Meneses,+Stefan

Schools Attended: Foothill High School, Idaho State University, University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV).
Years Debating: 5+

Overview: Ironically considering my roots as a K debater for the first 4 years of my career, I've found myself increasingly dissatisfied with the way people abuse this argument. The obvious reason you are here is because you want to know if you can read your args in front of me, so I'll boil down my predispositions fast. The general rule to remember however is; I like good cards, I like the topic, and if you fail either of those criteria, your speaks/win-loss will reflect it.

Counterplans: Frankly, considering the aff slant topic committees are rolling with recently, I find increasingly abusive counterplans legitimate //as long as you have specific solvency for the process relative to your net benefit.// Thus, if you read Consult Japan, more than Mochizuki is required; read a card talking about why the DPJ cares about "x" and why genuine consultation is key, and you'll be fine. I lean heavily negative on theory, but it doesn't mean I won't vote aff on warranted arguments about why conditions/PICs are bad; you just need to debate them well and hope the neg concedes a few good reasons why.

Kritiks: As said above, I find myself disliking these arguments with greater severity every day. The bottom line is, I think getting to garner offense off of the "assumptions" of the 1AC is ludicrous, and locks the affirmative into an impact turn/framework debate to remain competitive. Thus, for aff, if you win a vaguely persuasive reason why talking about shit that matters is good, I'll vote for you most likely. For the neg, you need to win framework to make their impacts irrelevant, otherwise I will weigh them against the K. Framework is the lifeblood of these debates, and if you don't put in the work, I'll give you a fast trip back to pairings.

Performance: Don't bother reading it. I don't care about your project, your social location, oppression or movement. Learn to debate about the topic or get out of the activity. There's a reason why the rest of the country puts in thousands of hours to learn about federal government policy, just because you happened to stumble across a cool book once doesn't make your story more important than pragmatic policy recommendations. If any of these proclivities include your argument choices, pref someone else, because I'll vote against you the first time I hear the words "policy education better".

In conclusion, if you had to assign me on the spectrum, you'd find me far right these days. I've read a great deal of K literature, and I'm willing to listen to your argument provided you put in the work required, but simply understand I'm greatly more sympathetic to any reason why policy education/argumentation is good. Other than that, be professional, act like you care about the activity and have fun.