Reed,+Lee

I am a third year debater at University of Michigan. Debate in high school for 4 years at Walter Payton College Prep.

Overall, I tend to resolve issues as they happen in the round and I will try my best not to intervene. I tend to give more weight to analysis done in round vs evidence. I'm open to all arguments.

I haven't done a lot of research on the high school topic so be sure to not use acronyms and be clear about CP solvency especially if its some nuanced PIC.

Cross-x - Its important, binding and will be a factor when I determine speaker points.

Counterplans/Disads/Case – Like them.

Kritiks – Make sure you tailor your generic K's to aff. More so persuaded by topic specific K's. Avoid jargon.

Performance – Role of ballot questions must be clear. You probably need a plan text or advocacy statement of some sort.

Theory – I tend to give the negative a good amount of leeway on issues like counterplan status. It takes a good bit of work to persuade me that proving the counterplan is bad means the aff gets to win. Reject the arg not the team seems to resolve most theory concerns. It’s a little harder to get me to vote on a cheap-shot than with other judges. By default, I assume that a cheap-shot is a reason to reject the argument rather than the team—even if the other team drops the cheap shot. You can get me to vote on a cheap shot only if you give a reason why it’s a reason to reject the team

T – Topicality is generally a voting issue and is never genocidal, etc. Ever. However, reasonability is pretty convincing sometimes, and I don’t think that just because an interpretation limits more means that it is better. The limit has to be predictable, not arbitrary, etc.