoughts about debate will never be static. I believe that it is important to note that most of the ideas that follow are subject to change as I continue to learn from the activity and the rest of the debate community.

Plan affs:

I prefer it when “turns the case” arguments are substantiated with cards, especially if it is a non-impact turns the case argument [link turns the case/internal link turns the case/etc]. I think the politics disad is one of the more educational arguments in debate when written properly, even if it is not “real-world.”

In plan aff vs K debates, I will almost always look at the framework debate first, then the terminal impact debate. I will resolve the framework debate one way or the other. I find it frustrating and anti-educational when judges unjustifiably say things like “the framework debate was a wash” or “I didn’t know how to evaluate framework, so I weighed the aff and gave the neg links.” Aff teams should not underestimate the power of a well-explained alt solves the case argument.

Non-Plan affs:

Negative teams are always burdened with rejoinder, regardless of whether or not the affirmative reads a plan. Saying otherwise is callous and anti-educational. This is one of my views that will not change.

I do not have thoughts on whether or not clash/education/fairness are impacts or internal links. I do not have an impact preference on framework; proving to me that the ballot can solve your offense is the best way to win.

If you are reading a framework interpretation in a K v. K debate, explain why your method is best to solve or turn the other team’s offense.

Try to ensure that you have offensive reasons for why the perm does not shield the link. It will make your life and my life much easier.

Misc:

I find that debaters often attempt to adapt to their judges by reading a strategy that they are not as prepared for and is often not well-executed. In order to debate as best you can, read the arguments that you are most prepared to defend.

Plan/Aff vagueness is so obnoxious. Don't avoid explaining the mechanism or function of the aff, normal means, or how the theory you endorse interacts with the material. If the other team doesn't know what your aff does, neither will I which means I am likely to limit the scope of solvency to cross-examination and to what solvency evidence says.

I will default to competing interpretations on topicality. An offense/defense paradigm means that the affirmative must have an offensive reason why their interpretation is better than the negative’s. If reasonability is introduced, the affirmative must have justifications for why sufficiency [“good is good enough”] is a better metric for these debates and set clear standards for what reasonability looks like under their model.

I will by default judge kick conditional off case positions. I enjoy plan-specific PICs.

Coach - Quarry Lane School, formerly Lawrence Free State

Debated - University of Kansas '25 (Antitrust to Climate), Pittsburg HS in Kansas '21 (Education to CJR)

email: jspiersdebate@gmail.com; jspiers@umich.eduduring camp

I will vote on just about anything - except any discriminatory 'ism' good. This includes - hidden ASPEC, death good, fiat double bind, random dropped VIs, "flow check- vote them down if they don't answer this arg" etc... Debates should be decided technically. Bad arguments can't be beaten just by pointing out that they're bad- you have to explain why. Incomplete arguments CAN be answered by pointing out that they're incomplete. I attempt to avoid reading cards as much as possible - when you send a card doc, I will read the minimum I need to make a decision.

Maximizing your chance of victory requires you to verbalize the ballot you want me to write and do the comparison/explanation that you want me to tell you in the RFD. My least favorite debates to judge are the ones that everyone forgets that someone has to write an RFD at the end- and is very good at micro questions but lacking in putting together a ballot.

Many technical judges have blindspots [some think theory is silly and "if it's competitive, it's legit" is always true, some hate condo bad, some won't vote on the K]. No judge wants to admit they have any of these, but if anything is mine is that I think "bad' args are bad- those that contravene reality, not those that are kinda silly but tricky like wipeout - I may be a little too willing to think "true not new" is justified, although in all but the most extreme circumstances I'll probably begrudgingly vote for the bad argument.

For PF: Speaks capped at 27.5 if you don't read cut cards (with tags) and send speech docs via email chain prior to your speech of cards to be read (in constructives, rebuttal, summary, or any speech where you have a new card to read). I'm done with paraphrasing and pf rounds taking almost as long as my policy rounds to complete. Speaks will start at 28.5 for teams that do read cut cards and do send speech docs via email chain prior to speech. In elims, since I can't give points, it will be a overall tiebreaker.

For Policy: Speaks capped at 28 if I don't understand each and every word you say while spreading (including cards read). I will not follow along on the speech doc, I will not read cards after the debate (unless contested or required to render a decision), and, thus, I will not reconstruct the debate for you but will just go off my flow. I can handle speed, but I need clarity not a speechdoc to understand warrants. Speaks will start at 28.5 for teams that are completely flowable. I'd say about 85% of debaters have been able to meet this paradigm.

I'd also mostly focus on the style section and bold parts of other sections.

---

2018 update: College policy debaters should look to who I judged at my last college judging spree (69th National Debate Tournament in Iowa) to get a feeling of who will and will not pref me. I also like Buntin's new judge philosophy (agree roughly 90%).

It's Fall 2015. I judge all types of debate, from policy-v-policy to non-policy-v-non-policy. I think what separates me as a judge is style, not substance.

I debated for Texas for 5 years (2003-2008), 4 years in Texas during high school (1999-2003). I was twice a top 20 speaker at the NDT. I've coached on and off for highschool and college teams during that time and since. I've ran or coached an extremely wide diversity of arguments. Some favorite memories include "china is evil and that outweighs the security k", to "human extinction is good", to "predictions must specify strong data", to "let's consult the chinese, china is awesome", to "housing discrimination based on race causes school segregation based on race", to "factory farms are biopolitical murder", to “free trade good performance”, to "let's reg. neg. the plan to make businesses confident", to “CO2 fertilization, SO2 Screw, or Ice Age DAs”, to "let the Makah whale", etc. Basically, I've been around.

After it was pointed out that I don't do a great job delineating debatable versus non-debatable preferences, I've decided to style-code bold all parts of my philosophy that are not up for debate. Everything else is merely a preference, and can be debated.

Style/Big Picture:

• I strongly prefer to let the debaters do the debating, and I'll reward depth (the "author+claim + warrant + data+impact" model) over breadth (the "author+claim + impact" model) any day.

• When evaluating probabilistic predictions, I start from the assumption everyone begins at 0%, and you persuade me to increase that number (w/ claims + warrants + data). Rarely do teams get me past 5%. A conceeded claim (or even claim + another claim disguised as the warrant) will not start at 100%, but remains at 0%.

• Combining those first two essential stylistic criteria means, in practice, many times I discount entirely even conceded, well impacted claims because the debaters failed to provide a warrant and/or data to support their claim. It's analogous to failing a basic "laugh" test. I may not be perfect at this rubric yet, but I still think it's better than the alternative (e.g. rebuttals filled with 20+ uses of the word “conceded” and a stack of 60 cards).

• I'll try to minimize the amount of evidence I read to only evidence that is either (A) up for dispute/interpretation between the teams or (B) required to render a decision (due to lack of clash amongst the debaters). In short: don't let the evidence do the debating for you.

• Humor is also well rewarded, and it is hard (but not impossible) to offend me.

• I'd also strongly prefer if teams would slow down 15-20% so that I can hear and understand every word you say (including cards read). While I won't explicitly punish you if you don't, it does go a mile to have me already understand the evidence while you're debating so I don't have to sort through it at the end (especially since I likely won't call for that card anyway).

• Defense can win a debate (there is such as thing as a 100% no link), but offense helps more times than not.

• I'm a big believer in open disclosure practices, and would vote on reasoned arguments about poor disclosure practices. In the perfect world, everything would be open-source (including highlighting and analytics, including 2NR/2AR blocks), and all teams would ultimately share one evidence set. You could cut new evidence, but once read, everyone would have it. We're nowhere near that world. Some performance teams think a few half-citations work when it makes up at best 45 seconds of a 9 minute speech. Some policy teams think offering cards without highlighting for only the first constructive works. I don't think either model works, and would be happy to vote to encourage more open disclosure practices. It's hard to be angry that the other side doesn't engage you when, pre-round, you didn't offer them anything to engage.

• You (or your partner) must physically mark cards if you do not finish them. Orally saying "mark here" (and expecting your opponents or the judge to do it for you) doesn't count. After your speech (and before cross-ex), you should resend a marked copy to the other team. If pointed out by the other team, failure to do means you must mark prior to cross-ex. I will count it as prep time times two to deter sloppy debate.

• By default, I will not “follow along” and read evidence during a debate. I find that it incentivizes unclear and shallow debates. However, I realize that some people are better visual than auditory learners and I would classify myself as strongly visual. If both teams would prefer and communicate to me that preference before the round, I will “follow along” and read evidence during the debate speeches, cross-exs, and maybe even prep.

Topicality:

• I like competing interpretations, the more evidence the better, and clearly delineated and impacted/weighed standards on topicality.

• Abuse makes it all the better, but is not required (doesn't unpredictability inherently abuse?).

• Treat it like a disad, and go from there. In my opinion, topicality is a dying art, so I'll be sure to reward debaters that show talent.

• For the aff – think offense/defense and weigh the standards you're winning against what you're losing rather than say "at least we're reasonable". You'll sound way better.

Framework:

• The exception to the above is the "framework debate". I find it to be an uphill battle for the neg in these debates (usually because that's the only thing the aff has blocked out for 5 minutes, and they debate it 3 out of 4 aff rounds).

• If you want to win framework in front of me, spent time delineating your interpretation of debate in a way that doesn't make it seem arbitrary. For example "they're not policy debate" begs the question what exactly policy debate is. I'm not Justice Steward, and this isn't pornography. I don't know when I've seen it. I'm old school in that I conceptualize framework along “predictability”; "topic education", “policymaking education”, and “aff education” (topical version, switch sides, etc) lines.

• “We're in the direction of the topic” or “we discuss the topic rather than a topical discussion” is a pretty laughable counter-interpretation.

• For the aff, "we agree with the neg's interp of framework but still get to weigh our case" borders on incomprehensible if the framework is the least bit not arbitrary.

Case Debate

• Depth in explanation over breadth in coverage. One well explained warrant will do more damage to the 1AR than 5 cards that say the same claim.

• Well-developed impact calculus must begin no later than the 1AR for the Aff and Negative Block for the Neg.

• I enjoy large indepth case debates. I was 2A who wrote my own community unique affs usually with only 1 advantage and no external add-ons. These type of debates, if properly researched and executed, can be quite fun for all parties.

Disads

• Intrinsic perms are silly. Normal means arguments are less so.

• From an offense/defense paradigm, conceded uniqueness can control the direction of the link. Conceded links can control the direction of uniqueness. The in round application of "why" is important.

• A story / spin is usually more important (and harder for the 1AR to deal with) than 5 cards that say the same thing.

Counterplan Competition:

• I generally prefer functionally competitive counterplans with solvency advocates delineating the counterplan versus the plan (or close) (as opposed to the counterplan versus the topic), but a good case for textual competition can be made with a language K netbenefit.

• Conditionality (1 CP, SQ, and 1 K) is a fact of life, and anything less is the negative feeling sorry for you (or themselves). However, I do not like 2NR conditionality (i.e., “judge kick”) ever. Make a decision.

• Perms and theory always remain a test of competition (and not a voter) until proven otherwise by the negative by argument (see above), a near impossible standard for arguments that don't interfere substantially with other parts of the debate (e.g. conditionality).

• Perm "do the aff" is not a perm. Debatable perms are "do both" and "do cp/alt"(and "do aff and part of the CP" for multi-plank CPs). Others are usually intrinsic.

Critiques:

• I think of the critique as a (usually linear) disad and the alt as a cp.

• Be sure to clearly impact your critique in the context of what it means/does to the aff case (does the alt solve it, does the critique turn it, make harms inevitable, does it disprove their solvency). Latch on to an external impact (be it "ethics", or biopower causes super-viruses), and weigh it against case.

• Use your alternative to either "fiat uniqueness" or create a rubric by which I don't evaluate uniqueness, and to solve case in other ways.

• I will say upfront the two types of critique routes I find least persuasive are simplistic versions of "economics", "science", and "militarism" bad (mostly because I have an econ degree and am part of an extensive military family). While good critiques exist out there of both, most of what debaters use are not that, so plan accordingly.

• For the aff, figure out how to solve your case absent fiat (education about aff good?), and weigh it against the alternative, which you should reduce to as close as the status quo as possible. Make uniqueness indicts to control the direction of link, and question the timeframe/inevitability/plausability of their impacts.

• Perms generally check clearly uncompetitive alternative jive, but don't work too well against "vote neg". A good link turn generally does way more than “perm solves the link”.

• Aff Framework doesn't ever make the critique disappear, it just changes how I evaluate/weigh the alternative.

• Role of the Ballot - I vote for the team that did the better debating. What is "better" is based on my stylistic criteria. End of story. Don't let "Role of the Ballot" be used as an excuse to avoid impact calculus.

Performance (the other critique):

• Empirically, I do judge these debate and end up about 50-50 on them. I neither bandwagon around nor discount the validity of arguments critical of the pedagogy of debate. I'll let you make the case or defense (preferably with data). The team that usually wins my ballot is the team that made an effort to intelligently clash with the other team (whether it's aff or neg) and meet my stylistic criteria. To me, it's just another form of debate.

• However, I do have some trouble in some of these debates in that I feel most of what is said is usually non-falsifiable, a little too personal for comfort, and devolves 2 out of 3 times into a chest-beating contest with competition limited to some archaic version of "plan-plan". I do recognize that this isn't always the case, but if you find yourselves banking on "the counterplan/critique doesn't solve" because "you did it first", or "it's not genuine", or "their skin is white"; you're already on the path to a loss.

• If you are debating performance teams, the two main takeaways are that you'll probably lose framework unless you win topical version, and I hate judging "X" identity outweighs "Y" identity debates. I suggest, empirically, a critique of their identity politics coupled with some specific case cards is more likely to get my ballot than a strategy based around "Framework" and the "Rev". Not saying it's the only way, just offering some empirical observations of how I vote.