Zheng,+Jeff

**Zheng, Jeff **  I debated nationally and locally for University School from 2009-2012. I now study computer science at Berkeley.  I will vote on any argument, so long as it is an argument (it must have a warrant) and I understand it. I will do my best not to intervene and to defer to the issues as decided in the debate. I will use the following defaults, if nothing is said about them in the round:

- The resolution is a statement to be proven true by the affirmative. - T is an issue of competing interpretations. - Theory is an issue of reasonability. - Theory and topicality are reasons to reject the argument, not the debater. - Theory and topicality are not reverse voting issues. - "Offensive counter-interpretations" require arguments in favor of an RVI in order to count as voting issues. - Fairness and education are at least reasons to exclude the unfair or uneducational arguments. - I will not vote on new 2AR RVIs against new 2NR theory. - I will not assume that winning the standard automatically excludes other impacts that do not fall under the text of the criterion. The burden is on the debater to explain why arguments are precluded by his/her framework. - I will presume affirmative (although I prefer not to presume at all).

You can start off reading as fast as you want, and I will say clear or slow down if I can't understand you. I do not care if you sit or stand.